To Mask or Not To Mask?
-
I am unashamedly just going along with whatever the crowd expects of me, regarding mask wearing. I am not very good at having high conviction beliefs about an allegedly scientific fact that I can't figure out from ground principles on my own. So I don't have this visceral reaction against people who don't believe they help. But I go along.
wrote on 8 Aug 2020, 00:16 last edited by@Horace said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
I am unashamedly just going along with whatever the crowd expects of me, regarding mask wearing. I am not very good at having high conviction beliefs about an allegedly scientific fact that I can't figure out from ground principles on my own. So I don't have this visceral reaction against people who don't believe they help. But I go along.
jon already called dibs on being the most reasonable objectivist. No sense campaigning for a filled position.
-
wrote on 8 Aug 2020, 01:17 last edited by
jon taught me everything I know.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
I am mask-agnostic, being of the mind "it couldn't hurt," and so I wear one any time I'm out of the house.
However, the burden of proof is that you have to show that they work.I've read several articles and even watched a VR simulation of droplet & aerosol spreading, showing how masks of various fiber densities are effective in dampening the spread. It's not like this shit's a secret.
I'm not disagreeing with what you said, and, once again, I think people should mask.
But my point is that models of aerosol spread, etc don't necessarily reflect effectiveness in preventing spread. What happens in a petri dish isn't necessarily what happens in the real world.
wrote on 8 Aug 2020, 01:59 last edited by@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
I am mask-agnostic, being of the mind "it couldn't hurt," and so I wear one any time I'm out of the house.
However, the burden of proof is that you have to show that they work.I've read several articles and even watched a VR simulation of droplet & aerosol spreading, showing how masks of various fiber densities are effective in dampening the spread. It's not like this shit's a secret.
I'm not disagreeing with what you said, and, once again, I think people should mask.
But my point is that models of aerosol spread, etc don't necessarily reflect effectiveness in preventing spread. What happens in a petri dish isn't necessarily what happens in the real world.
To me it is just common sense. Directionally, masks have to help prevent the spread.
Think of an open window:
There are 100 mosquitos outside, 5 of which carry the malaria. With an open window and 100 mosquitos, you have a 5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Now, we add a screen to that window, which will block (for example) 50% of the mosquitos from getting through.
Now, out of that 100 mosquitos, you only have a 2.5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Is the screen perfect?? NO, but it is in the direction of helping.
I know, I know, I know, very simple way to thinking of it and not perfect but I think you get the idea.
For me, that is how I think of masks. They are not perfect, but they are in the direction of helping.
-
@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
I am mask-agnostic, being of the mind "it couldn't hurt," and so I wear one any time I'm out of the house.
However, the burden of proof is that you have to show that they work.I've read several articles and even watched a VR simulation of droplet & aerosol spreading, showing how masks of various fiber densities are effective in dampening the spread. It's not like this shit's a secret.
I'm not disagreeing with what you said, and, once again, I think people should mask.
But my point is that models of aerosol spread, etc don't necessarily reflect effectiveness in preventing spread. What happens in a petri dish isn't necessarily what happens in the real world.
To me it is just common sense. Directionally, masks have to help prevent the spread.
Think of an open window:
There are 100 mosquitos outside, 5 of which carry the malaria. With an open window and 100 mosquitos, you have a 5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Now, we add a screen to that window, which will block (for example) 50% of the mosquitos from getting through.
Now, out of that 100 mosquitos, you only have a 2.5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Is the screen perfect?? NO, but it is in the direction of helping.
I know, I know, I know, very simple way to thinking of it and not perfect but I think you get the idea.
For me, that is how I think of masks. They are not perfect, but they are in the direction of helping.
wrote on 8 Aug 2020, 02:05 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
To me it is just common sense. Directionally, masks have to help prevent the spread.
Think of an open window:
There are 100 mosquitos outside, 5 of which carry the malaria. With an open window and 100 mosquitos, you have a 5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Now, we add a screen to that window, which will block (for example) 50% of the mosquitos from getting through.
Now, out of that 100 mosquitos, you only have a 2.5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Is the screen perfect?? NO, but it is in the direction of helping.
I know, I know, I know, very simple way to thinking of it and not perfect but I think you get the idea.
For me, that is how I think of masks. They are not perfect, but they are in the direction of helping.
Of course, you're right.
And, just to be clear, I'm not defending not wearing masks. If my comments came across that way, it was certainly not my intent. I'm simply pointing to an article from another country whose health officials say that masks are irrelevant to the spread of disease. I think they're wrong, but I have yet to see any hard evidence that masks actually work. Yeah, as you and Aqua pointed out, it certainly makes good sense, but, as I said, "let's see the science" and not the speculation.
At the present time, it makes a lot of sense to take every possible precaution. To not do so would be dangerous and foolhardy. Years from now, let's see what the books written about this have to say.
Am I being clear here?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@taiwan_girl said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
To me it is just common sense. Directionally, masks have to help prevent the spread.
Think of an open window:
There are 100 mosquitos outside, 5 of which carry the malaria. With an open window and 100 mosquitos, you have a 5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Now, we add a screen to that window, which will block (for example) 50% of the mosquitos from getting through.
Now, out of that 100 mosquitos, you only have a 2.5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Is the screen perfect?? NO, but it is in the direction of helping.
I know, I know, I know, very simple way to thinking of it and not perfect but I think you get the idea.
For me, that is how I think of masks. They are not perfect, but they are in the direction of helping.
Of course, you're right.
And, just to be clear, I'm not defending not wearing masks. If my comments came across that way, it was certainly not my intent. I'm simply pointing to an article from another country whose health officials say that masks are irrelevant to the spread of disease. I think they're wrong, but I have yet to see any hard evidence that masks actually work. Yeah, as you and Aqua pointed out, it certainly makes good sense, but, as I said, "let's see the science" and not the speculation.
