Just Stumbled On An Important Thing

[ProfessorGAC]

In another thread started by LiberalArkie (https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214371613), I linked to the article.
I found this nugget in the article:

An international report published in The Lancet, which analysed data from 172 studies in 16 countries, found that by wearing a face mask there is just a 3 per cent chance of catching Covid-19.

For quite some time, a misconception has formed that masks don't protect the wearer only others. For me, that is counterintuitive, but I've also seen probability tables showing mask/no-mask chances of getting COVID.

Those occasional articles reinforced my intuition, but nothing comprehensive.

Now, The Lancet has quantified it. It was in their June 3 I don't know the exact type of masks in all the studies but there was specific mention of cloth & surgical masks. The fraction in those 172 studies, I couldn't find.

But, the real purpose of this OP is that this seems a major selling point to mask cooperation. Everybody has a self-preservation instinct. Selling masks solely, or even mostly, as a way to protect others is a failure with the sociopathic types in LiberalArkie's thread. But, selling them as a way to do both, protect others AND yourself might overcome some of sociopathic traits.

So, wear a mask! IT PROTECTS YOU, TOO!"

[Sherman A1]

1. I agree but the anti-maskers

Won’t believe any of it.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Not So Fast

Did you read the Brazilian study in Arkie's thread? The resistance is rooted in sociopathic tendencies.
We've sold mask as protection to others. Sociopaths couldn't care less!
But, if they had been told from the beginning that this was a way to reduce the chances of getting COVID, the self-interest might have prevented them being resistant in the first place.
There are plenty of younger people who might be less diligent now, but if they knew it was about protecting themselves, they might never become resisters.

[Illumination]

24. Very good points you're making Professor! It's about knowledge. If more people knew that

C-19 was app. 5 times worse than the flu & can damage every organ in your body, etc., they might change their tunes...

[Tarc]

36. The loony-tunes rightwingers I deal with daily do not believe "some piece of cloth"

has any benefit whatsoever.

It's hopeful to think you can reason with some of them, but my experiences lead me to believe they're a lost cause.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

48. Hard to believe anyone who could ever even consider supporting

the iDJT for POTUS isn't a lost cause. It is a great pity that the belligerently ignorant fools make up a huge percentage of the US population.

[NurseJackie]

7. One of my FB friends (okay a stupid relative) posted a stupid meme about farts and masks.

Basically, if you can still smell a fart through the mask, then it's not protecting anyone. It was gross... but it's also not the first time I've heard that argument.

[thesquanderer]

18. Coronavirus particles are 120 nanometers in size, odor molecules are a few nanometers big at most.

You can filter relatively big things (like covid) without filtering out much smaller things... which is good, because if it filtered out everything, we'd suffocate.

references:

https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths

https://www.nanooze.org/the-sense-of-smell/

[LiberalArkie]

23. And if you can't smell the fart, you probably have Covid already.

[Maraya1969]

2. I never believed that it didn't protect you. Newton's laws of physics explains why it protects you.

The only way for a particle to get behind the mask is for it to be blown about by wind or AC or a heater. At least that is the only way I can think of. Other than that everything will be blocked by the fabric.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Yesterday, Rand Paul Said...

...97% of viruses go right through the mask.
So obviously, Newtonian principles escape some people.
It was counterintuitive to me. And to you. Clearly not to everyone.
I'm seriously telling you that I've seen at least 20 posts here in GD saying masks protects others not the wearer.
That sentiment is clearly out there, even in a relatively highly informed & inquisitive population like DU.

[barbtries]

8. that was the information coming from the scientists early on.

i was never convinced it didn't protect the wearer, but without being able to pinpoint the date, it's fairly recently that the truth of how important masks are and who they protect has been publicized, even by people who should have known sooner.

[Ms. Toad]

27. It was known by March or April. n/t

[Maraya1969]

13. The virus, in the particular droplet or droplets would need enough force to get through the damn

face mask. That is what they don't say.

