[mech1234]

The most interesting bit of misinformation that I've seen develop is the claim that N95 masks do not help when you are in public, despite the fact that they factually do help. The chain of events:

1. Concerns arise that respirator inventories will be depleted, leaving few or none available for medical personel. Media outlets spread this news.

2a. Thorough and factual news outlets spread the news that respirators have some effectiveness but are not a silver bullet. They may be used among other preventative measures. They talk about the differences between levels of effectiveness of dust masks and respirators.

2b. Sloppy outlets, and the ones more interested in helping the greater good (preventing hording), start lying, claiming that the dust masks do not work and respirators do not work. They often conflate the two. They go to the effort to shame hoarders and praise other people who practice washing and sanitizing hands, not touching your face, etc.

It's been fun and terrifying to watch. News outlets do not have an interest in giving a nuanced message. They are willing to lie if they think it helps. It's a good case study of when you should explicitly not trust a claim made by the media.

Meanwhile, I have a stack of 20 N95 respirators I bought for woodworking a year ago that I've been offering to friends and family. I've had no takers yet.

[Reedx]

Saying "they don't work" followed with "we need them" is especially blatant. It cancels itself out. After all, no one would need them if they didn't work.

Another recent example was this on CNN and others: "38% of Americans wouldn't buy Corona beer "under any circumstances" because of the coronavirus, according to a recent survey."

This spread like... well, a virus. Even after it was debunked[1], CNN didn't remove or correct it[2].

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/about-coro...

2. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1233406525491814400 https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/business/corona-beer-marketin...

[waterhouse]

I was finally able to get access to the full questions asked in the poll. These make clear that the survey was a fishing expedition designed to elicit viral stats. The questions asked in the poll include “Is Corona related to the coronavirus?” and “In light of the coronavirus, do you plan to stop drinking Corona?” Those presumably didn't get interesting answers, so they omitted them from the report, and instead published on the question of whether people "would not buy Corona under any circumstances now" and made it sound like the first questions. Good lord, it really is like the "Yes, Prime Minister" clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&t=28s

[0-_-0]

I like the quote under the video:

Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts — for support rather than illumination.

-- Andrew Lang

[xiphias2]

> Saying "they don't work" followed with "we need them" is especially blatant. It cancels itself out.

I have seen this lie/conflict of interest being told by Harvard medical board by the leaders of the disease fighting squad and I realized that I can't even know what other information I should believe from them.

[lm28469]

Is it crazy to think that if they work (and they do) they'd be much more useful if they're used by health workers than by the average joe ?

But to me the real question is how fucked up your country is if it isn't able to reallocate stocks to hospitals instead of supermarkets/online shops. France isn't China but they requisitioned factories to produce masks and disinfectant exclusively for hospitals and pharmacies.

[notacoward]

Is that really misinformation, or just people having different information (or understanding of information) than you have? I have talked to actual front-line doctors who have mentioned running out of medical-use-approved masks and have had to get emergency exemptions allowing them to use other N95s wherever they can find any. The shortage is already real, and likely to get worse since we're likely still in the early stages of this outbreak.

So yes, it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are. The question is what allocation best serves our public-health interest. People - even people much better informed and closer to the issue than either of us - can reasonably disagree without slinging the "misinformation" label. If that belongs anywhere, it's with people who present only one side of the story and then follow up by attributing motives they couldn't possibly know. ;)

[thaumasiotes]

> it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are.

But the misinformation at issue is the idea that masks don't help, not the idea that they do help.

[notacoward]

That might be an weakness in phrasing, not actual misinformation. Masks are (arguably) not effective enough to justify the risk to supply for those with suspected/expected exposure, but the "enough" part is easily lost as information gets passed through many people who all mean well. Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking.

[thaumasiotes]

> Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking.

When someone's hypothetical sloppy wording changes their statement from true to false, it's fair to call that "misinformation". Telling people false things is spreading misinformation. Spreading misinformation with a pure heart is still spreading misinformation. The state of your heart doesn't matter.

