Masks

Wibbs

Yes: other

paddy19 wrote: »

"Wearing of masks or some sort of covering for nose and mouth should be compulsory upon leaving the house.."

Says who, what scientific evidence shows masks work outdoors.

There's plenty of stuff in the thread.

An even simpler point: Do masks work indoors? Do masks reduce infection in clinical settings? How would they magically lose this ability in publicly shared spaces?

New rules take time to become accepted practice.

The best time to plant an oak tree for timber? 300 years ago, or today. It has to start somewhere and experience in many other nations that brought this in shows it becomes accepted pretty quickly. Humans as social animals tend to follow the "herd" and whomever is leading it. If tomorrow authorities said wear masks, people would and would soon tut tut at those who didn't, even though they may once have been the types who tut tutted at people who wore one.

What has been well established is that close proximity to an infected person for 15 minutes is high risk

Ah bless "the 15 minute rule". Patient zero in Germany infected one guy by passing him a salt cellar, another by sharing a lift, another in a five minute meeting. What happens at this magical 15 minutes that doesn't happen at 12, or really goes nuts at 17? You buy the 15 minute thing, but think something actually covering your nose and mouth, the primary site of infection is of little use?

Wibbs

Yes: other

I'm beginning to think a lot of the anti mask stuff is not just the "authorities say" thing, but a cultural resistance to the idea of masks themselves. A mate of mine was saying kinda similar in that he'd hate the idea of us all wearing masks. Just that on that point, even though he well knows the risk reduction aspect of it. Interestingly if you look at Asian old style keyboard emojis they try to imitate the eyes rather than the mouth, so instead of :-) they'll do something like this (^^). Mad notion, but maybe that slight cultural difference is why mask wearing that covers the mouth is less of an issue for them, whereas we feel uncomfortable if we can't see each other's mouths?

Wibbs

Yes: other

Check this vid out and look at the massive and clear difference a basic surgical mask makes as far as reducing the spread of a sneeze.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASi5OUv9Pg

If everyone wore one while out and about the risk of someone infecting you would be quite clearly be reduced and by some measure. And your mask would reduce the amount of droplets hitting you too(not as much as an PP3).

maninasia

Yes: homemade

paddy19 wrote: »

I have no problem seeing the logic and evidence that choirs belting out songs in a confined space for hours can transmit the virus.

It's one hell of a jump to everybody wearing masks everywhere as the Pat Kenny/Joe Duffy media pluggers are pushing.

Is it?
45 of the 60 came down with covid19.

''One member told CNN affiliate KIRO that no one seemed to be ill.

"During the entire rehearsal, no one sneezed, no one coughed, no one there appeared to be sick in any way," Carolynn Comstock told KIRO.

"So now we know, oh hm, maybe it's transmitted not just by droplets and sneezes or coughs; maybe it's transmitted just by people talking, just by people being around each other''

I can also provide you many cases where people acquired it talking to friends and colleagues in coffeeshops. Do you need the examples too?


Here's one to get you started.
https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202003300024


Basically 15 mins in proximity with somebody talking to you who is infected is high risk. But it could even happen in an elevator which is why many countries are enforcing masks in office buildings and not talking in the elevator.

maninasia

Yes: homemade

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm beginning to think a lot of the anti mask stuff is not just the "authorities say" thing, but a cultural resistance to the idea of masks themselves. A mate of mine was saying kinda similar in that he'd hate the idea of us all wearing masks. Just that on that point, even though he well knows the risk reduction aspect of it. Interestingly if you look at Asian old style keyboard emojis they try to imitate the eyes rather than the mouth, so instead of :-) they'll do something like this (^^). Mad notion, but maybe that slight cultural difference is why mask wearing that covers the mouth is less of an issue for them, whereas we feel uncomfortable if we can't see each other's mouths?

Some of it is dumb unconscious racism because it was Asian countries who usually use them to reduce disease transmission ..Then western governments promoted the lie they weren't really useful because they didn't have any stock anyway. Of course that never made any sense since medical personnel have been using them for hundreds of years already.

2u2me

paddy19 wrote: »

Due respects to the good professor but I have seen jilch evidence that masks work outdoors. What has been well established is that close proximity to an infected person for 15 minutes is high risk. I can see the case where choirs singing for hours in a confined space should wear masks.