It's like saying a golf ball can be hit through a tennis net. But go ahead and try it. Unless you hit the thing hard enough it is going to hit part of the net and fall over.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Good Analogy

In fact, I went to an exhibition given by the world champion long driver.
He hit a golf ball through a 3/4" piece of plywood!
So, with enough force even that happens. But, with 50 million golfers worldwide, we likely won't bump into many of the folks who could do that!
That's what I thought of with your tennis net analogy. What I saw adds an exponent.

[Ms. Toad]

28. The other important piece is that viruses are attached to something

that something is always larger than the virus itself - so comparing size of the virus with the holes in the cloth is a meaningless comparison in the first place.

The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.

“There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses.

The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fact-check-n-95-filters-not-too-large-stop-covid-19-particles/5343537002/

[Maraya1969]

29. Good point

[LymphocyteLover]

32. the concept I've always seen it is more protective at blocking virus from an infected person

but it will block some virus from getting to non-infected people. The stats I've seen is a surgical mask will block 70% of virus getting out from an infected person, and 20% getting to a non-infected mask wearer. So like it will block 90% of the virus if both people wear masks (of course it's much better if they are N95s).

Another important idea is that if you are uninfected and wear a mask, and get exposed to virus, that a lower dose of virus is more likely to give you a mild infection and less disease.

[groundloop]

41. I always wear a mask when I have to go out and haven't caught it....proving masks work.... right?

I remember reading numbers similar to what you're quoting, it's been awhile so I can't remember where I read them.

Apparently this new study takes into account the fact that the coronavirus is nearly always hitchhiking on larger particles, so that would make a huge difference.

In any case, I think there's more to getting people to wear masks than explaining that the wearer gets a large benefit...... a well spoken leader setting an example early on would have gone a long way, but of course we're way past that now.

[Midnight Writer]

37. I had a conniption when I saw Rand Paul, a doctor, for chrissakes, say that.

I suppose when Dr. Paul has surgery, he insists the surgeons and staff not wear masks, because wearing masks is actually worse than wearing masks.

I don't think Rand Paul is this ignorant.

I think he is deliberately spreading dangerous disinformation to curry favor with those people stupid enough to vote for him.

[moonscape]

4. Just back from a medical appt. I was waiting in my car to

be called, and heard a yelling in the otherwise very quiet complex of buildings. A man was on a pathway from one of the offices, yelling "Putting a f'k'in laser to my head!" and then a mask rant about how he wouldn't do it. Another man was getting out of his car with a mask on, yelled over to the 1st that he should wear one.

I know this goes on all over, but it was the first time I had seen it. I live in a super liberal area on the CA central coast, compliance is universal, and it was jarring.

I agree that man wouldn't be persuaded by anything in print, any study, etc - he didn't even care to know if he had a temperature at a medical facility!

[barbtries]

9. so he didn't get to see the doctor?

what an asshole.

my brother lives in Morro Bay.

[moonscape]

11. Didn't see what happened at the office, only his

ranting on the way to his car. Sounds like he didn't get seen though because of the freshness of the 'laser' rant, mask, etc. Presumably he would've calmed down had he been compliant. They are nuts!

[Silent3]

5. I hate when popular press messes up statistics like that

The phrase "just a 3 per cent chance of catching Covid-19" is utterly meaningless without context.

A 3% chance per encounter with a single infected individual for five minutes? If so, that's horrible odds.

A 3% chance per week, when spending 8 hours per day in socially-distanced contact in a typical workplace, given a 20% background infection rate? Still pretty bad odds if you're going to be living like that, one week after another for god knows how long.

A 3% chance between now and the likely end of the pandemic, if masking is done regularly by yourself? By yourself and 90% of the rest of the population?

