What exactly are those best practices? CDC guidance? WHO? China health department?
WHO is advising against wearing a mask unless you are sick.
I'm guessing it's an amalgamation of all the more relevant tactics to date from various experts. WHO's correct in saying that only the sick need masks, but with the rate of asymptomatic carriers- the CDC's recommendation of wearing one anyway is probably the more preemptive way to go
I don't wear a mask outside all the time, but I can see that it's necessary
Below is the link the study refers to. If you look at the study however, there is one fundamental flaw with the methodology located on the bottom of page 8:
Mask characteristics: Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T=0.7 and A=0.7
While T (transmission rate with mask on) may very well be .7, there is a lot of evidence that the absorption rate with non-medical masks is greater than 1. It could be as as high doubling your chances of getting infected compared to not wearing a mask. So if you change A to 2.0 where 1.0 is base rate for catching virus without a mask, the whole study actually makes the case to NOT wear a non-medical mask if you do not have reason to believe you are already infected. Especially given the priority of providing the limited supply of medical grade masks to health care workers
HeatFanLifer wrote: Sweden put in no restrictions what so ever.
What exactly are those best practices? CDC guidance? WHO? China health department?
WHO is advising against wearing a mask unless you are sick.
I'm guessing it's an amalgamation of all the more relevant tactics to date from various experts. WHO's correct in saying that only the sick need masks, but with the rate of asymptomatic carriers- the CDC's recommendation of wearing one anyway is probably the more preemptive way to go
I don't wear a mask outside all the time, but I can see that it's necessary
Below is the link the study refers to. If you look at the study however, there is one fundamental flaw with the methodology located on the bottom of page 8:
Mask characteristics: Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T=0.7 and A=0.7
While T (transmission rate with mask on) may very well be .7, there is a lot of evidence that the absorption rate with non-medical masks is greater than 1. It could be as as high doubling your chances of getting infected compared to not wearing a mask. So if you change A to 2.0 where 1.0 is base rate for catching virus without a mask, the whole study actually makes the case to NOT wear a non-medical mask if you do not have reason to believe you are already infected. Especially given the priority of providing the limited supply of medical grade masks to health care workers
I understand the logic in the document, but I didn't go deep into the stats; you're telling me that it says that you'd be at less risk without a mask than a non-medical one?
I'm guessing it's an amalgamation of all the more relevant tactics to date from various experts. WHO's correct in saying that only the sick need masks, but with the rate of asymptomatic carriers- the CDC's recommendation of wearing one anyway is probably the more preemptive way to go
I don't wear a mask outside all the time, but I can see that it's necessary
Below is the link the study refers to. If you look at the study however, there is one fundamental flaw with the methodology located on the bottom of page 8:
Mask characteristics: Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T=0.7 and A=0.7
While T (transmission rate with mask on) may very well be .7, there is a lot of evidence that the absorption rate with non-medical masks is greater than 1. It could be as as high doubling your chances of getting infected compared to not wearing a mask. So if you change A to 2.0 where 1.0 is base rate for catching virus without a mask, the whole study actually makes the case to NOT wear a non-medical mask if you do not have reason to believe you are already infected. Especially given the priority of providing the limited supply of medical grade masks to health care workers
I understand the logic in the document, but I didn't go deep into the stats; you're telling me that it says that you'd be at less risk without a mask than a non-medical one?
Keep in mind, this is a simulation. Not a study. When you make a sim, you have to build a function. One key assumption of the function in this sim is that your chances to get the virus with wearing a cloth based mask are reduced (A=.7). However, there’s a reason so many health departments were saying don’t wear a mask unless your sick, because A is not .7, it’s greater than 1. How much greater is unknown, but the whole sim is based on an incorrect assumption.
Just to give one example: think about it this way, asymptomatic infected person 1 is wearing a cloth mask. They are breathing and the mask reduces how far the virus shoots out as the lab tests have shown. However, person 1 needs to readjust their mask and the moisture of the mask is a breeding ground for COVID. They readjust their mask and then go around touching everything. Healthy Person 2 also wearing a cloth mask then touches an infected surface. They also need to readjust their mask. Now a negligible amount of the virus is on their mask. However, given the moisture of the mask, the virus begins to multiply. Eventually the person is breathing in the virus with every breath they take.