[notacoward]

"State of your heart" is itself a misleading phrase, implying good vs. bad or benevolent vs. malevolent when the operative distinction is intentional vs. unintentional. See how easy it is to misrepresent without meaning to? That distinction is well established in law, and most definitely does matter if people are calling for things to be censored.

[thaumasiotes]

> The distinction between intentional vs. unintentional is well established in law

Sure, this matters for things like negligence standards. Why would it matter here?

> and most definitely does matter if people are calling for things to be censored

Um... again, why? People usually call for censorship based on the content of the speech.

> This has nothing to do with the "state of one's heart" (nice strawman there)

I think you've confused our positions. I'm the one arguing that whether you're spreading misinformation has nothing to do with the state of your heart. You're the one arguing that it does. The whole argument you're making here is "even though this is misinformation, I would rather call it something else, because I sympathize with the people spreading it".

[sgeisler]

If you make it sound as if they didn't help on an individual level that's clearly misinformation (intentional or unintentional). That due to shortages there might be adverse societal effects is another matter.

I'd argue that it's intentional misinformation so that people make potentially[1] suboptimal personal decisions that lead to better outcomes for society at large. But that's not their call to make. Give me the facts and I'll decide for myself. Otherwise prepare to be called out.

[1] That might or might not be the case depending on personal risk profiles and dependence on a functioning society. Also: a functioning society is worth little to a dead rational actor.

[otterley]

The question isn't whether N95 masks are/are not effective against transmission of the COVID-19 virus as a boolean yes/no answer.

The question is who should be supplied with the masks in a time of extreme shortage in a way that is most effective for the public at large, in terms of maximum effectiveness and lifesaving. It's all about ranking - what's the priority ordering for distribution?

The CDC and other well-educated organizations believe they should go to hospitals and other health care providers first, infected people second, vulnerable populations third, and others last.

Popular greed combined with ineffective controls are upsetting this logical ordering, and increase the overall risk for the population as a whole.

[PeterisP]

If we're talking about the media claims that the masks are ineffective, then it's completely orthogonal to the issue of who should be supplied with the masks. If CDC and other well-educated organizations believe they should go to hospitals and other health care providers first, infected people second, vulnerable populations third, and others last, that still does not excuse lying to the public, as that erodes trust in these organizations and ensures that all other information (e.g. regarding quarantines) would be distrusted.

[Barrin92]

> then it's completely orthogonal to the issue of who should be supplied with the masks.

it's really not. The general population has already tuned out when you go into a ten paragraph long debate about the masks.

The question is what 140 character message you give to people that induces the correct behaviour and in this case it's telling people bluntly that those masks don't help so people stop hoarding them. And they honestly don't help because most people don't know how to wear them or how often to change them anyway, so it's basically a meaningless discussion.

[s1artibartfast]

it not really a ten paragraph statement:

Masks work, but healthcare workers need them more.

I think a seperate and perfectly valid question is if public consumption of masks has had any impact on the health supply chain.

My understanding is the two are unrelated. Masks are had to come by because manufacturers are selling their entire capacity to hospital and consumer stores are not being restocked. The state and the fed (in the US) have tens of millions of masks, and are releasing some but not all of them to the hospitals.

Hospitals are not competing for the masks at hardware stores or amazon.

If anything, I wish the media would urge people to wear masks with lower ratings than N95.

Perfect is the enemy of the good. Catching even half particulate when an infected person coughs would be huge.

[shalmanese]

Because then they would have to say the unsaid part which is "Masks work but we failed to adequately prepare so we need to ration them severely."

Every country that's managed to bend the R0 curve has had masks as an integral part of their strategy and that's only been possible because masks were made a deliberate part of their public health strategy for over a decade (mostly due to SARS). It's only one leg of the stool as Japan is finding out as one of the few mask-wearing countries that's not getting it under control but a stool with one leg missing is a pretty useless stool!

Western countries are paying the price for a decade of staring on and going "those kooky Asians with their strange mask wearing practices".

[otterley]

Which historically-trusted media companies are claiming that the masks are "ineffective"? At the end of the day, it's a red herring, but I'm still curious.

