Contributor
This is most definitely not the conclusion my employer has reached. We have required masks on campus since mid-April, and early on decided that for visitors, cloth masks were acceptable for this purpose.Originally Posted by Robert Engel
Lest you think, "so what," my day job is as an executive at the Mayo Clinic. I trust the infections disease experts and epidemiologists who advised us on that decision.
Contributor
It just boggles my mind that in the small town where we shop, it has taken Walmart's action to get most people to even consider wearing a mask. Farm store? Maybe one in ten patrons masked. Grocery store, ditto. A few businesses have been welcome exceptions. The local food coop required masks from the day they re-opened for walk-in traffic, after only doing curbside pickup for 2 months. No problem with compliance.
[OP]
Contributor
Question for the mathematically gifted: When it comes to the 'protection factor' of wearing masks, when factoring in 1 mask wearer within a group of non-wearers, vs all persons in a group wearing, would the exponential-increase thing (see, I don't even know what it's called) come into play or would it be more simple than that?
I'll try to better explain: I was googling for an answer to how effective masks are, never found one I was looking for, such as "wearing a mask makes you X-times less likely to contract or spread the virus."
I have no clue as to what the number may be, or even if such numbers could be applied in this scenario. But for the sake of argument, lets say they can, and that a mask makes you 3x less likely to spread or contract the virus. This assumes you wandering amongst a group of wearers and non-wearers -like 2 weeks ago at Walmart...
Given that, how then would the factor of 3x less likely increase, assuming you're wandering around amongst a group that are ALL wearing? Would the factor increase exponentially, or simply double, or not change?
if exponentially, would an entire group of wearers then be 9x less likely to catch/spread the virus? Or if simply doubled then 6x less? Or would or no change would remain at 3x... Which is STILL better than the 0x protection of not wearing
Hope that made sense, as I AM curious...
========================================
ELEVEN - rotary cutter tool machines
FOUR - CO2 lasers
THREE- make that FOUR now- fiber lasers
ONE - vinyl cutter
CASmate, Corel, Gravostyle
Contributor
I have no idea how accurate this is. It was sent to me, as a text message, by a friend who is a lunch lady at school. For some reason the lower most image is cut off it should read 1.5%
Bill D.
Contributor
Here is another graphic on masks:
No Mask One Mask Two Masks.jpg
There is another graphic that may be too risqué to post here. It can be found on Google images > are fabric masks sensible meme < It compares masks to wearing pants during a different bodily function.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Contributor
Mask or no mask. I'm so confused by all the data that keeps popping up , that contradicts the other data. Who knows what to believe anymore. I for one will wear a mask when around others in a store simply because I've had a transplant that went horribly wrong and don't want to go through that again. But it boggles my mind to see the employees at Walmart who are "wearing their mask" on their chins. Not doing a whole lot of good Karen! Well, I guess they can tell their supervisors that "I was wearing my mask. You didn't specify how or where".
My Dad always told me "Can't Never Could".
SWE
Contributor
The Math is really simple. It's an odds thing. The number that matters, is the overall average number of people that infected people spread it to. If that number stays below 1, the number of infections goes down. You can see by this, that any one thing that is done to cut down on the spread, will make a difference overall.
Even if the number is slightly over 1, the numbers will be much more manageable by the hospitals.
It's a Coronavirus, much like the common cold, which spreads by any means possible, including droplets in the air.
You can see by this simple math, that masks don't have to be 100% effective to make a difference. Of course, the more effective they are, and the more effectively they are used, the lower will be the number of transmissions.
The same Math works the same way for the experts, like the CDC. They don't have to be right all the time, just most of the time. They are humans, but typically very smart ones. Politicians, not so much.
It's really pathetic how long this has lasted. It could have been stopped in a month. Like I've said before, the trouble is just too may dumb people, including mostly people who can't think for themselves clearly enough to make good decisions without listening to propaganda, and conspiracy theories. It all really is very simple.
Contributor
Ya. If only would not of exempt groups of people from following the rules. But some things are "just more important".
Member
I don’t want to argue, but you can believe the CDC about masks or not. I obey our local mask ordinances, but I do not equate a mask with protection. I’ve read a study they estimate 65% effectiveness. What? How exactly do they measure that?