HeatFanLifer wrote: Below is the link the study refers to. If you look at the study however, there is one fundamental flaw with the methodology located on the bottom of page 8:
While T (transmission rate with mask on) may very well be .7, there is a lot of evidence that the absorption rate with non-medical masks is greater than 1. It could be as as high doubling your chances of getting infected compared to not wearing a mask. So if you change A to 2.0 where 1.0 is base rate for catching virus without a mask, the whole study actually makes the case to NOT wear a non-medical mask if you do not have reason to believe you are already infected. Especially given the priority of providing the limited supply of medical grade masks to health care workers
I understand the logic in the document, but I didn't go deep into the stats; you're telling me that it says that you'd be at less risk without a mask than a non-medical one?
Keep in mind, this is a simulation. Not a study. When you make a sim, you have to build a function. One key assumption of the function in this sim is that your chances to get the virus with wearing a cloth based mask are reduced (A=.7). However, there’s a reason so many health departments were saying don’t wear a mask unless your sick, because A is not .7, it’s greater than 1. How much greater is unknown, but the whole sim is based on an incorrect assumption.
Just to give one example: think about it this way, asymptomatic infected person 1 is wearing a cloth mask. They are breathing and the mask reduces how far the virus shoots out as the lab tests have shown. However, person 1 needs to readjust their mask and the moisture of the mask is a breeding ground for COVID. They readjust their mask and then go around touching everything. Healthy Person 2 also wearing a cloth mask then touches an infected surface. They also need to readjust their mask. Now a negligible amount of the virus is on their mask. However, given the moisture of the mask, the virus begins to multiply. Eventually the person is breathing in the virus with every breath they take.
If there were more evidence that mask readjustment has led to more infections I'd be more inclined to believe it. Dont think it makes a lot of sense to tell sick ppl to wear masks and claim that asymptomatic ppl shouldn't, when they're in fact sick
And which Health department's are saying don't wear a mask if you're not sick? I've heard some orgs say that it isn't immediately necessary, but not a detriment to health
I understand the logic in the document, but I didn't go deep into the stats; you're telling me that it says that you'd be at less risk without a mask than a non-medical one?
Keep in mind, this is a simulation. Not a study. When you make a sim, you have to build a function. One key assumption of the function in this sim is that your chances to get the virus with wearing a cloth based mask are reduced (A=.7). However, there’s a reason so many health departments were saying don’t wear a mask unless your sick, because A is not .7, it’s greater than 1. How much greater is unknown, but the whole sim is based on an incorrect assumption.
Just to give one example: think about it this way, asymptomatic infected person 1 is wearing a cloth mask. They are breathing and the mask reduces how far the virus shoots out as the lab tests have shown. However, person 1 needs to readjust their mask and the moisture of the mask is a breeding ground for COVID. They readjust their mask and then go around touching everything. Healthy Person 2 also wearing a cloth mask then touches an infected surface. They also need to readjust their mask. Now a negligible amount of the virus is on their mask. However, given the moisture of the mask, the virus begins to multiply. Eventually the person is breathing in the virus with every breath they take.
If there were more evidence that mask readjustment has led to more infections I'd be more inclined to believe it. Dont think it makes a lot of sense to tell sick ppl to wear masks and claim that asymptomatic ppl shouldn't, when they're in fact sick
And which Health department's are saying don't wear a mask if you're not sick? I've heard some orgs say that it isn't immediately necessary, but not a detriment to health
Non-medical or cloth masks could increase potential for COVID-19 to infect a person if the mask is contaminated by dirty hands and touched often, or kept on other parts of the face or head and then placed back over the mouth and nose Depending on the type of mask used, could cause difficulty in breathing They can lead to facial skin breakdown They can lead to difficulty with communicating clearly They can be uncomfortable to wear It is possible that mask use, with unclear benefits, could create a false sense of security in the wearer, leading to diminished practice of recognized beneficial preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
Dr. Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer, has warned that it was not a good idea for the public to wear facemasks as the virus can get trapped in the material and causes infection when the wearer breathes in.
Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).
The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk
The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks, and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks. Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks.
Also, some say put a coffee filter in your mask to reduce how much is getting in, bad idea.
Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.
HeatFanLifer wrote: Keep in mind, this is a simulation. Not a study. When you make a sim, you have to build a function. One key assumption of the function in this sim is that your chances to get the virus with wearing a cloth based mask are reduced (A=.7). However, there’s a reason so many health departments were saying don’t wear a mask unless your sick, because A is not .7, it’s greater than 1. How much greater is unknown, but the whole sim is based on an incorrect assumption.
Just to give one example: think about it this way, asymptomatic infected person 1 is wearing a cloth mask. They are breathing and the mask reduces how far the virus shoots out as the lab tests have shown. However, person 1 needs to readjust their mask and the moisture of the mask is a breeding ground for COVID. They readjust their mask and then go around touching everything. Healthy Person 2 also wearing a cloth mask then touches an infected surface. They also need to readjust their mask. Now a negligible amount of the virus is on their mask. However, given the moisture of the mask, the virus begins to multiply. Eventually the person is breathing in the virus with every breath they take.
If there were more evidence that mask readjustment has led to more infections I'd be more inclined to believe it. Dont think it makes a lot of sense to tell sick ppl to wear masks and claim that asymptomatic ppl shouldn't, when they're in fact sick
And which Health department's are saying don't wear a mask if you're not sick? I've heard some orgs say that it isn't immediately necessary, but not a detriment to health
Non-medical or cloth masks could increase potential for COVID-19 to infect a person if the mask is contaminated by dirty hands and touched often, or kept on other parts of the face or head and then placed back over the mouth and nose Depending on the type of mask used, could cause difficulty in breathing They can lead to facial skin breakdown They can lead to difficulty with communicating clearly They can be uncomfortable to wear It is possible that mask use, with unclear benefits, could create a false sense of security in the wearer, leading to diminished practice of recognized beneficial preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
Dr. Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer, has warned that it was not a good idea for the public to wear facemasks as the virus can get trapped in the material and causes infection when the wearer breathes in.
Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).
The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk
The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks, and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks. Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks.
Also, some say put a coffee filter in your mask to reduce how much is getting in, bad idea.
Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.
Stand corrected on the WHO statement. Thanks for the correction. A little weary on the statement from Harries, but I'll look into it. The theory that non-medical masks are more detrimental to no mask is an interesting one, and should be talked about more if that's the case, but following the data on countries implementing mandatory masks in public- they're on the right side of the correlation in terms of success.
HeatFanLifer wrote:Everywhere I go people wear masks. Is this how it’s gonna be in the years ahead, even after COVID goes away?
I've been mostly impressed with people's ability to get used to wearing masks so quickly here, but the people who don't want to wear one out of spite or for personal freedomz really annoy me
Good to hear I annoy you.
I read the article below in the early stages of the virus and I am sticking to it in terms of why I’m opposed to most people wearing masks. Masks may be doing more harm than good.
In a lab study, sure properly trained individuals who use clean masks and don’t need to readjust the mask reduce the chances of spreading the virus if infected. But as Iggie noted, people are not wearing them properly and you gotta touch the mask a lot to readjust. This highly reduces any gained outcome of wearing a mask. Plus, the water droplets that accumulate on a non-medical mask from breathing make it MORE likely for someone to get infected.
Not wearing a mask isn’t about protesting for me. It’s using the freedoms of this country to determine what is in the best interest of my health. Government mask policies are using a draconian measure to achieve an outcome with very little analysis done to understand if the desired outcome is aided by the measure. Give people a choice.
