To Mask or Not to Mask?

[COOPADUP]

Hey Sylvain. No reason to even wear it if it doesn't cover the nose and mouth.
I should have invested in N95 masks.

 

[Sylvain]

Hey Sylvain. No reason to even wear it if it doesn't cover the nose and mouth.
I should have invested in N95 masks.

I'm still not sure why people don't wear them correctly.It's not like it's super hard to do.

I've seen 5 years old put masks on themselves and wear them properly (they even wash their hands before grabbing the mask as one should).

Some must do it out of ignorance but I bet some do it to "not comply" while complying somehow.

Same I see a lot of people wearing motocycle helmets like that ...

It's a think.Not sure if it's a thing in the States.I know some states don't make helmets mandatory.

They are "too cool" to wear a helmet but believe by still having it on their head they will avoid getting a ticket for not wearing a helmet.Doesn't work that way though.

 

[Route 45]

All the government would have to do to increase mask usage among a certain crowd is to forbid the wearing of masks in public, due to interference with facial recognition software on 5G public safety cameras.

Heads would explode.

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm still not sure why people don't wear them correctly.It's not like it's super hard to do.

I've seen 5 years old put masks on themselves and wear them properly (they even wash their hands before grabbing the mask as one should).

Some must do it out of ignorance but I bet some do it to "not comply" while complying somehow.

Same I see a lot of people wearing motocycle helmets like that ...

It's a think.Not sure if it's a thing in the States.I know some states don't make helmets mandatory.

They are "too cool" to wear a helmet but believe by still having it on their head they will avoid getting a ticket for not wearing a helmet.Doesn't work that way though.

Maybe all he owns is his full-face helmet. You can buy helmets that are not full-face and have the same open-air feeling he has and a lot more protection.
Wearing one the way is doing it has to be a symptom of regulations or it wouldn't make any sense.

I still have a leather aviator helmet from WWII with the goggles too, which looks cool but doesn't do much else.

 

[Thor]

Maybe all he owns is his full-face helmet. You can buy helmets that are not full-face and have the same open-air feeling he has and a lot more protection.
Wearing one the way is doing it has to be a symptom of regulations or it wouldn't make any sense.

I still have a leather aviator helmet from WWII with the goggles too, which looks cool but doesn't do much else.

Dress for the crash not the ride. Been there, done that (more than once in the dirt)...walked away; no ambulances or coroners involved.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You could just say [people in general believe] masks don't work, leading to mask mandates not working. The point has been made before, if the general populace believed this disease was as sereious as some wish to make it out to be and believed masks would actually protect them, they would likely wear them and wear them correctly. So perhaps more effort should be devoted to proving masking (correctly) has a significantly protective effect, and then let the people choose what makes sense to them

Overhyping the deadliness of the disease and the effectiveness of masking doesn't seem to be working

Ditto under-hyping and saying masks don't work at all.

And BTW, the only people I've heard claiming anything about masks being 100% effective, some sort of WoW magic shield, are the ones who say they won't wear a mask unless it is perfect protection... it's not that but they are effective in containing community spread.

CDC now has about a dozen studies posted that indicate widespread mask wearing reduces spread by 70-80%... and are seeing signs that when infection still occurs, the case is mild or asymptomatic because of the greatly reduced initial viral load because of mask wearing.

And, what I've seen with my own eyes is that places like the red counties are the places were almost no one wears a mask. At all. Versus the populated, not red areas, where it's rare to see someone not masked in stores. Coincidence, I don't think so...

Most of the people I see wear their mask properly, a few don't cover their nose, and a few just wear it on their chin like you mention.

Sylvain, we see the same thing here in the states in the higher populated areas... nearly 100% wear masks into the stores and wear them properly... just the occasional, pretty rare nose popping out.

But, you go out into the rural areas and the small towns, and mask wearing at all is rare. I've posted about this phenomenon several times, and at least anecdotally, seems to correspond with where the very high infection rates occur.

In my own city, Evansville, mask wearing was the vast minority initially as we did not get hit by the first wave in the spring. Locally, we started spiking cases in early June and by the first part of July, with all the coverage of hospitalizations and deaths, 80-90% of people starting wearing masks BEFORE there was a government mandate. Now it's virtual 100% here... but in the outlying areas, nope.

 

[Thor]

Masks expand the virtual distance between people. They slow the velocity of the expelled breath. They won't block the virus itself as it is too small but it may reduce the distance it is exhaled to.

 

[jamil]

Masks expand the virtual distance between people. They slow the velocity of the expelled breath. They won't block the virus itself as it is too small but it may reduce the distance it is exhaled to.

Plus, virus encapsulated in droplets would tend not to propagate as far.

 

[indyblue]

Not true, the particle size being an aerosol can stay suspended in the air almost indefinitely and be propelled by air currents or just brownian motion

 

[d.kaufman]

Ditto under-hyping and saying masks don't work at all.

And BTW, the only people I've heard claiming anything about masks being 100% effective, some sort of WoW magic shield, are the ones who say they won't wear a mask unless it is perfect protection... it's not that but they are effective in containing community spread.