[PeterisP]

We can start with US Surgeon General (https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321... - "They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus")

And off the first page of duckduckgo: https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-face-masks...

https://time.com/5794729/coronavirus-face-masks/

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/how-to-avoid-coronavirus...

But yes, many media companies are giving an appropriate message of either why there's little reason to wear a mask right now (little chance of random community spread today) or about the allocation of scarce masks to people who need them more.

[s1artibartfast]

prevention /= harm reduction.

condoms aren't 100% effective, but still worth using.

[exolymph]

> The CDC and other well-educated organizations believe they should go to hospitals and other health care providers first, infected people second, vulnerable populations third, and others last.

> Popular greed combined with ineffective controls are upsetting this logical ordering, and increase the overall risk for the population as a whole.

Look, it's not my fault that gov't didn't prepare for this situation — high demand for masks — and that I did.

[otterley]

It's fine to be prepared, but if your local hospital rings you up and asks you for your stash, are you going to refuse?

[scarejunba]

A reasonable deal to me sounds like they can do one of three things:

* Procure from someone else

* Procure from me at my price

* Sign an irrevocable deal that at any point I will give them any N95 and P100 masks I have they desire and in exchange they will give me any healthcare I desire at any point. My life is no less valuable than theirs so I think this is fair.

[otterley]

The correct formula isn't what your lives are worth in absolute terms, though. It must be risk-adjusted. Specifically, one must calculate what lives are worth, multiplied by the probability of the hypothetical victim's vs. the current possessor's death due to not having a mask.

But again, this isn't so much an economic question as much as it is a moral one.

[scarejunba]

Oh it most certainly is a moral one, which is why I'm asking that you commit to save my life when it needs saving. Unless you somehow imagine that letting me die is morally desirable? At which point, it'll take a lot more to convince me.

If my life needs dollars to save, so does yours. And if you will take your pound of flesh, so will I. But I'm making an offer in good faith in your hour of need. I will not take a pound of flesh. I will take no thing. And in exchange, all I ask is that you do the same for me. Your reluctance to accept this tells me all I need to know about your so-called morality.

[waterhouse]

Well, how much will they pay you for it?

Seriously. If they pay something good for it, then that gives a decent incentive for forward-thinking people to do some stockpiling for situations like this. If they don't, and if they go as far as trying to punish "price gouging", then there is no such incentive beyond stockpiling for personal use or for sale on the black market.

[otterley]

Let us assume for the sake of argument, up to the manufacturer's suggested retail price. They're asking because they believe people will probably unnecessarily die if they don't get more right away.

[waterhouse]

Well, if people's lives are at stake, why not pay more? ("Why not accept less?" It's the hospital's job to care for its patients—not to mention its workers.) I suspect the cost of one of the healthcare workers getting badly sick one week earlier is worth many times the cost of one box of masks.

If you offer the retail price, then that effectively covers the case of people who accidentally bought too much and would have otherwise wanted to return the masks (but were too lazy until now?). It doesn't incentivize anyone to make any forward-thinking stockpiles; their net profit would be zero, minus the transaction and storage costs.

[petre]

In France, president Macron signed an presidential order last week requisitioning surgical masks and their production for healthcare use. Why isn't this possible in the US? Japan's prime minister, Abe Shinzo, altered the law to be able to declare formal state of emergency. He came under fire for poorly handling the outbreak.

[otterley]

The Department of Health and Human Services is doing just that:

> Late Wednesday night, HHS announced it would be buying 500 million N95 respirators over the next 18 months for the stockpile, “part of a broader effort to maximize the availability of personal protective equipment for health care workers who are on the front lines” fighting spread of the virus...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/05/washington-...

[s1artibartfast]

The whole topic is a red herring.

The production is going to the hospitals and the government also has a stockpile, which they are partially distributing.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-di...

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-di...

[zachguo]

Yup, it's not about the effectiveness of the masks, it's simply because the US doesn't have enough stockpile and capacity to produce them. All east Asian countries recommend citizens to wear masks.

