Seanergy wrote: » There is a stronger aversion to masks in America than I would have expected, and they got pelted by the virus.
Wibbs wrote: » I did some more digging on possible differences between how Asian and Western folks read faces differently and how this might be in play with mask wearing. Just based on my weirdo hunch about how our smileys can differ. EG happy western smiley :-) versus Happy Asian smiley (^_^) And lo and behold there's some interesting research on this. Culture is a huge factor in determining whether we look someone in the eye or the kisser to interpret facial expressions, according to a new study. For instance, in Japan, people tend to look to the eyes for emotional cues, whereas Americans tend to look to the mouth, says researcher Masaki Yuki, a behavioral scientist at Hokkaido University in Japan. So when Yuki entered graduate school and began communicating with American scholars over e-mail, he was often confused by their use of emoticons such as smiley faces and sad faces, or . “It took some time before I finally understood that they were faces,” he wrote in an e-mail. In Japan, emoticons tend to emphasize the eyes, such as the happy face (^_^) and the sad face ( ;_; ). “After seeing the difference between American and Japanese emoticons, it dawned on me that the faces looked exactly like typical American and Japanese smiles,” he said. Maybe this is partly why many in the west and not just here in Ireland have such an aversion to masks? We would feel adrift in reading other people's faces, but Asian cultures wouldn't? We'd also have the association of being masked with criminals too.
Wibbs wrote: » Maybe this is partly why many in the west and not just here in Ireland have such an aversion to masks? We would feel adrift in reading other people's faces, but Asian cultures wouldn't? We'd also have the association of being masked with criminals too.
Wibbs wrote: » True though I'd mandate for masks with people who visit offices and homes. People like IT techies, delivery, plumbers, electricians and the like. One delivery guy who was a "superspreader" could infect a load of offices and homes in a fairly short time.
reg114 wrote: » Five you say ? 1.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/ 2.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 3.https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(08)01008-4/fulltext 4.https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/2/275/405108 5.https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205 The evidence of the benefit of wearing masks indoors or outdoors as a method of mitigating transmission of aerosolized viruses is incontrovertible. The efficacy of the mask depends on the materials used within the mask with medical grade masks clearly being far more efficient than a homemade mask. That being said any basic mask made with items from around the home would be more efficient at preventing the spread of the virus, than using no mask at all. As an aside if you have a vacuum cleaner at home the bag inside the cleaner contains a hepa filter which has been proven to be as efficacious as a medical grade mask, as they are made of the same multiple layers of tightly woven fibres. It also must be emphasised, a mask is primarily worn to reduce the transmission by an infected person to those who are non infected. This is crucial in the context of covid19 where infected patients possess a huge viral load in their nose and throats and are at risk of shedding everytime they exhale. Someone can be asymptomatic and be shedding as the breathe in the queue in tesco, if they are wearing even a homemade mask meade from a scarf or t shirt they will shed less to their immediate environment than they would if their mouth was uncovered. Incidentally the term 'peer reviewed' simply means 'published', it is not a guarantee that the findings are factually correct. The overriding evidence regarding the efficacy of masks is not in question for the majority of immunologists and the medical profession as a whole.
reg114 wrote: » It also must be emphasised, a mask is primarily worn to reduce the transmission by an infected person to those who are non infected. This is crucial in the context of covid19 where infected patients possess a huge viral load in their nose and throats and are at risk of shedding everytime they exhale. Someone can be asymptomatic and be shedding as the breathe in the queue in tesco, if they are wearing even a homemade mask meade from a scarf or t shirt they will shed less to their immediate environment than they would if their mouth was uncovered.
riffmongous wrote: » In Austria now we have the weird situation where we have to wear masks on public transport.. but covering your face in public is also illegal (since 2/3 years). The last few years we've been told in Europe that covering your face is wrong, it's not our culture, it's criminal, for terrorists etc
McGiver wrote: » Well, you're covering your mouth, not the face. Quantitative difference.
riffmongous wrote: » Not really in practice though, a lot of masks go right up to the eyes and with a hat it's not much different to a Niqab
Bob24 wrote: » I guess it depends on how the Austrian law is written. Technically a mask only covers you face partially but it could still be covered depending on how the law specifically defines face covering. And more importantly I assume the law does take the motive for covering your face into account and has exceptions for situations whereby this is required for health and safety reasons, ranging from workers dealing with dangerous substances and wearing PPE while being in a public area to someone wearing a helmet to ride a motorbike, etc. Plus you could also say locking-down the whole population in their home isn't Austrian culture and is for totalitarian states, but it was done anyway on a temporary basis. The bottomline is that those 2 things (and others) which are usually not normal are accepted on a temporary basis to protect the health of the population. The key being that it has to be temporary and go back to normality once the epidemic is under control.
