Re:Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
by VectorLock on Wednesday August 19, 2020 @05:24PM
(#24216744)
>You'd lose 100% of that benefit. But 100% is still not much.
What would even be the point then? That'd just be reduced to obstinate anti-maskers wearing lace 'masks.'
Re:Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
by jlokier on Wednesday August 19, 2020 @07:04PM
(#24217897)
The GPP describes an inhalation value.
The mask still protects other people from transmission by you.
Anti-maskers wearing lace 'masks' does not protect other people.
They are completely different, and that is the main point of mask wearing for the general public - to protect each other by reducing the chance of ourselves transmitting it if we have it.
Re:Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
by VectorLock on Thursday August 20, 2020 @02:16PM
(#24226519)
Protecting others is the main point but protecting yourself is still very important and shouldn't be discarded.
You're pretty much back at ubiquitous and widely available surgical style masks at that point.
Why would it not be impacted? You'd be breathing in unfiltered air, and that's the main method of transmission.
It would be impacted. You'd lose 100% of that benefit. But 100% is still not much.