[Aeolun]

A while ago I saw some research that came out of China. One department consistently used N95 when dealing with Corona patients daily, and one department used no protection when dealing with patients occasionally.

The department with masks had zero personnel infections, the department without masks had 20.

I don’t know, but until someone proves to me otherwise, the N95 and up rated masks are super effective.

[notacoward]

Which side of the debate were you trying to support? I don't think anyone disagrees that medical personnel should have masks. Some might say that's all the more reason that a finite supply should be allocated to them first.

[trhway]

>a finite supply should be allocated to them first.

i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage. Such things like masks cost nothing in normal times and anyway is expected to be bought in bulk. The medical industry is highly consolidated and even without a pandemic there is always a risk of a supplier going off-line and anybody without enough supplies in stores is going to hang dry. Speaking anecdotally - several years ago a Novartis factory went off-line for whatever reason and we were scrambling to find the vet medicine we needed - normal vets quickly run out, and only one online pharmacy happened to fortunately still have it.

[zamfi]

> i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage

They might have several months' supply under normal circumstances in storage -- but when suddenly all their staff need one 24/7 and they're overwhelmed with patients, that supply lasts days.

The supply needed to handle every possible contingency might not be reasonable to store.

[PeterisP]

There's nothing sudden or 'every possible contingency' here - they have had months to prepare for this exact thing, knowing what's coming and what measures would be necessary, based on the events in Wuhan. The lack of preparedness by the medical system is astonishing.

[zamfi]

Yes, of course they do now -- I interpreted the poster I was replying to as suggesting that hospitals keep this on hand at all times.

[Aeolun]

I wasn't particularly trying to support either side. I was just trying to make clear that 'some' masks are definitely effective in preventing infection, even if most masks aren't.

I just hate the reporting that says 'masks aren't effective, period'.

[bsder]

Medical personnel also have training to not touch their face, wash their hands repeatedly, and use disposable gloves.

Standard people do none of these.

N95 masks are useful in two cases: 1) medical personnel with training and 2) people actually sick so they don't cough it onto others.

For normal people, N95 masks have significantly decreased effectiveness since they don't cover your eyes.

[Aeolun]

N95 masks are utterly wasted on sick people. They prevent stuff coming in, not stuff going out.

The training needed to use the mask properly is basically ‘make sure it closes properly’ and ‘don’t touch the fucking thing unless you wash your hands afterwards’.

Seems fairly doable for the general population.

[nnq]

Masks ALWAY help, a little or more, in one way or other. Any masks. Period. If you have them or you can get them easily, use them!

They help because:

1. you have a significant chance of being already infected with a mild form and contagious even if you don't know it - wear a damn mask to protect the really vulnerable people around from your viruses!

2. any masks reduces even by a tiny amount the chance of infection - you eat more veggie fibers to reduce your chance of colon cancer by a single digit percent ...wear a goddam mask to reduce even if by very little the risk of catching (and then spreading) COVID-19!

3. by wearing a mask you'll be imitated by a few others and make it socially more acceptable for others to wear too - some of the people who end up wearing makes because of you are probably already infected and don't know it, so you'll have limited spread by promoting the "fashion"! (also, a few are probably immunodepressed or otherwise sensitive and might not even know it so simply copying a "fashion" could save their lives)

PLEASE, wear a mask, any masks, even wear it badly, but do! Do it for others and to slow the spread of disease worldwide enough to allow healthcare systems to have a chance of coping with it, and to give vulnerable or unlucky people developing the rare severe cases a decent chance of survival!

And wash your hands!

(Yeah, 50-70% of the human population will get this, eventually. But it's incredibly stupid if we get it all at fucking once! Unless you're shorting some stocks or pursuing a dubious political agenda, you don't want this to happen.)

EDIT+: ...but don't go the other extreme, buying them at exorbitant prices despite being healthy and not at high risk, or hoarding them.

[yellowstuff]

I read something saying that people with masks had been observed to take them off to eat, put them down on a dirty table, and then put them back on their face. So you should add the caveat that properly used masks always help, all else equal.