But the article doesn't say, so no useful information about the efficacy is conveyed whatsoever.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Unnecessary Detail

The Lancet isn't going to publish an analysis of 170 something separate studies if that 3% doesn't represent a medically meaningful result.
I get what you're saying, but from a view of marketing the importance of masks, too much detail is too much detail.
This post is not a science or math analysis post. It's a sales & marketing post.

[Silent3]

12. Might as well just say "number GOOD!" then

3% is very specific. But without any more context, no meaning is conveyed other than, "Gee, 3% sounds low. Definitely better than 4%... of something. Must be good!"

I would only take a few more words to convey real meaning, and it wouldn't have to be very technical either. Just a time period and a brief description of the setting where these odds prevail.

If you're playing to that so low a common denominator that such detail hurts the cause, you'd actually convey MORE information if you said, "This study rated masking at 5 out of 5 stars! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️"

[ProfessorGAC]

14. No It Doesn't

Your obstinance is unnecessary.
Besides, if you want to add context, figure it out, keep the message simple and we'll talk. I'm sure I'll agree with the context. It will likely be more technically sound, but isn't it any more marketable.
But, in a marketing effort, you're overvaluing the technical context.
This is a value from a multi study analysis by a highly respected journal.
The details were vetted by them.
And, you can save your condescension for someone who doesn't know anything about analysis of data. That person is NOT me. I'm telling you I know it lacks COMPLETE context, but it doesn't matter.
If you choose to ignore how marketing works, and the value of increasing cooperation in mask wearing, that's on you.
There is nothing approximately close to a silly 5 stars rating connected to that.

[Silent3]

16. I'm not saying you personally don't understand the stats...

...and maybe you know something about marketing as well. My condescension is for the low standards of too much popular science writing.

I am not willing to blithely accept dumbing things down so much as a necessity for conveying a useful message to the general public. And you risk causing people who don't understand the numbers to make stupid decisions. If the risk were 3% per week rather than, say, 3% for the rest of your lifetime (which many people uneducated in statistics could easily think), the difference in recommended behavior is enormous.

If it's the former, a per week risk, you should hide inside your house practically all of the time, even if you've got your mask on when you go out. If it's the latter, you should feel very comfortable with a fair amount of public contact, so long as you have your mask.

[Ms. Toad]

30. The article actually does explain the 3%.

Population comprised people possibly exposed to individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV. Setting was any health-care or non-health-care setting. Outcomes were infection (laboratory-confirmed or probable) and contextual factors. Risk (95% CI) in intervention group is based on assumed risk in comparison group and relative effect (95% CI) of the intervention.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

Unmasked the chance of infection following possible exposure was 17.4%. Masked the chance was 3.1%

[Silent3]

44. Not the article point to in the OP

But yes, I see if I click on the word "study" in that article, that then links to the Lancet article with the extra detail. Thanks.

[Ms. Toad]

45. I never read media summaries of medical articles - or court opinions.

They invariably get both wrong.

[gristy]

43. Agreed

Everything you say.

[lagomorph777]

46. That is so annoying. A scientific journal should know better.

Meaningless without that context.

[58Sunliner]

17. WHO says anyone 60 and over in a public setting-specifically indoors-

should use an N95 if possible.

[PurgedVoter]

19. This is the article

Here is, I think the article on the Lancet.
From what I can pull out of it, One meter distance gives a huge reduction of risk. Each extra meter halves your risk. Wearing a mask Helps a lot, Wearing a face shield that protects eyes seems to give a huge reduction. The 3% shows up in several places but it is a comparison and not a general number as far as I see. Wearing a mask does help a lot. I will be obtaining a face shield immediately.

[Ms. Toad]

31. It's in table 2. (3.1% risk of becoming infected) n/t

[warmfeet]

20. Face mask, face shield.

Wear them. Oh, and wash your hands whenever you touch something, including yourself.

Covid-19 lives on skin for quite a while.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-antonio/news/2020/10/14/covid-19-can-live-on-skin-more-than-9-hours-according-to-new-study#:~:text=The%20report%20compared%20the%20life,between%207.96%20and%2010.2%20hours.

