[trhway]

a good mask will help when you're occasionally visiting an infectious patient in a hospital. There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus, and the people in the country have no resources for any prolonged lockdowns. Add to that that the top people in Russia, like in any other country, receive highly personalized healthcare, and that means that they have practically no risk of death from Covid as it is a very treatable given enough resources (antibody injection, etc. under very personalized treatment resulting in just few days of "bad flu" - i.e. while infection-wise Covid doesn't distinguish much, outcome-wise it is very socially unequal decease).

[strogonoff]

> There is nothing, short of full bio-defense suit, that can help in the densely packed Moscow (or any other large Russian city) subway or bus

A mask is very effective and is worn for others, not yourself. At any point in time you might be carrying asymptomatic or not-yet-symptomatic COVID. Your mask prevents your saliva from flying in the air around you, protecting people near you and their parents/susceptible relatives this might get passed on to.

And if it’s against your interest when emergency healthcare can’t help your sick child because they have not enough resources due to COVID patients, then over long term wearing a mask is actually for yourself, too.

[DanBC]

> A mask is very effective and is worn for others, not yourself

You have no evidence to support this point.

Scientists (WHO, CDC, Lancet, etc) don't say "masks are very effective", they say that masks _may_ help prevent the spread, but only if they're part of a package of preventative measures. They all say that distancing is much more important than mask wearing.

[strogonoff]

I think “very effective” is a subjective turn of phrase and no self-respecting org would use it in official communication.

That said, I believe it is settled that airborne transmission happens via saliva droplets, and a properly worn, clean mask is great at stopping those from traveling further than your face (physics) without harming your own health.

Also, I believe it is wrong to equate WHO, CDC messaging with “scientists”. Those organizations are careful not to make specific claims that masks are great at preventing the spread, since a mask is pointless if it’s not a suitable mask (e.g., lets large enough particles through) or is worn badly, since human error is unavoidable, a dirty mask is actively dangerous to the wearer, and over-reliance on improperly worn masks could result in a disaster.

Does it mean we shouldn’t bother deploying our individual common sense in equipping masks? That we wouldn’t make a positive difference to the spread by wearing a good mask properly? I disagree.

Also, having been to crowded subway trains of Seoul recently, I question the claim that Russian cities are somehow crowded enough to render masks useless.

[trhway]

>A mask is worn for the others, not yourself.

so, imagine one "other" without a mask and everybody around in masks (actually "face coverings" which allow air in/out from sides) commuting everyday in a densely packed bus. Do you think that "other" has much improved chances when aggregated over several months? (again, i'm not arguing against proper mask's efficiency during occasional exposure)

[admax88q]

Yes, I don't see why they wouldn't. If everyone is wearing masks then the likelihood of transmission is lower. Also the viral load of any transmission may also be lower, which could improve the outcome.

[trhway]

i'm not arguing against [proper] masks lowering the transmission chance in any given case. I just don't see it having any aggregate effect. Basically i don't see the local effect translating into global.

The herd immunity is 2/3. If say 1/3 of population has already some pre-existing immunity (from casual reading of Internet it looks that some noticeable share of population does have it for Covid and it seems larger than 1/3) then the total infection rate until herd immunity is reached is 1/3. The Spanish flu hit 30% of human population for example.

So, for Moscow 1/3 is 4M. They already got 0.5M cases and currently is having, despite the tight masks/gloves/partial lockdown measures, 7K/day cases. I don't see why would it slow down, and if anything i suppose it will only go up in the coming several months. Thus in the year they will have a total of 2.5M of officially registered cases. If one adds non-detected cases one can see that it is would be in the ballpark of 4M. I.e. herd immunity, end of pandemic, masks or no masks, lockdown or no lockdown. Basically like Spanish flu scenario, and i personally just don't see how the numbers can play differently.

[admax88q]

> Basically i don't see the local effect translating into global.

Global effects are the sum of local effects. I don't see how you can simultaneously believe that a mask lowers the local transmission rate without effecting the global transmission rate.

[nthj]

This argument fails to include at least 3 factors:

1) A slower infection rate prevents or at least helps with “flattening the curve,” that is, avoiding overwhelming health care systems, which impacts both COVID and non-COVID patients

2) A lower initial viral dose seems to lead to better outcomes (lowers mortality rate)

3) We are seemingly within reach of effective vaccines

[trhway]

1) instead we've had empty hospitals and a lot of non-COVID patients didn't get various treatments which they would have gotten overwise. Plus economic hit to the hospitals, and that most probably will have impact on the future patients. Hardly a win, if any.

2) Would be a win if it is so. I haven't yet formed even a barely informed opinion. It looks like a new development though, and I don't remember such thing mentioned about other viruses.

3) which is why i put the numbers only up to a year ahead as any mass vaccination doesn't seem happening earlier than that.