What is the real science around masks?

This is a tough one. I think part of the problem is this was a big church. However, I can’t imagine being in this pastor’s shoes.

4 Likes

Here is a vintage stock photograph (watermarked) of an operating room. Surprise! The surgeon and assistants are all wearing masks, not to mention surgical gowns and caps.

3 Likes

Only a myth in the sense that we need not worry about it for the purposes of doing what we need to do in this pandemic.

It’s plausible that there is some nonzero CO2 retention effect there because one of the things I enjoy about my winter time face mask on bicycle is the very noticeable effect that my throat does not dry out so fast because my breath coming back in through my stocking cap is now somewhat “pre-humidified” from my prior exhalation that dampens my mask. And water molecules are even smaller than CO2 molecules … (but of course they are more “grabby” too - in terms of hydrogen bonds; so that does help water stick around more.) Still, it is well known that breathing into a paper bag keeps the CO2 around - make the bag porous and it would be slightly less so; make it cloth and force most breath all the way through it, and the amount kept back probably becomes too little to have noticeable effect. I can only keep my head underneath breathable cloth blankets for so long before my body tells me it’s time to let my face emerge to grab some fresh air - likely from CO2 build up under the covers. So there is a continuum there. Our bodies are well built to compensate and deal with slight variations in that obviously.

1 Like

Just a reminder about what “science” was telling us not but a few months ago…

And for some reason, scientists can update their perspectives with better evidence. But the thing is that this most recent article you are sharing seems to have you mixing two things that face masks can be used for.

The first is protecting you from airborne respiratory droplets. Generally speaking, most people wouldn’t use face masks properly to accomplish this and they would need a mask that filters such particles efficiently.

The second is the main point of public face mask use… which is blocking your droplets from reaching and infecting others. Face masks definitely do that which is why you should be an advocate for all the people around you to be using face masks.

4 Likes

not anymore. Now I’m told the science is settled.

@Daniel_Fisher does the difference between these make sense?

Yes, face masks reduce the concentration and the distance of your respiratory droplets that get out into the air. That’s not an open question. It’s a well-demonstrated fact.

Face masks can help protect others from you. They are not a magic bullet. Depending on the type and fit, they don’t offer perfect protection:

They are a tool to use in conjunction with other tools (like just being a certain distance from other people) and especially useful if indoors, if most people use them, and if physical distancing can be difficult.

2 Likes

right, a fact that was not unknown when medical professionals were recommending against masks.

You do realize, don’t you … that there were different reasons in play early on in the pandemic where it seemed pretty clear that health care workers would have the highest need for masks, which would be in short supply (like T.P.) if the public were all scrambling after them? Now the demand is met, and so that motivation is no longer in play. I, for one, am glad that medical professionals take time to update their advice according to the latest reliable information. But never (even back then) did they suggest that mask wearing is ill-advised. If it was, then why would they themselves insist on wearing them - both then and now?

6 Likes

Well this sounds like a pointless discussion then. I’ll maybe say this one more time.

  1. Masks reduce the amount of potentially infectious respiratory droplets that you send to others. This is why anyone would recommend face masks to the general public.
  2. Masks can protect you, but this protection is limited by face mask fit/type and is more difficult to accomplish without prior training. This is what most medical professionals or scientists were pointing out to people.

Right, in all these “experts changed their minds” claims, people fail to acknowledge that the experts weren’t changing their mind at all about facts, just changing their advice about the recommended action to take in light of the importance of one set of facts outweighing another set of facts. They weren’t “wrong” about the facts. How this makes experts “untrustworthy” is beyond me.

3 Likes

the very specific concern I have is that now, we’re being told that the current recommendation is now settled science, beyond dispute, and anyone who would dare to propose an alternate recommendation based on a different reading or weighing of those same facts is essentially “anti-science”.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-coronavirus-masks-risk-trnd/index.html

Two points on that link.