But it's a mighty jump to everyone wearing masks everywhere.

"large cities having compulsory masks in place were doing really well in the fight. "

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this.

To ascribe the wearing of masks outdoors to doing "well in the fight" is stretching logic.

I've also seen evidence from cruise ships etc.. where people are confined and still getting Corona virus. The idea was that they were still breathing the same recirculated air also.

It's possible it can exist as aerosols in the air for hours(7-8) given the right conditions(humidity, pressure, etc..) [obviously outdoors basically doesn't matter as the dilution is massive]

paddy19

No: I don't care enough

maninasia wrote: »

Is it?
45 of the 60 came down with covid19.

''One member told CNN affiliate KIRO that no one seemed to be ill.

"During the entire rehearsal, no one sneezed, no one coughed, no one there appeared to be sick in any way," Carolynn Comstock told KIRO.

"So now we know, oh hm, maybe it's transmitted not just by droplets and sneezes or coughs; maybe it's transmitted just by people talking, just by people being around each other''

I can also provide you many cases where people acquired it talking to friends and colleagues in coffeeshops. Do you need the examples too?


Here's one to get you started.
https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202003300024


Basically 15 mins in proximity with somebody talking to you who is infected is high risk. But it could even happen in an elevator which is why many countries are enforcing masks in office buildings and not talking in the elevator.

We cant start making major policy decisions based on what other countries might do. They disinfect the street in Dubai, should be doing that here?

We need to stay with the proven science not anecdotes.

It is already accepted that you are at risk if you are in close proximity for more than 15 minutes with someone who is infected. That's the reason people are told not to be congregating in groups of more than 4.

It is not a reason to make everyone wear masks outdoors.

2u2me

paddy19 wrote: »

It is not a reason to make everyone wear masks outdoors.

I see your point in less busy places. But surely in urban build up walking the streets etc.. it's not always possible to keep social distancing(if everything is open). Surely masks have a use here? Although I'd agree mandating them may not be the best idea.

Surely we can at least mandate the use of them indoors in shopping centres etc..

maninasia

Yes: homemade

paddy19 wrote: »

We cant start making major policy decisions based on what other countries might do. They disinfect the street in Dubai, should be doing that here?

We need to stay with the proven science not anecdotes.

It is already accepted that you are at risk if you are in close proximity for more than 15 minutes with someone who is infected. That's the reason people are told not to be congregating in groups of more than 4.

It is not a reason to make everyone wear masks outdoors.

Do you want to get out of lockdown anytime soon or you want to stay stuck at home for the year ?

You'll need to wear masks...In Taiwan life is pretty normal now , everybody wears masks and gets on with things.

Wibbs

Yes: other

paddy19 wrote: »

We cant start making major policy decisions based on what other countries might do. They disinfect the street in Dubai, should be doing that here?

We need to stay with the proven science not anecdotes.

Science, here. Click. Based on research after the SARS epidemic. The important bit: "The use of masks was strongly protective"
and "Our finding that mask use lowered the risk for disease supports the community’s use of this strategy." Science.

More science. Here: The important bit: "For public health protection, use of masks can have some impact on preventing the spread of SARS CoV. However, this should be only one health practice that is encouraged by the public as others (for example, hand washing) are also of great importance".

Note, before any silly stuff about, "but this is a different virus" SARS CoV is a very similar virus to CoVid-19.

Lancet article on the pros and cons.

Finishes with: "It is time for governments and public health agencies to make rational recommendations on appropriate face mask use to complement their recommendations on other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene. WHO currently recommends that people should wear face masks if they have respiratory symptoms or if they are caring for somebody with symptoms. Perhaps it would also be rational to recommend that people in quarantine wear face masks if they need to leave home for any reason, to prevent potential asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission. In addition, vulnerable populations, such as older adults and those with underlying medical conditions, should wear face masks if available. Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit. In parallel, urgent research on the duration of protection of face masks, the measures to prolong life of disposable masks, and the invention on reusable masks should be encouraged. Taiwan had the foresight to create a large stockpile of face masks; other countries or regions might now consider this as part of future pandemic plans".