CDC now has about a dozen studies posted that indicate widespread mask wearing reduces spread by 70-80%... and are seeing signs that when infection still occurs, the case is mild or asymptomatic because of the greatly reduced initial viral load because of mask wearing.

And, what I've seen with my own eyes is that places like the red counties are the places were almost no one wears a mask. At all. Versus the populated, not red areas, where it's rare to see someone not masked in stores. Coincidence, I don't think so...

Sylvain, we see the same thing here in the states in the higher populated areas... nearly 100% wear masks into the stores and wear them properly... just the occasional, pretty rare nose popping out.

But, you go out into the rural areas and the small towns, and mask wearing at all is rare. I've posted about this phenomenon several times, and at least anecdotally, seems to correspond with where the very high infection rates occur.

In my own city, Evansville, mask wearing was the vast minority initially as we did not get hit by the first wave in the spring. Locally, we started spiking cases in early June and by the first part of July, with all the coverage of hospitalizations and deaths, 80-90% of people starting wearing masks BEFORE there was a government mandate. Now it's virtual 100% here... but in the outlying areas, nope.

The red highlighted part is what I'm going to refer to. I'm in Lake County, a red county, and I can tell you people wearing mask is at least 95%, in every store I go to. That includes gas stations, Walgreens, grocery stores, etc. This is the 2nd time Lake County has been in the red, all while people are wearing their masks.

 

[indyblue]

Oh mask mandates work and that is settled science? Yes, in a lab or controlled situation they probably do. But, when you spend all day touching it, putting it in your pocket, dropping it on the floor and then re-using it the next day as many people do, it’s about as useful as washing the dishes with a rag from the trash. As you can see three of the states (UT, NC, HI), like CA, had an increase in cases AFTER the mandate went into place. Rhode island did have a decline, but the trend matched the decline rate prior to masks. The data is just not there to make an unchallenged claim that we all must wear masks for “the greater good”. And if it was actually “settled science” then why our lawmakers not follow these rules personally?

 

[JettaKnight]

The red highlighted part is what I'm going to refer to. I'm in Lake County, a red county, and I can tell you people wearing mask is at least 95%, in every store I go to. That includes gas stations, Walgreens, grocery stores, etc. This is the 2nd time Lake County has been in the red, all while people are wearing their masks.

That doesn't mean that masks are ineffective, just not a panacea.

It's almost as if there's a whole lot of interactions and it can't be boiled down to one specific thing.


Mask compliance in Allen County is also really high. But, people still touch things (incl. their faces), eat together, sing at church, ride school buses...


No one (sane) ever promised that 100% masking would rid us of the virus.

 

[BugI02]

That doesn't mean that masks are ineffective, just not a panacea.

It's almost as if there's a whole lot of interactions and it can't be boiled down to one specific thing.


Mask compliance in Allen County is also really high. But, people still touch things (incl. their faces), eat together, sing at church, ride school buses...


No one (sane) ever promised that 100% masking would rid us of the virus.

Then why do (ostensibly) sane people wish to attribute 100% of spread to non-mask wearing? And why are supposedly statistically literate people claiming 70 - 80% efficacy against transmission of mask wearing? At the lowest postulated
Rzero 70% efficacy would be more than enough to achieve herd immunity, and at 80% efficacy masking would be effective enough to achieve herd immunity
at the highest estimates of Rzero I have seen

You can't have it both ways, either masking works without 100% compliance, in which case why is the spread of cases accelerating; or masking does not work without 100% compliance, in which case why bother pushing for it because you are unlikely to achieve that level of compliance

Simply saying it has some effect doesn't cut it. Even wearing a bandana will have some effect, it is when you make the leap from 'it will have some (unquantified) effect' to 'everybody should have to do it' that you lose a lot of people

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The red highlighted part is what I'm going to refer to. I'm in Lake County, a red county, and I can tell you people wearing mask is at least 95%, in every store I go to. That includes gas stations, Walgreens, grocery stores, etc. This is the 2nd time Lake County has been in the red, all while people are wearing their masks.

Yeah, Lake County is a populous county with about 1/2 a million population, so it's an outlier. What is driving it red, I don't know but would suspect demographics are at play in places like Gary. I suspect if you go where the cases are at, you won't see the "universal" present masking in different parts of the county. Just a hunch.

Most of the counties that are, or have been, red in the past couple months are the smaller population areas. As I've said before, I've seen this in Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and Iowa. Stop in St Louis or Des Moines, everyone's masked... smaller towns in outlying or rural areas, pretty much no one is... or wearing them on their chins.

 

[JettaKnight]

Then why do (ostensibly) sane people wish to attribute 100% of spread to non-mask wearing? And why are supposedly statistically literate people claiming 70 - 80% efficacy against transmission of mask wearing? At the lowest postulated
Rzero 70% efficacy would be more than enough to achieve herd immunity, and at 80% efficacy masking would be effective enough to achieve herd immunity
at the highest estimates of Rzero I have seen

You can't have it both ways, either masking works without 100% compliance, in which case why is the spread of cases accelerating; or masking does not work without 100% compliance, in which case why bother pushing for it because you are unlikely to achieve that level of compliance

Simply saying it has some effect doesn't cut it. Even wearing a bandana will have some effect, it is when you make the leap from 'it will have some (unquantified) effect' to 'everybody should have to do it' that you lose a lot of people

Are people doing that?

