OT: Face masks do seem to be a worthwhile defense agaisnt Covid-19

I don't think it would be possible to put it more clearly.

I expect Jeff Layman is also an antivaxxer, since they use similar false arguments to justify endangering others.

"The American of today, in fact, probably enjoys less personal liberty than any other man of Christendom, and even his political liberty is fast succumbing to the new dogma that certain theories of government are virtuous and lawful, and others abhorrent and felonious.

Laws limiting the radius of his free activity multiply year by year: It is now practically impossible for him to exhibit anything describable as genuine individuality, either in action or in thought, without running afoul of some harsh and unintelligible penalty.

It would surprise no impartial observer if the motto ?In God we trust? were one day expunged from the coins of the republic by the Junkers at Washington, and the far more appropriate word, ?verboten,? substituted.

Nor would it astound any save the most romantic if, at the same time, the goddess of liberty were taken off the silver dollars to make room for a bas-relief of a policeman in a spiked helmet.

Moreover, this gradual (and, of late, rapidly progressive) decay of freedom goes almost without challenge; the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights and to the minute regulation of his conduct by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that he no longer makes any serious protest."

HL Mencken, 1920.

Refusal to wear masks falls in the category of "Un-serious Protest", trying to salvage the weathervane while the barn burns down.

I suggest that you look at relevant published data rather than believe what you read in the papers or on TV. And you need to go a little bit further than the government/official websites.

Let's start with the CDC website at it - more or less - repeats what you are saying, that cloth facial coverings are there to stop the already-infected from infecting others. But it does not come to any conclusion one way or the other as to their effectiveness, or otherwise, in preventing incoming infection.

So you need to start looking through the "Recent Studies" refs at the bottom of that page. Have a look at this one at "Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks". You need not read it all, the abstract will do. This is the final sentence of the abstract if the abstract itself is TL/DR... "Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles."

"Filtration Efficiencies of Nanoscale Aerosol by Cloth Mask Materials Used to Slow the Spread of SARS CoV-2 " "Three of the top five best performing samples were woven 100% cotton with high to moderate yarn counts and the other two were woven synthetics of moderate yarn counts...suggesting that multi-layered cloth masks may offer increased protection from nanometer-sized aerosol with a maximum FE dictated by breathability (i.e. ?P). "

And, just for balance, a 4-year old study "Evaluating the Efficacy of Cloth Facemasks in Reducing Particulate Matter Exposure" "...our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles

Then you should read my reply to David Brown.

As it happens I'm very happy to have vaccinations. I also know that when posters start using insults and inaccurate information to support their arguments they've accepted they've lost the argument.

I have no problem with that. I doubt, however, that retail sources of PPE for the general public and that for "official" Health Workers would have been the same, so any loss in supply would have been marginal. But it's best it should not have been allowed to happen. If they had said "If you have a mask at home, perhaps for DIY work or your trade, then wear it" that would have made sense. But would it have led to a rush to try to buy one if you didn't have one? I really don't know - the public in Europe and the USA seems a lot more reluctant to wear masks unless ordered to.

Interesting - I hadn't heard of that. It's probably not restricted to the Japanese, but maybe it's in their psyche and behaviour considerably more than in us Westerners!

Indeed. But getting that information over to non-scientists is very hard, as every one of them knows that viruses are incredibly small.

That is the "generally understood" argument, but if you look at the refs in my other reply, I think you'll see that scientific research now supports the view that the protection gained is far more than originally thought.

That's true, but from the start I have always wondered why the elderly are far more affected than other groups. I haven't really checked, but it seems that SARS-Cov-2 is much more pathogenic to the elderly than other viruses. I wonder why? It might be an interesting area of research if it's true.

I'm sure you are right that a face covering provides some marginal protection for the person wearing it. It's difficult to imagine that it would give /no/ protection (as long as it is not saturated, and as long as it does not lead you to touch your face more). And it's hard to evaluate how much protection it actually gives.

But that's all beside the point. The /primary/ reason for the general population to wear face masks is to protect /other people/.

So for normal people with normal empathy and social conscience, if you are in an area with non-negligible risk of Corona you wear a face mask if you are in proximity to other people, to help reduce the risk for them. If it also marginally reduces the risk for /you/, that's a bonus.

Hmm, I thought Mencken more astute. He could have foreseen it's not the goddess of liberty they removed from the dollar, but rather the silver. It looks the same, but it's no longer worth anything.

Jeroen Belleman

I lie awake at night worrying about that.