Before You Put On That Mask I get it. You want to do *anything* you can to prevent the spread of this virus to you and your loved ones. But before you put it on, PLEASE keep the following in mind: (10 points)
-
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2?fbclid=IwAR1WI0_kJaGqvvm0VvRV1AEitGdgOJ0kAt52NB-Xv_AUY0Ce_C558kuzcbQ … It seems that when actually tested with viruses (coronaviruses and influenza), even simple pleated masks are more effective than has been reported. Nearly no detectable viral load on exhalation. (Masks didn’t stop rhinovirus, though.)
-
Obviously, even if this holds true, everything you say about using a mask properly still applies. But I feel like the evidence is more and more convincing that this is one more thing that can help. No silver bullets, but small things little by little.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The numbers in this article are very misleading. If you read carefully the 50% efficacy is on "small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm)" or "(0.02 to 1 µm)". But droplets, the main source of spreading, are much bigger (majority of them >1 µm):https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705815028519 …
-
The article doesn't even have any references for its claim that cloth masks are ineffective for source control. They should have said they think the probability is close to zero if that's what they believed.https://twitter.com/nathansgreen/status/1246682207944613889?s=20 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Oh my, this is worse on a 2nd reading. They literally base their claim that cloth masks don't work as source control on the fact that they found no studies they considered well-designed. So they don't actually have a basis for saying they are "ineffective."
-
They aren't ineffective, they have some unknown probability of zero to some effectiveness.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.