[nnq]

Using a mask like you described still helps significantly. (Would help 10x more if the user would put it in a damn plastic bag, not on the table!). If you wear the mask on crowded bus or subway and take it off when you enter a not-so-crowded-and-frequented caffe you still did a lot!

What would help a lot would be smth. like a high-power-UV portable box that could fit in a backpack (or a chemical equivalent), to allow at least some imperfect but useful re-sterilizing of masks... single-use N95s are hugely wasteful...

I think our current focus on "perfect" and "100% correct" (whatever that even means...) hurts managing pandemics A TON! An approach where we'd recognize the probabilistic nature of contagion and fight for +1% probability of desired-event-X1, -0.1% prob. of undesired-event-X2 etc. would be much useful... at whole-population scales all measures will be sloppily implemented in practice and we need to accept than and just "tweak the odds" until "we're mostly winning"...

(For sure, use better proven and standardized methods in hospitals and other settings with well trained people paid to implement measures correctly. But don't expect most of the average population to bother doing things the optimal way even when they've been educated about it... there's opportunity costs to everything, even to "giving a f"!)

[stubish]

Putting a mask on a dirty table and putting it back on again does not render using the mask completely useless. It just lowers the risk reduction a bit.

[blackflame7000]

> News outlets do not have an interest in giving a nuanced message. They are willing to lie if they think it helps.

Too many journalists today believe the ends justify the means.

[scarejunba]

I too, have a box N95 and some P100 I bought in preparation for California fire season way before this crisis. On the Internet, everyone is super concerned with insight porn style stuff. So "actually X won't" or "actually Y will". Well, they're welcome to that.

If the masks were useless healthcare workers wouldn't wear them because they do hinder working. So that leaves me, with my stack of masks from before the crisis. Yeah, I'm not going to throw them away.

EDIT: I'm rate-limited but I feel the same as user lvturner below.

Here's a fit test video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqcKHSIrrM

The following things are true:

* Masks are fantastic

* If you have them, use them

* The distribution of masks should prioritize healthcare workers for public health reasons

* Healthcare workers will not take a half-opened box of N95s and P100s.

There is precisely one conclusion: If you have masks, use the masks. They are great.

[lvturner]

Around 90% of the population of Hong Kong is wearing a mask right now. Despite the proximity to China, it's use as a transit hub and it's densely packed population - there are only 115 cases there.

While it's far from conclusive, I'd suggest this as valid evidence that the use of masks is helpful in reducing the spread of the virus.

[hef19898]

We simply don't have the data to back that up. And unless you are a domain expert, you wouldn't be able to reliably come to that conclusion even if we had.

[samatman]

We know that the sum total of what Hong Kong is doing is effective: rates of all infectious diseases in Hong Kong have dropped precipitously since emergency measures were put in place.

[lvturner]

I didn't state a conclusion, I stated that it was inconclusive evidence towards a hypothesis. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

[maccard]

> If the masks were useless healthcare workers wouldn't wear them

That's not how that works. The masks are less effective when used outside of a clinical setting, must be changed regularly (pretty much every time you take it off), and may prevent the transfer of disease from an infected healthcare worker to an otherwise vulnerable person.

Just because they're not effective for one situation doesn't mean all the advice is moot

[scarejunba]

Well, less effective isn't ineffective. The physical properties of the device don't change, so maybe the cost/benefit doesn't lie in buying them now, but I have my stack so it looks like it's worthwhile to use them.

[m3kw9]

There is disinformation about n95s. N95 is generally not useful for the public because they need to be fit tested to be effective. Front line workers needs them and use them properly and they are short of them because of the public. The public should use level 1-3 masks so they don’t spread viruses

[jogundas]

The most extensive writeup with references that I have seen so far is at https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp/ . Not sure if this is an original summary, or ripped off from some other site though.

[newtoday]

As others have corrected you on point 1 below, I know from a first hand account of 1 medical supply company in the US Midwest that is out of stock of surgical masks.

[PeterCorless]

The virus itself is too small to be stopped by an N95 mask.