Bob24 wrote: » This probably is a discussion for another thread, but I can't agrees with that. Factually, a regular mask/respirator clearly covers a fairly smaller portion of someone's face than a niqab, and the person remains easier to recognise (see sample pictures below). But at the end of the day I think only looking at how much of the face it is covering is missing the point anyway. I don't know about Austria but a key aspect of similar laws in other countries I am more familiar with is the purpose for wearing something which is covering your face. For exemple the exact same helmet can be legal if worn to ride a motorbike as it is required for safety reason, and illegal if worn while walking down the street as there is no safety requirement to wear it.
Gynoid wrote: » It seems the masks debate is not a new thing. Plus ca change etc. This twitter thread follows the anti mask protest of 1919. ( ps I do not know who Tim Mak is so if he is some rogue well...I don't care ) PS a typo was made in 1st tweet. Sept 1918 was meant.https://twitter.com/timkmak/status/1251936242834563073?s=19
Seanergy wrote: » prototyping...good on ya....tweak it, test it, tweak it, test it, your end result will be a snug fit Because we are making masks specfic to our face size and shapes, we get the opportunity during construction to sample fit and nudge, sample fit and nudge, etc. paying attention to negative spaces between the mask and the skin. I've ended up tailoring some cotton masks so well that I get suction. The purpose of the fit test for us seeing we are using homemade masks is more than just checking to make sure they fit snuggly and won't slip. We need to test that we can breath through it comfotably whilst moving around and potentially talking and for how long before it gets too humid and needs to be replaced? Maybe you double up on your filters or thin down on them....etc.keep testing.... modifying....you will eventual have the recipe that works for you. Turning your heads from side to side, up and down, walking, talking. Preforming test motions similar to movements you will do when shopping and or wearing your mask and for a similar duration. It's good to know ahead of time your shelf life for your reuseable masks. All my wear time has been under an hour to date, but lets say in the future I had to wear a mask for half a day I would be looking at replacing my mask every hour and I'd make sure to enjoy 5 mins fresh air during mask exchange.Fit testing and hand washing play a critical role in safe mask usage.
McGiver wrote: » Also, for example Dutch numbers of antibodies present in blood donations sample of 10,000 people showed 3% antibodies in that sample. Given that Covid-19 has been shown not to readily generate antibodies then the percentage in general population who could be asymptomatic and spreading it could be even higher. If we use the 3% value as a representative sample for the whole Dutch population of 17M, then Netherlands could have had already as many as 500k cases, whereas they officially recorded only 30k or so. There may be a huge cohort of asymptomatic spreaders out there and the evidence for this is accumulating. If this hypothesis is confirmed then then the difference in terms of the spread/curve between Austria/Czechia and other countries is clearly mostly due to the masks.
riffmongous wrote: » Id be careful with that conclusion for Austria/Czechia McGiver.. in Austria the lockdown came into effect before the mask rule (which also isnt as restrictive as in Czechia), while in Czechia masks and lockdown seem to have came into effect at the same time. So if it was clearly mostly due to masks for Austria, see can you guess when the rule was brought in from a graph of the r0.. it should be clear right? (Or maybe I'm wrong in my thinking). I would expect an abrupt change a few days after it was introduced but I don't see anything there I don't want to always be negative and poking holes here, but it has to be done
Wibbs wrote: » . Masks. Not even on the horizon, until the WHO says so.
reg114 wrote: » Five you say ? 1.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/ Applicable to households not outdoor use. We concluded that household use of masks is associated with low adherence and is ineffective in controlling seasonal ILI. If adherence were greater, mask use might reduce transmission during a severe influenza pandemic. 2.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 This study is about surgical masks. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals. 3.https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(08)01008-4/fulltext This about masks in households. The First Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Mask Use in Households to Prevent Respiratory Virus Transmission Conclusions: This is the first RCT on mask use to be conducted and provides data to inform pandemic planning. We found compliance to be low, but compliance is affected by perception of risk. In a pandemic, we would expect compliance to improve. In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious. A larger study is required to enumerate the difference in efficacy (if any) between surgical and non-fit tested P2 masks. 4.https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/2/275/405108 A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficacy of Surgical and N95 Masks to Filter Influenza Virus in Patients with Acute Influenza Infection 5.https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205 Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks
paddy19 wrote: » https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/face-masks-should-there-be-a-cover-up- One of the better articles on masks I have read.
Spring Celebrator wrote: » But I think you have a point to ask for per viewed studies (except sources from China). The thing is, there maybe aren't any. But looking at the numbers from countries where masks are widely used or madatory, it looks like the masks are helping. Might be a coincidence tho. But I'd rather be laughed at than be responsible for infecting someone.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