I can link many many more such considered research. Enough science for you? Never mind that it should be glaringly obvious to anyone that wearing a mask which covers the airways in both the infected and non infected will reduce risk. Why do healthworkers wear them? Why are they vital in that setting and magically lose that risk reduction elsewhere? Why are some people so hellbent on avoiding the bloody obvious, yet will believe some plucked out of the air 15 minutes nonsense that bugger all actual science backs up is fine?

It is already accepted that you are at risk if you are in close proximity for more than 15 minutes with someone who is infected. That's the reason people are told not to be congregating in groups of more than 4.

It is not a reason to make everyone wear masks outdoors.

That's all sorts of confused. And not it's not "already accepted". Not by a long shot. So no more than fifteen minutes(which on its own is daft for many reasons), and that's why there's a number limit on groups? Eh... wut? They're two entirely separate things. So fourteen minutes up close with three people is fine, but six minutes with four people is risky?

Arrival

paddy19 wrote: »

We cant start making major policy decisions based on what other countries might do. They disinfect the street in Dubai, should be doing that here?

We need to stay with the proven science not anecdotes.

It is already accepted that you are at risk if you are in close proximity for more than 15 minutes with someone who is infected. That's the reason people are told not to be congregating in groups of more than 4.

It is not a reason to make everyone wear masks outdoors.

It's really just a simple matter of being as safe and cautious as possible. With the virus being so new, but causing so many hospitalisations and deaths so far, it's really a better approach to just assume it is more infectious than evidence currently suggests.

Dr. Mike Ryan said similar during a WHO conference:

“If you need to be right before you move you will never win. Perfection is the enemy of the good when it comes to emergency management,”

I understand your mentality of requiring peer reviewed scientific proof normally, and this should obviously continue being the case even during this pandemic for medicines, treatments and vaccines etc. But regarding something like having everyone wearing face masks? You can't be so rigid in such an unprecedented and massive situation, it's seeming to benefit other countries well so we should absolutely seriously consider it for ourselves

Greentopia

Wibbs wrote: »

Humans as social animals tend to follow the "herd" and whomever is leading it. If tomorrow authorities said wear masks, people would and would soon tut tut at those who didn't, even though they may once have been the types who tut tutted at people who wore one.

Group think and the human desire to conform has helped in the high compliance with staying home, social distancing and other advice even before the law was changed IMO. It's the elevator experiment.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah bless "the 15 minute rule". Patient zero in Germany infected one guy by passing him a salt cellar, another by sharing a lift, another in a five minute meeting. What happens at this magical 15 minutes that doesn't happen at 12, or really goes nuts at 17? You buy the 15 minute thing, but think something actually covering your nose and mouth, the primary site of infection is of little use?

Indeed. I never understood this 15 minute rule. Makes no logical sense to me to advise a definite time like that as if one minute you're safe and the next you're not. I can understand why they may have done it though-to stop people having the long chats many of us like to engage in, so they came up with a time limit they thought most people could comply with instead of the harder sell of the more scientifically rigorous advice.

A bit like the advice we get from the WHO and our public health authorities to eat our 5-a-day fruit and veg. They chose 5 because they know many would struggle to eat more than that so they set the bar low, not because it's the most rigorous dietary advice. In France they eat more so French authorities set it at 10, and in the country where pretty much everyone eats super healthy- Japan, it's a whopping 17 portions-13 portions of veg and 4 of fruit per day. Because it's doable for them.

And of course the 15 minute rule doesn't cost the HSE anything so "why not" eh. :rolleyes:

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm beginning to think a lot of the anti mask stuff is not just the "authorities say" thing, but a cultural resistance to the idea of masks themselves. A mate of mine was saying kinda similar in that he'd hate the idea of us all wearing masks.

I think so too. There's ways to change that though. One way is make them the latest cool accessory and many more will want to wear them. The Finns are gearing up for this already. Marimekko designed face masks sound more appealing than white clinical ones. Can see the fashion mags covers soon: 'How to stay stylish and safe in a pandemic'

Kivaro

Yes: valved

paddy19 wrote: »

Due respects to the good professor but I have seen jilch evidence that masks work outdoors. What has been well established is that close proximity to an infected person for 15 minutes is high risk. I can see the case where choirs singing for hours in a confined space should wear masks.

But it's a mighty jump to everyone wearing masks everywhere.

"large cities having compulsory masks in place were doing really well in the fight. "

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this.

