You're right about the differences in effectiveness but 70% is still pretty good as long as many people are wearing something and not exposing their noses or wrapping the mask lovingly around their chins.
You're right about the differences in effectiveness but 70% is still pretty good as long as many people are wearing something and not exposing their noses or wrapping the mask lovingly around their chins.
Well, no: the fleece mask broke larger droplets into many smaller ones, resulting in an increase of 10% in the number of droplets compared to the no-mask baseline. Being smaller droplets, they would also hang in the air longer.
Edit: This is one of the main reason the Scandinavian countries recommend against _all_ mask use (including N95) so not sure why I'm getting downvoted for merely saying an inefficient mask could have that problem.
For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have without face masks. Reason being that it seems like spread through surfaces is not as bad as through the air, so making the air cleaner seems better than making the surfaces cleaner to me.
All in all it just doesn't sit right with me to justify the government's decision without mentioning they were the ones that put us in the position where it had to be made.
Assuming everyone followed this advice, at that particular moment we didn't need masks so much (most people were in lockdown anyway) and besides the fact that there were not enough medical masks to go around, there was more danger in using generic face coverings than not because the average Joe didn't know how to do so safely and the virus was not yet under any sort of control.
Around Mid-May, we had a different circumstance. The general public had taken the hygiene rules to heart and been in lockdown quite awhile and the sun came out - Spring sprang, the numbers went down (thanks to lots of cooperation from the general public) and that was when the public education effort went in to the next phase: To give official advice and instruction on how to properly handle face coverings in a way that they help instead of hinder.
Meanwhile everyone, even Grandparents, my mother, and some people's recalcitrant Uncles know how to use Skype and Zoom. We wash hands like surgeons, we can and do handle face coverings without making ourselves sick and I think, for a public education effort that started 5 months ago and was directed at 90 million people, that is simply huge. I try to remain wary of the impulse to judge what we did yesterday with what we know today.
With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.
Unfortunately, that news article does not contain the links to those reviews. Maybe they are part of the full report, but I can't read Finnish.
2 m distance reduces risk by 10x face mask reduces risk by 6x eye protection by 5x There is some uncertainty in these figures
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions
> This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
And to your point on Scandinavian countries, where are you getting that information? Here's Norway mandating that travelers from "red" countries wear a face mask until they get home [1] and planning to backpedal on their lax mask policies [2]. Here's Denmark backpedalling on their original mask policy [3]. Here's Iceland updating their policy because they also realized no face masks is a bad idea [4]. Basically, Scandinavian countries now recognize that their original policies were not that great.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/08/07/norway-cl...
[2] https://www.thelocal.no/20200806/norway-expected-to-announce...
[3] https://www.thelocal.dk/20200731/denmark-changes-face-mask-g...
[4] https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/07/31/when_to_u...
> There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...
Surely having everyone wear a mask is more efficient than banning masks because a small fraction of mask wearers would catch covid when readjusting their masks.
> There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...
The answer to "improper removal of the face mask" is "proper removal of the face mask" not "tell people not to wear masks"
Keep hand sanitizer in your pocket. Whenever you touch the mask, sanitize your hands. Both before you touch (in case you touched a COVID19 infected surface, you don't want to add COVID19 to the mask), and after you touch (in case your mask prevented COVID19 from entering your lungs, you don't want to contaminate other things anymore)
Problem solved. At my work, there's hand-sanitizer everywhere now. I don't even need to reach into my pockets anymore.
Or #2: don't touch your mask. Ever. That's how doctors/nurses do it. The hand-sanitizer crutch is what I do because I'm not as good as a doctor/nurse with my discipline. But I'm training myself to never touch the mask.
The more you practice something, the better you get at it. Assuming people to be 100% noobs at masks for months is a bit pessimistic.
It's easier today to use hand sanitizer with masks than months ago. In my experience anyway.
Most people are not medically skilled or trained. People fidget unconsciously and uncontrolled.
Or maybe it's realistic. Go read some hospital audits of mask wearing or handwashing. Have a look at any of the research showing that even staff who are trained to use it struggle to do it properly.
Not washing your hands properly can be counterproductive. Not being socially distant enough can be counterproductive.
If you're not even arguing against masks, what is your point?
> So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health.
My point is that if the mask is inefficient it could be counterproductive due to fidgeting. See sibling comment about fleece masks that hopefully makes a better case since you can't agree the slightest that anyone would ever fidget with their mask.
Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks:
> There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...
Obviously I read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have commented on what you wrote in it.
> Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks
It's a banality when in absolutely every thread on this subject at least one person states the totally obvious that doing something incorrectly could might potentially possibly may be worse than not doing it at all.
You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject.
I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit.
Next time I won't bother assuming possible good faith on the part of anyone spouting textbook anti-masker noise.
The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious discussion about the topic.
When you were informed that Scandinavian countries are not taking an anti-mask stance, instead of holding your hands up that your argument was based on something false, you simply carried on making the same anti-mask point by fixating on something else (three sentences from a six page PDF) instead.
Like I said, you are not fooling anyone.