So does this mean that between:
- virus spreader wearing a mask + non-virus spreader not wearing a mask
And:
- virus spreader not wearing a mask + non-virus spreader wearing a mask
The former is safer for the non-virus spreader?
Meaning that we’re more dependent on those spreading the virus to be diligent about wearing masks, vs. those not infected to be wearing masks?
I’m trying to make sense of why we’re seeing more cases now vs. earlier in the year when there was less knowledge and awareness of masks, and this might partially explain it.
Mask on virus spreader: Mask will capture a very large amount of the viral load being shed.
Mask on non-spreader: Will filter some amount of the air you're breathing in and lower your initial viral load. Giving you either
A) a low enough dose your immune system kills it off or
B) a low enough dose your immune system has more time to mount a defense before the viral load in your body rises high, potentially leading to a more mild infection.
That's why we ALL need to wear a mask and stay 6ft/2 meters apart.
BTW, further is better 6ft is not a magic bubble.
Also there is aerosol transmission(floating covid in the air). Ventilation is CRITICAL for this to be stopped. Germany is spearheading ventilation as a way to stop the spread as far as I know.
They are making rules about intervals windows need to be opened etc.
Heres a BBC article covering Germany on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54599593
Here's a random blog that gets into it: https://dirkpaessler.blog/2020/08/13/corona-wie-co2-messgera...
So I don't wear one and I have never been in accident.
I still think it's highly likely that mask wearing is effective (even the shitty cloth masks with designer brands printed on them, and in a sense beyond it being a good idea to as a cheap precautionary measure), but the lack of convincing evidence of that is surprising.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
Please do keep in mind the time it takes to gather the data needed and then to write, peer review, and publish a rigorous epidemiological study.
You'd be very hard pressed to meet that standard in less than 9 months. Which means the first solid epidemiological evidence would not be available until, if we say that the epidemic went global in Feb 2020, until Nov 2020. And guess what, there it is!
I hate to say "right in front of your nose" because that's where the mask sits....
As others have pointed out, the reasons doctors wear surgical masks is because they prevent the spread of infection. Why do you think they are called 'surgical masks'? Why do you think doctors wear them?
The N95 standard (if you want to upgrade to a N95 mask) requires that the mask have a certain ability to filter out aerosols.
I would consider that pretty strong evidence that a (properly fitted) N95 would reduce your chance of exposure via aerosol transmission, and also reduce your ability to spread it to others via the same route.
Is this really so hard to understand?
If you prefer epidemiological studies linked specifically to Covid,
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Associati...
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%...
Still waiting for a very convincing evidence that most masks that people use actually do something. Agree that even with the lack of evidence, it's probably better to wear one, but it's pitiful that by the end of 2020 we still don't really know for sure.