To ascribe the wearing of masks outdoors to doing "well in the fight" is stretching logic.

Odd post.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine has found tiny droplets that come out of the mouth while speaking are infectious. Do you think that maybe masks could help with this?

World Health Organisation assistant director-general David Heymann’s comment that masks were equally or more effective in combating the spread of Covid-19 than social distancing, and said the situation in Taiwan provided further proof.
“The entire country of Taiwan has five deaths. Now here’s an example of a great country that is distributing masks to everybody,” Mr Howard said.
How is this stretching logic?

I would be happy to review reputable sources from you where it supports your contention that there is "jilch evidence that masks work outdoors".

Wibbs

Yes: other

Kivaro wrote: »

I would be happy to review reputable sources from you where it supports your contention that there is "jilch evidence that masks work outdoors".

He won't find any. For it to be the case you'd have to demonstrate that masks were effective risk reducers in clinical settings and if you have symptoms or caring for someone with them, but at the same time lost this effectiveness in every other setting. Schrodinger's masks; they both work and don't work at the same time.

The resistance to them is an interesting human angle to it. Time after time, no matter what evidence is presented, or common sense is applied, many will just shut their ears and often double down on refusing to even think they might be effective tools in this fight. Deference to, and I suspect often handing over responsibility to authority is a huge part of it. Sometimes I have noticed with quite a few otherwise bright enough people once something is not within their wheelhouse they shut off thinking about it and leave that to experts. Often they're experts in a field themselves so it might be a quid pro quo to fellow experts, because questioning of expertise is something they don't want to happen to them. Others are just followers of the group, which is perfectly natural and understandable in a social animal. Outliers tend to be weeded out over time. I suspect a strong cultural aspect to hiding the face is in play too. Look at the debates when Muslim head wear for women comes up.

Gynoid

The Construction Industry Federation have issued their colourful brochure called Covid 19 Operating Procedures complete with a bracing and improving paragraph by Mr Parlon and a legal disclaimer indemnifying CIF if all goes tits up.
Nobody is to EVER stand closer than 2 metres. That will work.
On masks, "using face masks is unlikely to be of any benefit if the wearer is not sick...the HSE do not recommend the wearing of face masks and/or the undertaking of temperature testing at work."
Additional measures instead of that kind of malarkey are - firstly! - posters and leaflets.

Now we all know the mysterious magical power of a poster on a building site but I would suggest their potency would increase many times over if workers would stick them to their faces with gaffer tape. Having first read the indemnity, of course!

(Who me, cynical? Goway outta that.)

Wibbs

Yes: other

The never standing closer than two metres is never going to work on a construction site. Men on such sites can't avoid working closely together a lot of the time. That would go triple on domestic type sites. But posters and leaflets are cheap and they can point to the HSE's retarded guidelines as a sop to "safety" and be grand and get the work going again. That's what that's all about.

The joke is a lot of guys working in that industry use and are trained in the use of masks for working with particulates and other nasties in the air. They could teach a fair few medical people on their use. On well run sites not wearing masks in such circumstances would be majorly frowned upon, but in the worst pandemic in a century? Then again the requirement for protecting workers in hazardous conditions came slow because workers got sick or even died for years and they changed the rules from the bottom up.

railer201

Yes: valved

The 2 metre advisory must only relate to still air - in real life, especially outdoors, the air/wind can swirl every which way and at speed too.

Professor Luke O'Neill mentioned yesterday morning on the Pat Kenny Show, Newstalk, that in a stadium with everyone jammed together, shouting their heads off, thereby emitting masses of aerosols - that these same aerosols could be easily carried all round the stadium by the wind and so spread the virus to multiple other people.

Similarly as a cyclist (grounded and cocooned atm), I was very conscious of passing through other cyclists exhaled breath, but everyone was quoting this 2 metre rule. Ok, I was cycling at least two metres behind other cyclists, but if they sneezed or were just breathing normally then I would be inhaling that a fraction of a second later.

This is a further reason to mask up outdoors, but still respect the social distancing guideline of 2 metres, though realising the limitations of it at the same time.

saneman

Yes: surgical

Simon Harris was on Newstalk this morning and part of what was discussed was the use of masks.