The information I've seen strongly favors widespread mask use...open to changing my mind if the argument against was convincing, but I don't think it is at this point. Not really sure if we can define this as an issue of making the best personal health choices when our choices are so intrinsically linked right now, as is the case with pandemics. Someone else's choices can easily affect my health as well. Not saying the government can go full fascist under the circumstances, and I'm not really sure where the line can be drawn, but I don't think mask guidelines (that aren't even being strictly enforced in reality) cross that line.
I'm mostly annoyed at the people giving essential workers a hard time when they try to follow their employer's mask policies. Obviously the security guard shooting in Michigan was an extreme, but from talking to essential workers I feel bad that they have to deal with this on top of being at increased risk just from showing up to work.
Bishop45 wrote:"Let Iggie start the season brehs, was the wors that could happen"
I'm guessing it's an amalgamation of all the more relevant tactics to date from various experts. WHO's correct in saying that only the sick need masks, but with the rate of asymptomatic carriers- the CDC's recommendation of wearing one anyway is probably the more preemptive way to go
I don't wear a mask outside all the time, but I can see that it's necessary
Below is the link the study refers to. If you look at the study however, there is one fundamental flaw with the methodology located on the bottom of page 8:
Mask characteristics: Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T=0.7 and A=0.7
While T (transmission rate with mask on) may very well be .7, there is a lot of evidence that the absorption rate with non-medical masks is greater than 1. It could be as as high doubling your chances of getting infected compared to not wearing a mask. So if you change A to 2.0 where 1.0 is base rate for catching virus without a mask, the whole study actually makes the case to NOT wear a non-medical mask if you do not have reason to believe you are already infected. Especially given the priority of providing the limited supply of medical grade masks to health care workers
I understand the logic in the document, but I didn't go deep into the stats; you're telling me that it says that you'd be at less risk without a mask than a non-medical one?
I can explain this one Bish.
E=mc^2,
thus:
(E)mergency = (m)ask x iggie(C^2)
if we reduce the iggie coefficient to zero (i.e. ban iggie) the covid emergency will be over. problem solved.
HeatFanLifer wrote: Below is the link the study refers to. If you look at the study however, there is one fundamental flaw with the methodology located on the bottom of page 8:
While T (transmission rate with mask on) may very well be .7, there is a lot of evidence that the absorption rate with non-medical masks is greater than 1. It could be as as high doubling your chances of getting infected compared to not wearing a mask. So if you change A to 2.0 where 1.0 is base rate for catching virus without a mask, the whole study actually makes the case to NOT wear a non-medical mask if you do not have reason to believe you are already infected. Especially given the priority of providing the limited supply of medical grade masks to health care workers
I understand the logic in the document, but I didn't go deep into the stats; you're telling me that it says that you'd be at less risk without a mask than a non-medical one?
I can explain this one Bish.
E=mc^2,
thus:
(E)mergency = (m)ask x iggie(C^2)
if we reduce the iggie coefficient to zero (i.e. ban iggie) the covid emergency will be over. problem solved.
I 100% understand what you are saying and agree completely. If this season is cancelled, we must never let Iggie start the season again.
How does the consensus feel about the ruminations to finish the szn? It still sounds like a logistical nightmare to me, but it seems like a lot of powerful ppl want to see it happen.
They would have to re-invent the game, re-invent practice and make it look organic in a short period of time. If 1 person gets seriously ill as a result then the whole thing is likely over, not to mention all the medical upkeep that it would take to procure this for months on end while about 2000 Americans are dying daily
I'm probably not looking, but failing to find the positives there
Bishop45 wrote:Since there basically isn't an NBA thread:
How does the consensus feel about the ruminations to finish the szn? It still sounds like a logistical nightmare to me, but it seems like a lot of powerful ppl want to see it happen.
They would have to re-invent the game, re-invent practice and make it look organic in a short period of time. If 1 person gets seriously ill as a result then the whole thing is likely over, not to mention all the medical upkeep that it would take to procure this for months on end while about 2000 Americans are dying daily
I'm probably not looking, but failing to find the positives there
On top of that, they will have to regularly test all personnel. Taking away valuable tests for a game. As much as I like sports, a test can give a person the information they need to either get more serious medical help or keep themselves from infecting others. Can’t justify that trade.