An N95 mask stops 95% of 0.3 micron particles. But the virus itself is far smaller. Healthcare workers exposed to SARS-CoV got the disease even wearing N95s.

https://www.apsf.org/news-updates/perioperative-consideratio...

[ajross]

ARRGH, NO, STOP, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Sorry for the caps, but this stuff is important, and you are spreading exactly the kind of misinformation that the linked article complains about.

The study you link absolutely does not say that masks do not work. Here's what it ACTUALLY SAYS:

> N95 masks fulfill the filtering efficiency criteria of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and are approved for protection against droplet and airborne transmission of 95% of particles greater than 0.3 microns in size. N95 masks, which must be fit tested, are believed to offer protection against the contact and droplet spread of the coronavirus. At a minimum, N95 masks should be used for all known or suspected cases of 2019-nCoV, as well as for any asymptomatic “open airway’’ cases, e.g.: interventional pulmonology procedures

Basically: masks work. They don't work perfectly. You should use them if you are at risk.

Your nonsense about the virus itself being small is irrelevant. Respiratory transfer doesn't happen by virus molecules flying through the air, it happens on water droplets. The masks stop droplets. That's what they're for.

(They also prevent you from touching your nose and mouth, which is another preventative mechanism.)

[PeterisP]

Masks stop droplets, and reduce the spread by coughs and sneezes.

If everyone on your bus who's coughing is wearing a mask - even a simple 'surgical' mask not an N95 one - that means less chances of getting infected from them.

[wskinner]

The article you shared directly contradicts your claim.

> N95 masks fulfill the filtering efficiency criteria of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and are approved for protection against droplet and airborne transmission of 95% of particles greater than 0.3 microns in size. N95 masks, which must be fit tested, are believed to offer protection against the contact and droplet spread of the coronavirus. At a minimum, N95 masks should be used for all known or suspected cases of 2019-nCoV, as well as for any asymptomatic “open airway’’ cases...

[bad_user]

> "Meanwhile, I have a stack of 20 N95 respirators I bought for woodworking a year ago that I've been offering to friends and family. I've had no takers yet."

In absence of a sterilization method, they are going to last for only 20 days at most — since you can only use them once, for 8 hours max. I'd sell them for a premium actually to people thinking those 20 masks will save them.

Prevention methods need to be economically sustainable and practical. N95 masks are not only expensive and with an unreliable supply, but they are also pretty uncomfortable and most people don't wear them or dispose of them correctly.

[allovernow]

The idea is to stay at home and only wear a mask when you have to go outside, say, for groceries.

[jbob2000]

Here's why masks are useless: You are going to take your mask off with your dirty hands. You're going to wear your mask dutifully while outside, then you're going to walk inside your house and the first thing you will do is take your mask off - with your dirty hands.

There are so many gotchas with wearing masks that it's best to just leave them for the people who are closest to the crisis. They're the ones with the greatest need and they have the training to make them effective.

And besides... the coronavirus is not airborne, you need to be hit with a droplet from an infected person's cough or sneeze. There's such a small chance of that happening while you're out-and-about that it's not worth it to wear these things. The real solution is to wash your hands because that's the main vector of infection.

[mech1234]

You are claiming that the masks are useless. They are not. They have some effectiveness, and that effectiveness is limited. This is well-understood. Aerosol-based transmission is well-understood. Claiming that there are "gotchas" does not change the fact that wearing a mask reduces your risk.

You are doing the very thing that I pointed out as incorrect: removing nuance.

A more honest expression of your position would be "the limited effectiveness of the masks and their limited supply means that it is reasonable for the masks to be reserved for those who need them most." The honest debate around this position regards how much supply there is, how much individual liberty should dictate demand, and other such factors. The latter half of your post comes around to this, even though the first half is incorrect.

[baddox]

I thought the nuanced explanation is something more like "technically it's possible that a bit of material in front of your face could stop a droplet carrying a pathogen, but unless used as intended (which generally requires training) the masks are largely ineffective and you'll actually be less safe if you inaccurately estimate your risk due to thinking that a mask is an effective preventative device for you."