I'd certainly call that completely illogical.

 

[d.kaufman]

Yeah, Lake County is a populous county with about 1/2 a million population, so it's an outlier. What is driving it red, I don't know but would suspect demographics are at play in places like Gary. I suspect if you go where the cases are at, you won't see the "universal" present masking in different parts of the county. Just a hunch.

Most of the counties that are, or have been, red in the past couple months are the smaller population areas. As I've said before, I've seen this in Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and Iowa. Stop in St Louis or Des Moines, everyone's masked... smaller towns in outlying or rural areas, pretty much no one is... or wearing them on their chins.

I blame Illinois. I mean why not, they blame us for everything bad in ****cago

 

[BugI02]

Are people doing that?

I'd certainly call that completely illogical.

Ditto under-hyping and saying masks don't work at all.

And BTW, the only people I've heard claiming anything about masks being 100% effective, some sort of WoW magic shield, are the ones who say they won't wear a mask unless it is perfect protection... it's not that but they are effective in containing community spread.

CDC now has about a dozen studies posted that indicate widespread mask wearing reduces spread by 70-80%... and are seeing signs that when infection still occurs, the case is mild or asymptomatic because of the greatly reduced initial viral load because of mask wearing.

And, what I've seen with my own eyes is that places like the red counties are the places were almost no one wears a mask. At all. Versus the populated, not red areas, where it's rare to see someone not masked in stores. Coincidence, I don't think so...

Sylvain, we see the same thing here in the states in the higher populated areas... nearly 100% wear masks into the stores and wear them properly... just the occasional, pretty rare nose popping out.

But, you go out into the rural areas and the small towns, and mask wearing at all is rare. I've posted about this phenomenon several times, and at least anecdotally, seems to correspond with where the very high infection rates occur.

In my own city, Evansville, mask wearing was the vast minority initially as we did not get hit by the first wave in the spring. Locally, we started spiking cases in early June and by the first part of July, with all the coverage of hospitalizations and deaths, 80-90% of people starting wearing masks BEFORE there was a government mandate. Now it's virtual 100% here... but in the outlying areas, nope.

Because you apparently missed it

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Then why do (ostensibly) sane people wish to attribute 100% of spread to non-mask wearing? And why are supposedly statistically literate people claiming 70 - 80% efficacy against transmission of mask wearing? At the lowest postulated
Rzero 70% efficacy would be more than enough to achieve herd immunity, and at 80% efficacy masking would be effective enough to achieve herd immunity
at the highest estimates of Rzero I have seen

Who done that! 70-80% efficacy means 20-30% spread even with masking. Also, that's not what herd immunity means.

Also, any R0 above 1.0 means increasing case rates. If all of the measures including masks don't decrease R0 below 1.0, then cases will increase exponentially. Don't use masks and the R0 will be higher and cases will accelerate even faster.

You can't have it both ways, either masking works without 100% compliance, in which case why is the spread of cases accelerating; or masking does not work without 100% compliance, in which case why bother pushing for it because you are unlikely to achieve that level of compliance

I can only point to what I know here in Indiana... after being steady for months, our cases started going up beginning the last week in September, which I believe was driven by 100% capacity in bars and restaurants. THAT trend did not reverse until a couple weeks after the governor rescinded that, put the state back to Phase 4 (50% capacity) and some hard-hit counties to Phase 3 (25%) capacity.

And, we are starting to see the effects of Thanksgiving gatherings, whether that is just a temporary spike or a full on upswing, remains to be seen.

Both of these, the restaurants/bars and gatherings, involve people from different households mingling together in close proximity without masks.

Simply saying it has some effect doesn't cut it. Even wearing a bandana will have some effect, it is when you make the leap from 'it will have some (unquantified) effect' to 'everybody should have to do it' that you lose a lot of people

Masks work and people should wear them... the motorcycle helmet is a good analogy as it the seat belt... BUT I am opposed to mandating individuals MUST wear any of them, masks, helmets or seatbelts, under penalty of law.

And, the whole blue state craze of mandating wearing a mask as soon as you walk out the door, or in your own car, statewide is, IMO, stupid.

 

[qwerty]

The red highlighted part is what I'm going to refer to. I'm in Lake County, a red county, and I can tell you people wearing mask is at least 95%, in every store I go to. That includes gas stations, Walgreens, grocery stores, etc. This is the 2nd time Lake County has been in the red, all while people are wearing their masks.

You are right on the money. Lake County has not fallen below 90% "compliance" since 11/5 and has been at 95% since 11/27. The case increase has been steadily rising since around 9/11 when there was 88.43% "compliance".

 

[nonobaddog]

You are right on the money. Lake County has not fallen below 90% "compliance" since 11/5 and has been at 95% since 11/27. The case increase has been steadily rising since around 9/11 when there was 88.43% "compliance".

Seriously? Do you really have numbers on mask compliance? How do they do that?