[ironmagma]

We have plenty of science, hundreds if not thousands of years’ of scientific evidence, that solid objects stop particles. A mask in front of the face when there is an unknown disease is simply common sense, basic physics to be more precise. To say that you need hindsight to make this judgment is ludicrous. The only (legitimate) reason you would not want to encourage mask wearing is if there was some way the mask could actually make you more likely to catch the virus somehow, which there was no evidence of.

[masonic]

  basic physics to be more precise

Look at the actual physics of the size of the virus particle (even with the lipid envelope) vs the width of the weave in conventional masks. It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net.

The myth of mask = protection completely ignores that the eyes are a bigger attack surface than the nostrils or closed mouth. Eye coverage is at least as important as masks, yet it was always ignored by mainstream US media.

[jfengel]

It's not about either the particle or the lipid envelope. It's about the water particles containing the viruses. They get emitted when you breathe, and they are several orders of magnitude larger. The virus doesn't float around on its own.

The eyes are less of a problem because you don't breathe through your eyes. Only a limited amount of air contacts them, and no air is emitted from them.

Masks are at least as important for protecting others as for protecting yourself. They filter large volumes of air. Eye protection is useful if you're faced with people breathing directly in your face all day, but they're less important for people who can socially distance.

[ironmagma]

> It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net.

Yes, but given the choice of there being a volleyball net between you and a BB gun shooter and there just being air, which do you choose?

That would have been a good reason to suggest wearing masks and also goggles. Personally I was wearing goggles in the beginning for that reason and still make sure to wear glasses since there is some evidence that they can help too. One wrong is still better than two wrongs.

[mannykannot]

Blocking particles does not look like a solution unless you know what is causing a given disease. Medieval practitioners might have had some sort of intuition that this might be effective, but it was at most one idea among many mostly false ones, it dd not have any empirical support, and it did not translate into effective prophylaxis.

Like I said, you are proposing alternative science-based policies, which does not support the thesis of the article.

[ironmagma]

Again, this goes back to a tried and true principle, “err on the side of caution.” It’s true that masks don’t look like a solution unless you know that it’s a disease spread by the air. That is why you in the beginning adopt all manner of protections: handwashing, distancing, cleaning surfaces, wearing masks. None of this has to do with “alternative science,” whatever that refers to.

[mannykannot]

It remains a fact that everything you have proposed is also based on science, and so stands as an alternative way to "follow the science", not a repudiation of doing so. As such, it makes no refutation of the_dune_13's point.

[ironmagma]

I’m refuting the notion that “follow the science” is sufficient strategy for a pandemic or for anything. It’s in the category “necessary but not sufficient.” We also have to actually understand the science.

[mannykannot]

Fair enough, but the authors of this article vent most of their ire on policies of isolation and containment, which are scientifically respectable, demonstrably effective when employed effectively, and in conformance with your principle of caution.

[ironmagma]

Is not the purpose of HN to post links in order to spur conversation? If we only regurgitated what the article said all the time there would be no iteration of ideas.

[chrismcb]

At the beginning of the pandemic, many scientists were worried that a mask works make things worse... As people would touch the mask and readjust it constantly. The question is, what evidence do we have that masks work for the average person?