At the present time, it makes a lot of sense to take every possible precaution. To not do so would be dangerous and foolhardy. Years from now, let's see what the books written about this have to say.
Am I being clear here?
wrote on 8 Aug 2020, 02:15 last edited by -
@taiwan_girl said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
To me it is just common sense. Directionally, masks have to help prevent the spread.
Think of an open window:
There are 100 mosquitos outside, 5 of which carry the malaria. With an open window and 100 mosquitos, you have a 5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Now, we add a screen to that window, which will block (for example) 50% of the mosquitos from getting through.
Now, out of that 100 mosquitos, you only have a 2.5% chance of getting bit by a malaria mosquito.
Is the screen perfect?? NO, but it is in the direction of helping.
I know, I know, I know, very simple way to thinking of it and not perfect but I think you get the idea.
For me, that is how I think of masks. They are not perfect, but they are in the direction of helping.
Of course, you're right.
And, just to be clear, I'm not defending not wearing masks. If my comments came across that way, it was certainly not my intent. I'm simply pointing to an article from another country whose health officials say that masks are irrelevant to the spread of disease. I think they're wrong, but I have yet to see any hard evidence that masks actually work. Yeah, as you and Aqua pointed out, it certainly makes good sense, but, as I said, "let's see the science" and not the speculation.
At the present time, it makes a lot of sense to take every possible precaution. To not do so would be dangerous and foolhardy. Years from now, let's see what the books written about this have to say.
Am I being clear here?
wrote on 8 Aug 2020, 03:41 last edited by@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
Yeah, as you and Aqua pointed out, it certainly makes good sense, but, as I said, "let's see the science" and not the speculation.
Am I being clear here?
offers some evidence
But not cost/benefit analysis
For the sake of argument, let's say there is some benefit. By benefit, I mean the number of covid cases is reduced.
How much benefit?
At what cost?
Shut-up
-
wrote on 8 Aug 2020, 17:38 last edited by
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2020, 15:03 last edited by
FFS: DNR tells employees to wear masks during Zoom calls, even when they are alone at home
The head of the Department of Natural Resources is telling employees to wear face masks on teleconferences — even when they’re not around others and at no risk of spreading the coronavirus.
Natural Resources Secretary Preston Cole reminded employees in a July 31 email that Gov. Tony Evers’ mask order was going into effect the next day. That means every DNR employee must wear a mask while in a DNR facility, noted Cole, an appointee of the Democratic governor.
“Also, wear your mask, even if you are home, to participate in a virtual meeting that involves being seen — such as on Zoom or another video-conferencing platform — by non-DNR staff,” Cole told his employees. “Set the safety example which shows you as a DNR public service employee care about the safety and health of others.”
The governor’s mask order requires people to wear masks when they are indoors — other than in private residences.
From a medical perspective, masks need to be worn at home only in limited situations, such as to protect people if someone living with them has COVID-19, said Nasia Safdar, the medical director of infection control at UW Health.
“Beyond that, there is not a reason to routinely wear a mask in your home if that risk isn’t there,” she said.
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2020, 16:56 last edited by
Be a good person, wear a mask
Don’t be a bad person
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2020, 17:01 last edited by
Wow.
Also in the news today a Florida sheriff is forbidding masks in his facility. Visitors and staff. I guess it isn’t really about liberty after all.
-
Wow.
Also in the news today a Florida sheriff is forbidding masks in his facility. Visitors and staff. I guess it isn’t really about liberty after all.
wrote on 12 Aug 2020, 17:27 last edited by@jon-nyc You and I have great minds. I was just going to post on this. LOL
-
wrote on 12 Sept 2020, 20:27 last edited by
-
wrote on 8 Oct 2020, 10:23 last edited by
-
wrote on 8 Oct 2020, 23:19 last edited by
From Nature "Face masks: what the data say"
-
From Nature "Face masks: what the data say"
wrote on 9 Oct 2020, 00:41 last edited by@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
From Nature "Face masks: what the data say"
Good article.
-
wrote on 9 Oct 2020, 01:18 last edited by
Masks are a product of fear.
-
wrote on 9 Oct 2020, 01:40 last edited by
Once they use data as plural, I'm done.
-
wrote on 9 Oct 2020, 01:49 last edited by George K 10 Sept 2020, 01:49
@Copper said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
Once they use data as plural, I'm done.
Once they used data as plural, I paid attention.
We've talked about this before, but, I sort of appreciate the attention to the precision of Latin.
But...that's just one datum.
-
@Copper said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
Once they use data as plural, I'm done.
Once they used data as plural, I paid attention.
We've talked about this before, but, I sort of appreciate the attention to the precision of Latin.
But...that's just one datum.
wrote on 9 Oct 2020, 02:05 last edited by@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
@Copper said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
Once they use data as plural, I'm done.
Once they used data as plural, I paid attention.
We've talked about this before, but, I sort of appreciate the attention to the precision of Latin.
But...that's just one datum.
Fucking* doctors.
*There you go, some bona fide (see what I did there?) Anglo-Saxon for you.
-
@George-K said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
@Copper said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
Once they use data as plural, I'm done.
Once they used data as plural, I paid attention.
We've talked about this before, but, I sort of appreciate the attention to the precision of Latin.
But...that's just one datum.
Fucking* doctors.
*There you go, some bona fide (see what I did there?) Anglo-Saxon for you.
wrote on 9 Oct 2020, 02:23 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in To Mask or Not To Mask?:
Fucking* doctors.
*There you go, some bona fide (see what I did there?) Anglo-Saxon for you.Bravo, sir.