In other words, it's actually unnuanced for you to say "the masks are not useless." It must also be technically possible for a wide-brimmed hat to happen to block a pathogen-carrying droplet and prevent you from inhaling it. It's probably even possible that wearing a magnet around your neck could just ever-so-slightly nudge a single droplet and cause it to not enter your mouth or nose.

[achenatx]

there isnt much training required. I worked in a BSL 3 lab with aerosolized tuberculosis and the training was like 5 minutes.

Even if you touch the mask with your hands and it is contaminated, if you wash your hands after taking the mask off you will be fine.

The "you need training" is part of the media agenda.

I agree that statistically masks wont stop the virus from spreading in the public. While masks used by health care workers will stop the virus from spreading to health care workers. The reason is that most of the public wont use masks while all health care workers will.

[baddox]

I could have left out the training part of my comment because it's not important to my argument (although my guess is that you'd be very surprised how many people who wear these masks in public use them extremely cavalierly and improperly).

The rest of my argument stands if you drop the part about training.

[sgc]

It's not like there are week long courses on how to wear a mask. Most anybody watching a youtube video or two could wear a mask mostly correctly, so that it would mostly do what it is intended to do. Nothing is perfect, but the goal is risk reduction anyways. The correct response to the problem of improper mask use is give people the little bit of information they need and strongly encourage them to use that information, not fall into despair or indifference. I have a P100 mask with manufacturer published pandemic sterilization procedures for work[1]. It's not expensive and it's not hard.

And yes of course medical professionals need them before everyone else, but being shamed for taking basic precautions during a pandemic is just embarrassing for society.

[1] https://www.srsafety.com/us/products/pandemic-flu-kit-sr-100...

[jbob2000]

I don't disagree with you, but the risk reduction they provide is so little that you may as well call them "useless".

You should go buy a lotto ticket! There's a chance you could win!

[aeternum]

Masks provide extreme risk reduction for others if the wearer has the virus. Combine that with the 2-week incubation period and masks are quite effective.

Mask wearing was a law in SF during the 1918 epidemic and saved many lives. Once again, history is forgotten.

[achenatx]

the risk reduction is actually very high. But the probability of being in the presence of the virus is very low. Health care workers treating infected patients have a 100% chance of being exposed so epidemiological risk reduction is large.

I think the "useless" part actually refers to the the fact that the public at large wont be wearing masks so a few people wearing masks might protect themselves, but does nothing to alleviate the overall spread of the virus.

[PeterisP]

The probability for being in the presence of the virus is very low right now in USA, but it's quite high in many other places (e.g. Iran) right now and in USA in the near future.

If media can be pushed to destigmatize wearing of masks and stigmatize not wearing of masks, then this (combined with starting manufacturing large quantities of masks) would alleviate the overall spread of the virus in the post-containment mitigation phase, in which many countries are right now.

[JoeAltmaier]

I understand that wearing a mask doesn't prevent the wearer (for most common masks) but instead protects other people. Should you be a carrier. It slows the spread, which is a good thing?

[kps]

It's a matter of terminology; ‘mask’ has a narrower meaning than in colloquial use. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/UnderstandDifferenceInf...

(Compounding the confusion is that a reusable rubber respirator is also called a ‘half mask’.)

[mhb]

What is your basis for this? My understanding is that an N95 mask, worn by following the directions on the box, provides significant protection to the wearer. Also, if it has a vent for exhaling, that would suggest it is not necessarily such good protection for others.

[mech1234]

In matters of life and death, being careful is important. Taleb and others have a lot to say about tail risk, and coronavirus looks like a large tail risk to me. If I were a resident or planned an urgent visit in a Seattle nursing home I'd spend a good bit of money on PPE.

The lottery ticket analogy does not work well. I'm reminded instead of the scenes in the Chernobyl mini-series where individuals are sent into unknown dangers- dangers that are impossible to see, difficult to understand, and require conscious thought and effort to avoid. Resources are scarce and authority figures do not have sufficient information to keep everyone as safe as they should. Whether you survive or not comes down to both luck (whether your place and duties precluded you from any other option) and ignorance (whether you picked up a chunk of radioactive graphite with your bare hand). Using PPE is an effort to counteract your ignorance.

