[endorphone]

"no known protective effect"

Right. No one has ever studied contagions among the community at large and the effect of masks. When you hear people say there is no evidence, this is what they are referring.

"is not thought to be any more protective than not wearing one"

This is taking that claim too far, and is seldom what they're saying. Or rather never what they are saying.

Early on there were PDAs that discouraged masks because a) there is a weird social effect in much of the West where people get panicky, and somehow view someone else wearing a mask as increasing the odds, or at least the reality, that they instead will get sick, b) to discourage personal buyers competing with medical buyers, c) because the odds of coming into contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier was very low, whereas it's high to very high for medical professionals.

We need to discard with that bullshit. We know with overwhelming evidence that masks work -- that's why medical professionals wear them -- and even the lowly surgical mask has the same effectiveness blocking pathogens in as they do out, especially aerosol pathogens like this one.

And of course we know that people can be spreading this without symptoms, so it would be a massive win just for that.

As supplies normalize and manufacturers ramp up, we're quickly going to be at a place where most in the West will be wearing a mask of some fashion, and it will be officially encouraged. This whole weird anti-mask paranoia will have cost lives.

Masks aren't a panacea, of course, They should be properly worn and rotated. Add that they increase the effort the lungs have to exert, especially N95 masks, so in a unfortunate irony people with compromised lungs -- the most vulnerable to COVID-19 -- have the most difficulty using masks.

[throwaway743]

>a) there is a weird social effect in much of the West where people get panicky, and somehow view someone else wearing a mask as increasing the odds, or at least the reality, that they instead will get sick

Definitely experienced the stigma of wearing one in public. Have had reactions ranging from stares to hurriedly moving away from me.

> We need to discard with that bullshit. We know with overwhelming evidence that masks work

To add, why else would NY ask older folks to wear masks when going outside?

Also, this NIH study adds to support that masks are effective.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453

[endorphone]

"Definitely experienced the stigma of wearing one in public"

People can be deeply illogical when it comes to personal protection. I did a summer stint during college with a factory, assembling some part of an air conditioner system for cars. This was done with huge, incredibly loud machines. Fiberglass. Etc.

The company offered ear plugs, eye protection and masks. No one used them. There was a 0% utilization rate. It was bizarre. I did, however, and earned snarky comments, critical suggestions, and lots of sideways glances. People really seemed to feel that my concern for myself made the threats more real.

I'd like to say that when I left everyone had followed the path I blazed, but it was the same as it always was. People still sabotaged their own health and hearing to avoid looking "paranoid".

[magduf]

Where was this?

I used to work as an intern at a shipbuilding company making aircraft carriers. People wore stuff when they were required to, so hard hats were always worn, and the attached earmuffs seemed to be generally worn when someone was working with something very loud.

However, at one point I was helping an inspection in a tank and there was a noxious odor, and I couldn't breathe in it. The shipyard worker with me went ahead and went in and did the test, but after this I tried to procure a respirator and they refused to get me one, saying it wasn't necessary for the work I was doing.

Music concerts are another place where you don't see people using personal protection much, though I will say that's changed in the last 10 years from what I've seen. I do see a minority (but a growing one) of people wearing earplugs, and we now have a lot of choices for "musician's earplugs" being sold which are designed to have a neutral frequency attenuation.

[throwaway_pdp09]

A quick scan and search does not use the word 'mask' or 'protection' anywhere I can see.

> why else would NY ask older folks to wear masks when going outside?

I don't know. Is there any evidence that significant proportion of experts are recommending this practice, and why BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.

[nullc]

> Right. No one has ever studied contagions among the community at large and the effect of masks.

It's been studied. There has not been a randomized controlled trial because performing one would be extremely unethical.

There is plenty of study evidence to support their use, just nothing meeting the gold standard of a RCT and there never will be one against a true live fire contagious disease.

The irony with all this is that the US administration really want to get people back to work as soon as possible. Massive deployment and mandatory usage would be the safest way to do that the soonest.

Too bad they already foreclosed that option by materially misleading the public.

[cyphar]

> Right. No one has ever studied contagions among the community at large and the effect of masks. When you hear people say there is no evidence, this is what they are referring.

Actually, they have[1,2]. According to one study, surgical masks helped cut down the community spread of SARS in Beijing by 70%[3]:

> Always wearing a mask when going out was associated with a 70% reduction in risk compared with never wearing a mask.

But if you're specifically referring to randomised trials on mask efficacy during an on-going pandemic, you're right that there are no such studies -- because it would be unethical. So effectively all of the relevant studies are retrospective (which does introduce recall bias), but these are basically the best studies we can do ethically.

[1]: https://medium.com/better-humans/whats-the-evidence-on-face-... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6993921/ [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322931/

[throwaway_pdp09]

> that's why medical professionals wear them

Of course we know it works for them, because in your own words "coming into contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier was low, whereas it's high for medical professionals"

> We know with overwhelming evidence that masks work

Yes they do, for medical professionals. I'm referring to non-medical situations, and I guess I didn't make that clear. I'm trying to understand why... well, I explained in my first post. I'm not looking for opinions but for actual solid evidence. Which someone (not you) actually provided.

[endorphone]

We don't work for you. Your various snotty replies aren't useful.

"Of course we know it works for them"

How does this anti-logic make any sense? Do you think the masks have a sensor that turns off the "works" bit if it's on the face of a medical professional or not?

This is bit like demanding to see research that gravity has an impact on alpacas. We know fundamentally how gravity has an effect on mass, so it follows. Just as we know the fundamental filtering ability, and contagion spread limiting, of masks, including even surgical masks. We know that the CDC is telling health workers that don't have masks to even use a bandana wrap, as not only does it stop face contact it has some limited utility in stopping the tiny droplets of liquid that are one of SARS-CoV-2's vectors.