Touching the mask/face IS a significant means of transfer. Are you taking your mask on/off with bare hands? Your hand could be contaminated. I see people wearing it under their nose. People wearing masks walking down a deserted sidewalk, driving in their care, riding a bike is evidence to me many people are either scared or have a misconception.
Direct aerosol transmission is requires an actively infected person, with symptoms, in close contact with someone. There is also ample evidence that asymptomatic people and children do not shed virus.
I stand by what I said about re-using/touching mask, and cloth masks being useless.
If herd immunity is a valid concept (and it is) why are teenagers and 20 yr olds wearing masks
The epidemic will end when it either burns through, herd immunity, a vaccine or the virus mutates & weakens.
From the New England Journal of Medicine, May:
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.“
Last edited by Robert Engel; 07-19-2020 at 10:33 AM.
Contributor
Some months back there were reports of gunfire in my Walmart. Bunch of "bulletins ",but only briefly ...or boxerly.
Guy on toilet let his pistol fall on the floor ; time to clean that weapon ! So we might soon be ordered to wear "steel cups". " He was in his cups might soon mean obeying the law and ...breaking the law.
Contributor
Robert, I think some of your statements are factually incorrect or out-of-date. You also seem to be cherry-picking a few pieces of information from a sea of data that shows masks to be effective.
But setting that aside, may I (genuinely politely) ask: do you think the public health experts are less qualified or able to collect and interpret this information than you are? When you say you've "read a study" - have you actually read the study, or just a pop news article summarizing it?
Countries that have relied heavily on science and trusted their experts (e.g. New Zealand) have been recovering. Countries where every layman thinks his opinion matters....well....
Contributor
The information changes as new discoveries come to light. One also has to consider the source of the information. Some talking head with an agenda isn't as reliable source as the CDC.Mask or no mask. I'm so confused by all the data that keeps popping up , that contradicts the other data. Who knows what to believe anymore.
This is information from a couple of months ago. It is still correct. Wearing a mask only protects the wearer from infection to a minimum degree.From the New England Journal of Medicine, May:
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.
Wearing a mask helps to prevent an infected person from infecting others.
In our current state of affairs it isn't possible for me to say I have not been infected. It isn't possible for anyone to know if they have been infected without being tested. In most cases the test results will not be known for days. During the time one is waiting for their test results they could become infected. In many parts of the nation it is next to impossible to get tested.
The solution is simple, GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND WEAR A MASK!
If the employees in a retail outlet are being idiots about wearing their masks my reaction might be to find a manager and let them know why it is unsafe to shop in their store.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Contributor
Here's a link that does a nice job of presenting the current science of mask efficacy. A few sections into the article cites some studies on experiments of masks.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent
Brian
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger or more complicated...it takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - E.F. Schumacher
Moderator
I try to keep an open mind about the recommendations, keeping in mind that recommendations change when new information is discovered through evolving understanding based on research.
For example, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled "Face Masks Really Do Matter. The Scientific Evidence Is Growing" cites evolving research. A closing comment: "Wearing a mask is one of the most urgent things we can do to get our country under control..." In the absence of vaccines, "...We have masks, we have social distancing, and we have testing. But there's not much more in the toolbox here."
Among other things, the article cites a recent study from Mass General Brigham health care system in Massachusetts, including this: "...results support universal masking as part of a multipronged infection reduction strategy..." The study is titled "Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers."
How to measure mask effectiveness? Other research cited in the WSJ article describes methods of testing different types of masks, for example "...using a mannequin's head [and a method that] mechanically simulated a cough." This, of course, makes assumptions based on the most accepted current understanding of transmission.
Facing the unknown, each person, of course, will act based on their current understanding, trust, and caution. Due to caution and my chronic respiratory issues I choose to wear an N95 or better mask/respirator as I consider appropriate. For me, even unquantified but observed effectiveness is sufficient incentive.
I suspect at some point in the future history will provide clarity through hindsight. It is difficult to argue that what we are doing now effective. Reported to date: almost 4 million cases with the trend of over 70,000 new cases per day, over 140,000 deaths in the US, and unknowable long-term health complications for those who have been infected and recovered.
JKJ
Contributor
Robert, this is another misunderstanding promoted by some uninformed sources.There is also ample evidence that asymptomatic people and children do not shed virus.
Do a search on > asymptomatic shedding covid < to find more information.
Another point to consider is this is a situation with a very short history. It is still in the early stages of understanding.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote