Re:No need for healthy to wear face masks, says WHO after re...
by kazinator on Wednesday April 08, 2020 @02:33PM
(#22815607)
Dr. Keevil of Southhampton:
> “Cloth masks and poor quality surgical face masks will not filter fine respiratory droplets, and certainly not aerosols, which some are now claiming to be an infection risk,” he said. “The major question that needs to be addressed is: what about protecting the eyes, a known route of entry?.”
"People die while wearing seatbelts, therefore don't bother wearing one."
Even if you neglect to protect your eyes, a mask reduces your chances of infection. The eyes are in contact with the air, but do not inhale it. Moreover, let us compare surface area. The surface area of the eyes is tiny compared to that of the respiratory tract. If we include lungs, it is no contest: the internal surface area of the lungs is supposedly something like 20 to 60 m^2. A mask sets up a firewall protecting your 40 square meters of lung. If the mask reduces the probability of infection even by 50%, it's like cutting out half the square meters of exposure.
Various other kind of fallacies are circulating about masks some of which are roughly analogous to: "drivers should not wear seatbelts because seatbelts alone do not save lives. Safe driving prevents accidents and saves lives. Seatbelts create a false sense of security, encouraging unsafe driving habits like speeding. However, if you're a passenger, you may wear a seat belt as a personal preference."
From now on, I'm using seatbelt analogies to ridicule and expose the absurdity of anti-mask rhetoric.
> “Cloth masks and poor quality surgical face masks will not filter fine respiratory droplets, and certainly not aerosols, which some are now claiming to be an infection risk,” he said. “The major question that needs to be addressed is: what about protecting the eyes, a known route of entry?.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
"People die while wearing seatbelts, therefore don't bother wearing one."
Even if you neglect to protect your eyes, a mask reduces your chances of infection. The eyes are in contact with the air, but do not inhale it. Moreover, let us compare surface area. The surface area of the eyes is tiny compared to that of the respiratory tract. If we include lungs, it is no contest: the internal surface area of the lungs is supposedly something like 20 to 60 m^2. A mask sets up a firewall protecting your 40 square meters of lung. If the mask reduces the probability of infection even by 50%, it's like cutting out half the square meters of exposure.
Various other kind of fallacies are circulating about masks some of which are roughly analogous to: "drivers should not wear seatbelts because seatbelts alone do not save lives. Safe driving prevents accidents and saves lives. Seatbelts create a false sense of security, encouraging unsafe driving habits like speeding. However, if you're a passenger, you may wear a seat belt as a personal preference."
From now on, I'm using seatbelt analogies to ridicule and expose the absurdity of anti-mask rhetoric.