Prefaced by the fact he's not a doctor he said he:

"..tends to agree that there is a growing body of international evidence in relation to some potential benefits... they may not be hugely protective.. there is also concern, i read in a number of documents, including from the ECDC, that they can sometimes provide a false sense of security, if I wear a facemask I no longer need to do this, that or the other,.. and the risk of that is real".

He went on to say "today, the national emergency team is meeting and is going to look specifically at guidance around the issue of face masks" and he was continuing "i think the outcome you're likely to see..." but got caught up on another question from Pat regarding people coming in via airports.

Ooh, the suspense...

Actually, I see it's available to listen to on the Newstalk site (and as a podcast):
https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/minister-health-simon-harris-comments-current-crisis

iamwhoiam

saneman wrote: »

Simon Harris was on Newstalk this morning and part of what was discussed was the use of masks.

Prefaced by the fact he's not a doctor he said he:

"..tends to agree that there is a growing body of international evidence in relation to some potential benefits... they may not be hugely protective.. there is also concern, i read in a number of documents, including from the ECDC, that they can sometimes provide a false sense of security, if I wear a facemask I no longer need to do this, that or the other,.. and the risk of that is real".

He went on to say "today, the national emergency team is meeting and is going to look specifically at guidance around the issue of face masks" and he was continuing "i think the outcome you're likely to see..." but got caught up on another question from Pat regarding people coming in via airports.

Ooh, the suspense...

I dont really understand the theory if you wear a mask you tend to forget other things .When I wear a mask going to my local shop the alien thing on my face makes me very aware of the crises we are in .It tends to focus me on being very careful and alert

Bob24

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I dont really understand the theory if you wear a mask you tend to forget other things .When I wear a mask going to my local shop the alien thing on my face makes me very aware of the crises we are in .It tends to focus me on being very careful and alert

For sure.

Lets imagine for a minute someone was saying the below about wearing safety belts while driving:

- Wearing a safety belt provides additional protection, but you can still get hurt/killed if you are wearing one (poor behaviour increases the probability of getting hurt/killed and of hurting/killing others regardless of wearing one or not).

- The above is a drawback of safety belts: they only provide partial protection and they give people a false sense of security, causing people to forget to behave responsibly when they are wearing one.

- As a consequence, we shouldn't encourage the use of safety belts as people won't behave properly when they are wearing one.


Does the above make any sense? I don't think so. Yet if you replace safety belt by masks in the above sentences, this is *exactly* the reasoning which is being put forward by some about masks (including Harris in this exemple). I don't think if makes any more sense.

Murple

I've noticed that people wearing masks in supermarkets seem to think they don't need to adhere to social distancing and tend to walk very close to other people. There's definitely a false sense of security. It's the same with those wearing plastic gloves. I noticed a man in the supermarket wearing them, picking things up without hesitation and rubbing his nose with his hand.

Hoffmans

Everyone should wear one out in supermarkets etc if not to protect themselves but others, mounting evidence CV travels up to 23 feet in the air and can stay airborne for up to 30 minutes

caveat emptor

Yes: to protect others

railer201 wrote: »

The 2 metre advisory must only relate to still air - in real life, especially outdoors, the air/wind can swirl every which way and at speed too.

Professor Luke O'Neill mentioned yesterday morning on the Pat Kenny Show, Newstalk, that in a stadium with everyone jammed together, shouting their heads off, thereby emitting masses of aerosols - that these same aerosols could be easily carried all round the stadium by the wind and so spread the virus to multiple other people.

Similarly as a cyclist (grounded and cocooned atm), I was very conscious of passing through other cyclists exhaled breath, but everyone was quoting this 2 metre rule. Ok, I was cycling at least two metres behind other cyclists, but if they sneezed or were just breathing normally then I would be inhaling that a fraction of a second later.

This is a further reason to mask up outdoors, but still respect the social distancing guideline of 2 metres, though realising the limitations of it at the same time.

Yeah, I'm definitely more conscious of wind direction these days. I think of it like smoking. Someone could several meters away but you could be getting facefuls of their smoke depending on wind. Switch smoke for aerosols / droplets / virus. Same difference really.

https://twitter.com/DLMarina_Dublin/status/1244880544485310468?s=20

2u2me

Hoffmans wrote: »

Everyone should wear one out in supermarkets etc if not to protect themselves but others, mounting evidence CV travels up to 23 feet in the air and can stay airborne for up to 30 minutes

I've seen studies suggesting 3hours + for aersols .Given the perfect humidity/pressure/temperature I'd bet it is longer than that.