[malaise]

21. K & R

Important - Wear a mask!

[Mr.Bill]

22. I agree.

And even if it's not the best mask one can get, wearing something at least helps to normalize it to others around you.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

25. The other thing is to wear the mask correctly.

Cover your nose. Do not pull it down to speak. I see too many uncovered noses and pulling the mask down to speak.

[lambchopp59]

26. Not only mask wear but proper handling.

I've gone 9 months of being in COVID patient's rooms extensively without catching this thing. Once colleagues saw what I do after... they started this too.
Of course, proper doffing technique. I bag the mask via drop and seal technique and head cover for cleaning/recycle.
But then I head straight for the sink, wash my hands AND MY FACE, especially all area around (ahem) "God's wonderful (imperfect) breathing system" with copious soap and rinsing. I use some Cepacol, then don fresh standard mask.
Only one person has called me "fanatic" for this practice.
That person was missing from work for quite a while. Oops.

[LymphocyteLover]

33. thank you for all you do

[Pobeka]

34. The meta study wasn't specific about who wore the mask.

"From database inception to May 3, 2020, we searched for studies of any design and in any setting that included patients with WHO-defined confirmed or probable COVID-19, SARS, or MERS, and people in close contact with them, comparing distances between people and COVID-19 infected patients of 1 m or larger with smaller distances, with or without a face mask on the patient, or with or without a face mask, eye protection, or both on the exposed individual."

That's from the lancet article. So it looks "masked" means either the health care provider wore a mask, OR the patient wore a mask, OR both wore a mask.

Regardless, of course a mask protects the wearer too. Any virii that are trapped by your own mask may keep your viral load low enough that you don't get a full blown go to the ICU type of infection.

Viral load is what matters, any effort to migitate that load is a good thing, particularly when it's cheap and easy.

[LymphocyteLover]

35. Variolation

Another important idea is that if you are uninfected and wear a mask, and get exposed to virus, that a lower dose of virus is more likely to give you a mild infection and less disease. This is the idea of variolation.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026913

[COL Mustard]

38. It Must Not Be True

Trump says so and I believe him!!!



And in case you were wondering,

[soldierant]

39. With rehard to the type of mask,

I have some bought masks, and some gift masks, and some masks I made by knitting two layers, putting a cofee filter between, and using hair ties for ear pieces. I can tell the difference in how easily (or not) air can be breathed through them (and I would expect anyone can tell the difference, thuugh some of us might have to concentrate a little more. I have respiratory allergies myself.) Interestingly, the ones which seem to be the most protective are the knitted ones - and I'm sure it's not the knitting, which is quite porous, but the coffee filters which make the difference. (The coffee filters can be easily replaced and the mask can be washed.) All of which is no doubt way more than anyone wanted to know, but there may be a grain of information in it which helps someone somewhere.

[Dem2]

40. I have a looser cloth mask for low risk environments

And I have a tight weave synthetic fabric mask that I use for higher risk environments where I know it can actually help protect me more than the less restrictive cloth mask. in fact I have a plastic insert from my synthetic mask that helps expose more surface area to make breathing easier with it since it's got a very tight fabric.

[luvallpeeps]

42. Thank you ProfessorGAC.

This is indeed an important thing. It's also important that you shared it with everyone here. I'll pass it along. 3 cheers for important things!! Oh, and I wanted to mention also that it's a damned shame that wearing a mask for other's sake isn't popular for republicans. ME ME ME ME eff U it's all about me attitude sucks.

[moondust]

47. Rachel had a guest on

who was involved in this revealing study of the mask mandate in Kansas:

https://ipsr.ku.edu/covid19/images/Mask_Mandate_forJoCo.pdf

[Blue Owl]

49. K&R

[iluvtennis]

50. Awesome info - thanks so much for sharing. nt