To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Define 'work'.

In some places they were dropped, then brought back as the wave hit...

They work by reducing transmission, viral load. Transmission doesn't only occur in places with masks. And even then, there's only so much masks can do if you have sustained close contact in the same space.

The studies showed fewer cases where they were used, which is a reduction in the virus R number.

Droplets are thought to be the predominant method of transmission.

They catch the large droplets as a barrier from someone wearing a mask.

The smaller ones dissipate more quickly. So masks make distancing more effective.

 Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger),9 but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns3, 5 which increase in number with the volume of speech10-12 and specific types of phonation.13 Multi-layer cloth masks can both block 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles3, 14 and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.5, 6, 15, 16 Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments

The Danish one was a very limited study without mask mandates in place. Not directly relevant to mask mandates as the study expressly stated.

The trial is inconclusive rather than negative, and it points to a likely benefit of mask wearing to the wearer—it did not examine the wider potential benefit of reduced spread of infection to others—and this even in a population where mask wearing isn’t mandatory and prevalence of infection is low. This finding is in keeping with summaries of evidence from Cochrane.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/24/covid-19-controversial-trial-may-actually-show-that-masks-protect-the-wearer/

Masks were never required in private homes or pubs, for obvious reasons, which is where most transmission occurs. COVID has been coming in waves, it'll go up and down regardless of what happens with mask mandates etc.

We trusted a lot of what the Chinese were saying at the time, probably wasn't the wisest of decisions in hindsight

Masks were never required in pubs, ok you had to wear it for the 5 minutes in the jacks but never when actually at a table drinking or eating, again, obvious reasons!

I am in no way suggesting we should spy on people's personal homes but it's a fact that the main transmission locations were the home and the pub, places where mask mandates were not in place

Fair enough but will you do that by actively breaking the law or just not go anywhere that requires a mask? Not judging, just wondering if you have a plan in this respect?

They have nothing so they cling to "but droplets"...

Completely failing to address simple fact that mask in this "but droplets" sense actually work for minuscule amount of time with hardly measurable benefit. The more you breath and cough and sneeze into it it just concentrate those magical virus laden droplets and they get pushed out with every subsequent breath cough or sneeze. But you know... Droplets...

I know. It is sometimes hard to follow simple logic. People these times talk about science instead of trying to think. I had mask on couple times last year when it was "mandated".

Mask become wet within minutes from just breathing particularly when it is cold. When you sneeze or cough through such mask well... We all know what happens.

Where is it stated as a 'fact' that they are more likely to become seriously ill when we get the flu?

There may be a concentration of cases that would otherwise have hit over the course of several years. Unclear how that is going to cause more serious illness. There were also many serious illnesses avoided in that period.

A child who would have been exposed to flu at 4, now gets exposed at 5. How does that cause a more serious illness? Sounds like the opposite would be the case to me.

There may be some limited protection from previous flu infection into the next year, which we don't have because flu was suppressed by masks and other restrictions - is that what is meant by 'more susceptible to infection'?

But flu vaccines are rolled out annually because the strains year on year change so much, so this year on year protection must be limited.

There was big uptake in flu vaccine last year, so that's a significant section of the population whose immune systems were challenged by a (weakened) strains of flu.

Yes, that's I meant by "more susceptible".

There is no data to say that is true. Stephen Donnelly says there's oodles of it but hasn't been provided.

Any source for that one?

Meh, and I thought that outbreaks in hospitals went significantly down when they emptied them and sent everyone to die to nursing houses. Also hospitals were ghost towns for most of the pandemic so hard to say what effect if any masks had on empty wards and corridors.

Great to see, down to 4%, people continuously copping onto the fact that masks are a waste of time.

Seeing more people wearing masks around lately again and surprisingly younger people too mostly women. Maybe it's a fashion trend.