But you would need enough of a viral load to get infected, a few stray particles just doesn't cut it.

I'd say our only worry in supermarkets with aerosols is if they don't dilute the air with outside air enough (recirculate the same air over and over)
Definitely agree we should wear masks indoors and when near others to avoid droplets!

Wibbs

Yes: other

And much of it in the case of basic surgical mask use is down to massively reducing the amount of droplets we exhale. Yes they will also filter out a lot of what we inhale, but protecting others is the biggie. Like the Czech campaign went; I protect you, you protect me. That requires the majority wearing one though.

In the "early days" of this I was mostly wearing my half face PP3 filter. That reduced my risk significantly, short of positive pressure hazmat stuff, about as high a level of protection as you can get. However exhaled air is not well filtered, so I could conceivably have infected others if I had the dose, so have since switched to surgical masks. I'd only were the PP3 rigout if for some mad reason I had to take a taxi, or bus, or was visiting a medical facility. None of which are very likely.

Wibbs

Yes: other

On another thread hereabouts I noted the differences between us, the Asian countries that have more of a handle on it and the Czechs closer to home.

thebaz wrote: »

Do you not think Chinese numbers, regardless of review, look suspiciously low, less than Belgium - just a bit above New Jersey - and these are not worst hit regions worldwide

China poplulation 1.4 Billiion
Belgium population 11.5 Million
New Jersey population 8.5

Low yes, but suspiciously maybe not TB. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Korea's figures are pretty bloody low too. Why? More generally severe lockdowns introduced far more quickly than in most western nations. More testing, more contact tracing(are we even doing the latter here? And our testing has been a shambles). They also closed down or heavily restricted borders and had health checks on borders in place and had quarantine protocols for those they did let in(we've done none of those). They also mandated masks in public(still agains that here, while those nations are thinking of us like "are you high?"). Now look closer to home at western nations like the Czech Republic who implemented "Asian" style responses. Twice our population, higher population densities, more tourists and closer to hotzones like Italy. Under half our deaths and are now slowly coming out of lockdowns.



Note on the 15th they had no deaths. As of the 16th they have recorded 170 dead, while we're at nearly 500. And again remember TB they have twice the population. If we had followed their curve we should be hovering around the 100 dead mark, not nearly five times that.

In short those nations who controlled borders, tested more, contact traced, masked in public, quarantined possible cases and did all that relatively quickly quite simply have had better outcomes, regardless of political system and racial background. Those who didn't including Ireland(even with our major population advantages) didn't.

Spring Celebrator

Yes: valved

Study by TU Eindhoven and Leuven University shows that:
-2m is "safe" inside or outside while not moving and without air movement.
-While walking outside 4-5m can be considered safe
-Running and cycling in slow pace 10m
-Running and cyclng fast at least 20m would be considered safe.
Study
http://www.urbanphysics.net/Social%20Distancing%20v20_White_Paper.pdf

Visualisation
https://twitter.com/realBertBlocken/status/1247540735001251841?s=20

millb

McGiver wrote: »

Anywhere in public is what Czechia, Slovakia and Austria did. It's a bit extreme, but it's good. I would be OK with Irish gov recommending/mandating masks in closed spaces - shops, stores, public transport etc as a minimum.

And joggers huffing and puffing..

millb

McGiver wrote: »

ECDC are ambiguous on the issue. Kind of a lukewarm recommendation. WHO is a different story.

And maybe Trump will be right .. if he called WHO on it..

millb

paddy19 wrote: »

Due respects to the good professor but I have seen jilch evidence that masks work outdoors. What has been well established is that close proximity to an infected person for 15 minutes is high risk. I can see the case where choirs singing for hours in a confined space should wear masks.

But it's a mighty jump to everyone wearing masks everywhere.

"large cities having compulsory masks in place were doing really well in the fight. "

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this.

To ascribe the wearing of masks outdoors to doing "well in the fight" is stretching logic.

He was like you 2 weeks ago .. Changed his view if you listen to him.. based on good scientific evidence...

russian roulette is easier when you know the probability