First, it was back in March, when there was a shortage of masks. That was the whole point back then. There is no shortage now, so that point no longer applies.

Second, it only talks about improper use of masks. The correct response to misuse is not disuse, but proper use.

6 Likes

Different reading? The current recommendations are made based on multiple studies that have been done since Covid started. Do you have multiple studies showing their ineffectiveness?

It’s not about which news article you read. It’s about looking at the studies that have been done, noting any problems with the study methodology, and looking at the results of the studies. We also have numerous observations of states and countries enacting mask mandates and watching the numbers decrease. Let me tell you, it’s been obvious in my state, which was about to get out of control. Within 3-4 weeks of the mandate, we started seeing hospitalizations decline. I’m thrilled to see the hospitalization numbers in my area going down, down, down. My county had a slight uptick in hospitalizations after a local church had a gospel meeting, potluck, and singing (inside without masks) - over 2/3 of the congregation got sick, so our little hospital got an increase for a couple weeks, but now it’s going back down, since that church went online only and related churches quarantined any that had visited there. With the mask mandate in place, it didn’t spread as easily in the community as it otherwise would have.

Here’s a good overview that was posted by @pevaquark a while back, and it’s been updated in July. Scroll down to the Download PDF button to read the entire review, which captures several studies:

When people say the science is settled on masks being beneficial, it’s because of the above. One person saying they’re ineffective with no data to back it up is not a legitimate challenge. We have a lot more data than we had back in March.

5 Likes

Sorry to sound like an ass - but let me make it simple -

The next time you watch a surgery team, observe what they are wearing on their faces…

Hi. I saw this in my weekly digest and thought it might be interesting. I scanned the previous comments but didn’t read all of them. This mask thing comes up so much.

The problem is that your question is too vague. In order to answer “do masks work?” one must define what that really means.

It’s pretty clear that masks can reduce transmission by someone actively shedding virus, and to a lesser degree protect the wearer from inhaling virus. However, this only applies in conditions where the risk actually exists. In conditions where the risk is essentially zero, it should be self-evident they do nothing.

For instance: significant presence of local transmission, indoors, prolonged personal contact - Yes, the evidence would support their use to slow transmission. This would mean for things like concerts, church worship, meetings, perhaps office work.

On the other hand, low local transmission (like our county in CO), outdoors, brief or instantaneous contact - risk is so ridiculously low that masks are pointless. Yet, I encounter a few around Vail riding their bikes or hiking trails wearing masks. More power to them, but I can’t imagine what they’re thinking.

It is worth noting that most cases are acquired at home or from friends and family, not out in the general public. So masks are not likely to be worn, and cannot be mandated, where most transmission is known to occur.

Then there’s the strategic question, do masks really save lives (or reduce cases) in the long run or simply delay the inevitable? When there is high local transmission, there’s the perpetual justification (valid, I think) of keeping the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. If there’s not, I really don’t see the strategic rationale. In my assessment, COVID will not ever be contained and a vaccine may or may not happen. Most people will be exposed to it sooner or later. I could cite any number of international authorities who have been saying that for quite some time.

If authorities can be reasonable and impose masks only in moderate or high risk settings, the public should be reasonable and cooperate. If they made me wear one while riding my bike, I’d probably join the revolution.

2 Likes

the real question is what are the masks around science???

Thanks for your discussion. Good point. OSHA specifically says not to wear one with exercising. Also, I think that some are pretty careful in dividing where to wear masks, and where not, based on incidence, though there are going to be some kooky exceptions, inevitably. For example, Michigan also has zones where there is lower transmission and doesn’t require as strict guidelines in those as in others. I agree that there are some crazy interpretations, however! My wife just saw someone on a motorcycle–with a mask, without a helmet. :slight_smile: Thanks.

Some interesting studies on mask use to prevent influenza, from some years ago. In summary, there is some evidence to prevent transmission to others, but less to protect yourself. Also, surgical masks are more efficient than homemade cotton ones.