If masks contain spread and everyone wore one, it would lead to less cases.
The problem is that there are not enough masks to go around. But if there were, i would recommend everyone wears them. Just so it would make it socially acceptable to wear one if you are sick.
Few if any people with it know the exact time they become symptomatic and start viral shedding. Everyone should assume they might be sick when in public and could be shedding. With this standard everyone would wear a mask.
Masks work, but needs to be disinfected when you get home. (Using steam. Microwave, a plate of water, mask above the water, 3 minutes is the minimum with steam bags, so let's try 10 minutes without bag.)
It has been proved that most of those masks sold simply aren't closely sewed enough to stop the droplets containing the disease.
So in general the mask don't help.
Secondly the mask only help avoiding spreading the virus from yourself to other and it doesn't protect from receiving the virus
Please stop spreading this false information and have a look at the infection numbers in China. The masks stop droplets coming from your mouth and nose and if everybody wears them, then they are a very effective mean to massively slowing down the spreading of the virus.
No, the masks are not 100% virus tight. Yes, they prevent spreading of diseases. That's why they are worn by surgeons.
They are 20 cents a piece, that's nothing compared to the current economic costs of useless social distancing as long as people still go to work. Unless we stop the economy, masks and hand sanitizer are the way to go.
It's really baffling that the WHO is actively recommending _against_ face masks. They even go as far as saying not to wear a mask _even if you already own one_ which they arguably wouldn't do if they were worried about shortages.
I mean, maybe they're going for the social dissaproval angle - you can stop people from hoarding masks by making it socially bad to wear a mask, but that seems misguided if true.
The information about masks is from a public health perspective and not a personnel health perspective due to a global mask shortage. Just because it’s better for society as a whole that all PPE go to where they can help the most people, doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the best result for you as an individual.
If there were an infinite supply of masks the advice would be entirely different.
Not directly, but they are stating they are not recommended, when in fact, they help a bit:
- wearing something on your face will help you remember not to touch your face. It's not much, but it's something to reduce spread by hand to mouth contact.
- if the mask has good filtration (N95+, sealed on the side), it still offers some protection against dropplet.
- if the person wearing it is infected but asymptomatic, they will reduce, at least a bit, the spread (e.g. when sneezing), as long as they're not wearing one with a valve.
So, some protection is better than no protection. Consequently, It's difficult for me to understand why discouraging people from using face masks is a good idea.
Use it properly and keep social distancing, while regularly cleaning your hands.
The mask not only keeps airborne droplets in, or out. It keeps the wearer from touching mouth and nose involuntarily. This helps protect against smear infections!
I noticed this when I was wearing one during a flu infection. My fingers were frequently surprised to touch the mask instead of my face, and I went "oh, right, don't do that!"
This. Despite trying to be continuously concious about touching my face I am sometimes surprised that I absent mindedly do it. And now when I do it I am reminded and I immediately pull out my little bottle of hand gel and lather up.
It's interesting how much different, and even opposing information is floating around. Just the other day I read an article that said masks are bad because you will and need to touch your face more often...
Regardless, most reputable source for advice is probably from WHO, even though my gut feel/logic would tell me otherwise.
Most objections to masks are simply made up to justify not having to wear one. That claim is also not backed up by anything but a gut feeling, mind you :-)
The relevant question is not whether droplets can bypass a mask or not.
The specific question that is relevant is, given droplet exposure containing COVID, are there any differences in infection rates for people wearing a mask (use different levels of mask protection for comprehensiveness, from bandana to N95) versus without a mask?
A mask can be only 10-20% effective but still show a clinically relevant result. If you think about the effectiveness of washing your hands to prevent getting sick, it is probably a low reduction but it is still highly recommended.
People do not argue against hand washing just because the virus can still get into your system through other means. They support hand washing despite its imperfections.
> Secondly the mask only help avoiding spreading the virus from yourself to other and it doesn't protect from receiving the virus
Doesn't this contradict your first statement? In fact the statement contradicts itself, stopping spreading the virus from one person to another by definition protects from receiving the virus.
Not necessarily. If the primary vector is respiration but the reception can be through mucous membranes, then a mask that doesn’t cover the eyes (or doesn’t protect hands which later rub your eyes), then a mask would be more effective on those infected than it would be for those not infected.
As far as I know a mask is more effective to contain when worn by the infected. But that doesn't mean the not-infected (including those who mistakenly think they are not infected!) to not wear one. Because it does protect. Not only from airborne droplets but also from smear infections.
Reducing the likelihood of infection by ten percent can make the difference between eradication and an epidemic.
The virus is not airborne, it is spread is small droplets. Those are effectively reduced by all kinds of masks.