[whatshisface]

>You are going to take your mask off with your dirty hands. You're going to wear your mask dutifully while outside, then you're going to walk inside your house and the first thing you will do is take your mask off - with your dirty hands.

Now that you've warned me not to do that, won't masks work? I can access the same training materials as hospital workers.

Also, what if I get a little cough? If I'm walking by your house, I'm sure you would like me to be wearing a mask.

[jbob2000]

Reading training materials does not mean that you are trained. Who is going to slap your hand away from your face when you reach inside your mask to scratch an itch? What if you wash your hands, take of your mask, and then touch the door handle you touched with your dirty hands?

I can come up with these scenarios all day. The point I'm making is that the real way to protect yourself is to wash your hands. That's it. The mask does nothing unless you're literally being coughed on by someone who is infected.

[whatshisface]

>Reading training materials does not mean that you are trained. Who is going to slap your hand away from your face when you reach inside your mask to scratch an itch? What if you wash your hands, take of your mask, and then touch the door handle you touched with your dirty hands?

These same caveats apply to medical workers, who occasionally get sick while treating cases. Risk reduction isn't risk elimination but that doesn't make it pointless.

>The point I'm making is that the real way to protect yourself is to wash your hands.

You could also come up with scenarios where someone who was insufficiently trained would fail to protect themselves with hand washing. Here are some:

- Insufficient washing time.

- Touching handle before and after.

- Only using water.

No measure is perfect, and I think we can all agree that a measure with a less-than-100% chance of working (whether hand-washing or mask wearing) is better than nothing.

[jbob2000]

It's not "better than nothing" if purchasing and wearing these masks is affecting people who actually need them. No official organization is advocating for their use. It is pure fear-mongering to purchase and wear them as a healthy person. Here's what the CDC says:

> CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19.

> Facemasks should be used by people who show symptoms of COVID-19 to help prevent the spread of the disease to others. The use of facemasks is also crucial for health workers and people who are taking care of someone in close settings (at home or in a health care facility).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/prevention-t...

[kps]

CDC uses terminology that distinguishes a facemask from a respirator, as you will see from following the first link (‘health workers’) on the page you linked.

> … patients should wear a facemask to contain secretions.

> Use respiratory protection (i.e., a respirator) that is at least as protective as a fit-tested NIOSH-certified disposable N95 filtering facepiece respirator before entry into the patient room or care area.

[Seenso]

> Here's why masks are useless: You are going to take your mask off with your dirty hands. You're going to wear your mask dutifully while outside, then you're going to walk inside your house and the first thing you will do is take your mask off - with your dirty hands.

The problem isn't so much touching the respirator with dirty hands, its getting your hands dirty by touching a contaminated respirator.

Here's how to remove a mask without touching the (possibly contaminated) front:

N95 3M mask: How to Wear & Remove (by Singapore General Hospital):

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

[knzhou]

Come on, this is a trivially refutable opinion. If masks don't work, then why do healthcare workers need them?

[achenatx]

I believe it is an epidemiological/statistical reason.

Health care workers have a 100% chance of coming into contact. We cannot afford for them to be sick.

The vast majority of people wont be wearing masks so a few people wearing masks wont stop the spread so it is pointless. Even if you do wear a mask your chance of coming into contact with virus is low so you are wasting a mask for little to no statistical gain.

The n95 masks are very effective.

[knzhou]

There's a difference between "X doesn't work" and "given the current circumstances it would be useful if many people believed that X doesn't work".

[sgift]

There's also a big difference between "x works very bad for the untrained population, but let's pretend it doesn't, because my worldview demands some media conspiracy" and "x works well".

[knzhou]

East Asian countries have almost everybody wearing masks. I really don't think using these things is as complicated as you're making it out to be.

[baddox]

Presumably there are lots of medical devices that are very useful to trained healthcare workers that are not useful for other people.

[playpause]

It is possible to encourage positive collective behaviour without sacrificing making sense.