Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by __blockcipher__ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

__blockcipher__

Worsening acne vulgaris

Worsening rosacea

Difficulty communicating with the hard of hearing, language learners, etc

Reduced ability to convey info via facial expressions

Altered risk appraisal

Having to stand closer or speak louder to convo partner

Psychological discomfort

Bacterial pneumonia

Cross-contamination (hand to mask, mask to hand, hand to face)

Mild negatives from uncomfortable pressure on ears

Sends a message of societal fear that there is something to be afraid of (you might consider this a positive, I don’t personally)

Encourages viewing the wearer as just a vector for disease

Increased CO2 buildup

View on HN

Your logic is flawed because additive risks like that cannot be compared to exponential risks (like the spread of a virus). There's an asymmetry in the outcomes and the potential upside is enormous; especially when your stated risks are minimal to (say the least), like acne or in some cases, have been proven to be wrong by data (re: psychological "discomfort"--suicide rates decreased last year).

Suicide rates are not the same thing as discomfort.

Calling the risks minimal to acne makes no sense. It’s one of the worst contributors to acne in any person’s daily life.

Even if I agreed with your exponentiality argument the whole point is that I’m saying masks don’t reduce spread. You seem to think there’s only possible upside, but there is equally downside wrt xmission; that is, masks run the risk of worsening transmission.

Yes, but they are a pretty good proxy for psychological discomfort levels/rates. And my point was that you can't really compare acne to covid as the latter is much worse (let me emphasize that you _don't_ have to agree with me on this, all you need to agree with is the fact that exponential risk >>>>>>> additive).

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that masks run the risk of worsening transmission. I see from your other comments that you're familiar with the mask clinical trials (presumably you're referring to the Danish study). That study was inconclusive (also note that it was _severely_ underpowered), and considering that _nothing_ in our previous knowledge suggests that they worsen infection rates, your reasoning is once again flawed.

I’ve already outlined in another comment why they could increase transmission.

They increase net volume of air exchanged, therefore all else equal they increase the release of aerosols. There’s furthermore a strong chance that they actively nebulize respiratory droplets into fine aerosols; ie they incresse the relative aerosolization and therefore the absolute aerosols.

They make convo partners stand closer together or speak louder.

They alter risk appraisal.

It is foolish to rule out any downsides. At best you’re advocating for a condom full of holes. At worse you’re advocating for a condom that magically worsens STI transmission.

Nothing in our previous understanding suggests that they increase release of aerosols or aerosolization. Multiple previous studies have shown that they don't (see Asadi, S., Cappa, C.D., Barreda, S. et al. Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities. Sci Rep 10, 15665 (2020), for one example; there's also older studies but you can look them up yourself).

The other arguments are of the "seatbelts cause more accidents" variety, which honestly aren't worth refuting. But I'll just note that social distancing has much weaker evidence of affecting virus transmission than even masks (there is no real justification for the 6 feet number and mostly unlikely it makes much of a difference). Hell, social distancing is even much more difficult to comply with than wearing masks so your argument makes no sense at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com