[kurthr]

I'm not sure what aspect of the "mask wearing" you doubt, but I don't have much doubt in the germ theory of disease, and I've been suggesting wearing a mask since Feb, because it works against just about every communicable respiratory disease from bacteria to virus (or pollen or asbestos). I'd recommend eye protection for COVID as well, because the eyes (along with the lungs) appear to be a higher risk aerosol entry point than the stomach through the mouth.

Whether vitamin D has any effect is still very much unknown.

[waterhouse]

Then you were ahead of the WHO, which, according to an article from March 30: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-r...

"(CNN) World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.

"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday."

Certain institutions seem to use the epistemic standard "if something hasn't been rigorously proven to be a good idea, then you shouldn't do it". It's the kind of logic that, consistently applied, would say you shouldn't use parachutes in skydiving because there haven't been randomized controlled studies establishing their effectiveness. I think this is what incrudible is arguing against.

How did such logic take hold in the first place? My first guess is that it's something like, that's the type of logic that lets them definitively say "you shouldn't take xyz homeopathic remedy" instead of "well, our expert doctor says he doesn't expect it to help but he can't completely rule it out, and there isn't any good evidence that it does work".

[kurthr]

The point is that half of all carriers and many of the superspreaders are "asymptomatic" as far as they are concerned so how would you know if you were sick to protect others or yourself. That article sounded fairly idiotic then and still does now. Would you want your surgeon operating on you without a mask? Why not? Should they wash their hands, if they think they're clean?

This is a recent paper on masks... https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(20)30072-6

[gnusty_gnurc]

> because it works against just about every communicable respiratory disease from bacteria to virus (or pollen or asbestos)

ignoring that masks are a perfect environment for debris and bacteria growth, as well as impeding natural expiration of all these gross things

[tasty_freeze]

This, to me, sounds like the people who claim seat belts cause more deaths than they prevent because they think "being thrown clear of the car" in an accident is safer than being inside during the crash.

I wash my mask with soap after every use, and let it dwell in the soap for half a minute or so. When the weather is right for it, I leave it in the sun to dry. I have a small collection of masks that I rotate through. How infrequently do you disinfect your mask that you worry about it being a petri dish?

Secondly, those gross things you mention at the end were already inside your mouth and lungs. If they are infectious, you probably already have the infection.