They might be right about the actual plane ride because the filtration systems on modern (read 20 years old or newer) are really good. Public busses tend to be a disaster for air filtration though, especially in winter when no windows are open. I wish there was some better research/more accessible research on this.

Even if the plane's filtration is good, if the person 3 feet away from you is coughing it's not going to be that good. I'd rather rely on the combination of filtration & a mask. Defense in depth.

Day to day i'm not religious about masking, but for things like public transportation, airplanes, etc I try to always have face protection on.

Pressurized airplanes have air changes per hour in the 12-16 range. That's above the ASHRAE recommended 6-12 air changes per hour for places that may contain viruses. (Obviously, ASHRAE isn't the CDC or healthcare organization directly, but they do know a few things about standards setting for HVAC.) Excellent filtration isn't as relevant when the average air molecule is in the aircraft for only 5-10 minutes.

The standard for AC/H for offices is 3-4.

The studied COVID outbreaks on planes show that this still isn't sufficient. I'm also pretty sure I got sick from the kid sitting directly behind me on the plane when I got influenza.

You can site all the statistics and propaganda in the world about plane ventilation. It clearly isn't enough to prevent viral spread (I don't care about air changes per hour or cfm or anything else, the only endpoint worth discussing is viral spread--I give precisely zero fucks about how fast the air is moving around). I'm using n95s on planes from here on out.

The real hazard is when you're on the ground. I've seen cabin C02 levels above 3000ppm when the cabin air handling hasn't been turned on!

I'll take my mask off to eat/drink in the air, which I didn't do the one time I had to fly mid-pandemic.

anecdotally, this is marketing bs / wishful thinking.

I've been on a handful of flights in the last 2 years where the air system didn't work at all, and others where the climate control system was otherwise failing (80°F). This is accentuated by stale air when you embark and disembark when the aux generators aren't providing power.

How old were the planes that this happened on? There has definitely been a dramatic improvement over the years. I remember flying in the 90's and pretty uniformly feeling like I needed at least a good face wash, if not a shower after any flight longer than a half hour. Now this only happens when I am unlucky enough to get stuck on an old aircraft (i.e. the original westjet 737's still get me with this). I swear I saw a paper on this being tested showing particle diffusion on some newer crafter being really impressive for how it kept your particles around you until they were removed and replaced with fresh ones fairly quickly but I can't remember enough to find a link to the study to back this statement up.

These flights were in the last 2 years on a top tier (US though) carrier on domestic flights; 1 was a very regional flight, where , as you post, an older plane might expect it -- but if anything, that any planes in a top tier carrier that markets itself as Covid ready are expected to be bad is typical of how much bs this is.

Yep. I went from being sick roughly one week out of every 1-2 months before covid to only getting sick maybe once a year now that I mask in public places, thoroughly wash my hands with soap every time I arrive somewhere, and occasionally wash my phone. Never going back. This whole "train your immune system" thing is BS. Hygiene is important!

I muse to myself ... masks do in fact "train your immune system". Since they are no where near perfect, pathogens do make it though. However, the "initial viral load" is much smaller, giving your body more time to mount an effective defense. So, I would like to believe you are not neglecting your immune system by masking, but rather just being less sick, on average.

I want to carry you on my shoulders among a cheering crowd.

> However, the "initial viral load" is much smaller, giving your body more time to mount an effective defense.

That's a myth from the early pandemic. Viral dose doesn't correlate with disease severity:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-11-relationship-viral-do...

But:

the likelihood of becoming infected may rise with the size of that "dose."

So a small dose might still prime the immune system even if you don't get sick.

> the likelihood of becoming infected may rise with the size of that "dose."

This is correct.

> So a small dose might still prime the immune system even if you don't get sick.

This does not follow.

If you don't get infected following a small dose, you'll have fought it off with your innane or intrinsic defenses. You won't generate any humoral immunity, form T-cells or B-cells or neutralizing antibodies and won't be any better off for the next round with the virus.

Most everyone I knew when I worked in a grocery store basically never got sick, including my dad. He’s get sick once every 4-5 years maybe. People would call in sick, but it would be to miss a day.

Working in a grocery store, especially as a cashier, can be unpleasant to disgusting at times, especially when cash was a bit more common. I think you’re around everything all the time that your immune system tends to beef up a bit.

Conversely, the kids are getting hammered in winter time the last few years after covid after not getting sick between 2020-mid 2021.

I’m not so sure that humans evolved to avoid illness, despite how unpleasant it is.

This comment is an indirect appeal to nature: protecting yourself from exposure to pathogens is better than low level exposure if your intention is to not fall ill. I've seen a number of ill-looking grocery store employees (coughing, sneezing, sniffling, the works) before, during and "after" COVID.

Wearing masks does not compromise one's immune system: it just shields you from exposure to respiratory bugs. Kids are getting hammered because people have relaxed on wearing masks, so they are now more exposed than before.

> A few years ago I thought personal masking didn't really matter.

I have always looked at Japan as a mixed bag of things that the entire planet will be doing in 10-100 years (yes, even sex bots and other forms of liberal individualism). I am so glad that at least parts of the west have caught onto the practice of masking up when sick, if there were ever a silver lining from the pandemic.

I'm still looking for a solution to the mask straps biting into my ears on planes, but a few hours of discomfort is still way better than being sick when I get to/back from my destination.

For flying; try cutting the elastic and then tie both sides together behind your head. May make it a bit more snug on your face (which helps prevent your glasses getting so fogged up) but no back of ear pain at least :}

Cut the elastic ear loops off of an old mask and tie it to the elastic on a new mask to bridge the gap between the new mask ear elastics (or use a piece of string) so the pressure is on the back of your head.

If you fly a lot, there are also very likely commercial solutions for this.

A well-fitting elastomeric respirator is comfortable and much cheaper than n95s in the long run, but it will get more looks in public. If you're the kind of person who cares about that, just use 3m Auras.

>I'm still looking for a solution to the mask straps biting into my ears on planes

Try getting a proper N95 instead of a flimsy ear-loop mask: https://www.amazon.com/3M-Aura-Particulate-Respirator-9205/d...

N-95 masks are rated to capture 50 um (micrometer).

COVID-19 is 10.5 um. Water droplet to carry them just a tad bit above.

Hydrostatic testing to get that 50um in N-95 mask were based on 8.0 pH Latex hydrostatic droplets.

COVID-19 best infection spread rate is at 5.8-6.2 pH (opposite spectrum of Latex's pH).

So, more will pass thru that mask unhindered.

Not really. Due to brownian motion and diffusion the mask will catch almost all particles anyway.

The mask is rated to capture 95% of airborne particles generally, but it’s efficiency doesn’t correlate to the spacing within the filter media.

Brownian motion gets impacted if ions repels (as well as attract) at molecular and atomic level. And like pH, it has ions depending on where across the pH spectrum.

Now if they would construct a hydrostatic test using 5.8 to 6.2 pH aerosolizer, then the data becomes more robust.

These numbers are suspect, and the conclusions are wrong. Filters don't work that way.

Pray, can you elucidate on your non-factual statements?

I have a smile that could sink a thousand ships so I consider wearing a mask to be a public service to the rest of you.

thank you for your service