Don't breathe it in

Previously, previously, previously.

Tags: , ,

16 Responses:

  1. LoganDark says:

    Not to downplay the severity of the coronavirus pandemic or anything, but I think these fearmongering "PSAs" are more harmful than they are helpful. This looks like a cheap PR stunt. Or perhaps an expensive PR stunt.

    BTW, just recently discovered your blog through the whole xscreensaver-on-Debian debacle. Never seen anyone use one like this (especially with things like lazyweb). Feels cozy.

    • jwz says:
      3

      Lemme guess, you've decided that wearing a mask is a "waste of time" or something, and so you might as well continue spitting on strangers.

      • LoganDark says:

        Not really, even though I rarely leave home anyway. Confused at why you'd think that.

        • jwz says:
          4

          Because you baselessly called a video encouraging use of masks in public "fearmongering" and "harmful" and a "stunt".

          • LoganDark says:
            1

            Ah, my bad, I thought you were sharing it sarcastically. Ignore then. :)

            • C3PU says:
              2

              So, you're a disingenuous toady?

              • LoganDark says:

                I'm not sure what that means, but my response does indeed frequently change depending on the context of the post I'm replying to.

                It's impossible to criticize things in certain contexts where literally anything I say leads to, essentially, "so you don't support mask usage??". You should know that's not what I meant, but it provides an endless source of debate/drama that detracts from actual discussion.

                I thought this post was poking fun at the video, so I did the same. Turns out that it isn't, and jwz was actually resharing the video in good faith, so I apologize, my comment was inappropriate.

  2. Andrew Klossner says:

    "Wear a respirator". In Oregon workplaces, we are forbidden to wear respirators (specifically N95 masks) unless we've been trained on their use. My employer was fined by Oregon OSHA for violating this regulation.

    • Jim says:
      1

      "Mixed findings were reported by studies that compared N95 to surgical/medical masks. Six studies observed that both forms of face mask offered similar levels of protection in controlling the transmission of respiratory pathogens.... Four studies further highlighted that N95 offered a better form of protection when compared with surgical masks" ("A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19" in International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, November 2021)

      According to Table 3 in the 2009 JAMA article, "Surgical Mask vs N95 Respirator for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Workers: A Randomized Trial," there is less than a 6% difference in risk between surgical and N95 masks for preventing coronavirus infection per 2.5 months.

      My point is there is a greater return on effort telling people to use any masks, including surgical, than by suggesting to them that only the more expensive masks are effective.

      • CSL3 says:
        1

        Surgical masks are not a tight fit on the face, therefore not as effective - even when you dismiss dick-nosers who only cover their mouths. I say that as someone who still uses surgicals... as the secondary when I'm double-masking.

        The whole "something is better than nothing" approach was fine at the start of the pandemic when we were still learning and just trying to get folks to cover up. Now, we're in the middle Year 3 and people should know better, especially that not all masks are the same. Promoting N95 (or FFP2 / KN95 / KF94) over surgicals isn't some scheme to bilk consumers out of their money, it's the result of proven, scrutinised science:

        • Jim says:
          1

          The thing is, in this case, something is really very much better than nothing. Here's a diagram where the droplet and aerosol size and distance is proportional to measurements with and without surgical masks:

          Anything that discourages people from doing all they can is a bad idea, because everyone is giving up:

          • CSL3 says:
            1

            I've already shown links (and a video) as to why "...better than nothing" is bullshit, but now you're going into respectability politics, which is even BIGGER bullshit. From the very start of the pandemic, anti-maskers have rejected all face covers "cuz muh free-dummz!!!", so don't try to gaslight me with the "if only pro-maskers were polite" shit.

            Fauci was polite and patient with Trump, only for that orange fucker to promote 💉 bleach and using horse paste to cure "the Chinese virus" he only half-believed in the first place.

            I repeat: we're YEAR 3 of this plague (with monkeypox in the background). If you're promoting pseudo-science about masks and think the anti- folk aren't 😷 because we hurt their feelungs, then YOU are part of the problem.

            • Jim says:
              3

              Your first link says, "Surgical masks are an excellent option," and, "surgical masks can block 100% of seasonal coronaviruses." I agree with you that N95 are better, but I don't agree that they are so much better that it overcomes the practical and economic friction where masking has dropped from 90% to 30% while wastewater concentrations have been hovering near all-time highs in some of the most vaccinated cities. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

              • CSL3 says:

                You literally left out the follow sentence in each of those quotes, which wxplain the flaws of surgical-only masking. Fuck you for leading us into Yaer 4.

                • jwq says:
                  5

                  Your references literally do not support the claims you're making and you appear to just be lashing out at anyone who, in your perception, does not express exactly the same opinion as you. That is what's leading you collectively into Year 4.

                • Dave says:
                  5

                  I mean the complete sentence in that first link is

                  Surgical masks are an excellent option, as they offer protection in the range of 70-80%, although there is wide variability among different brands. However, surgical masks tend to fit poorly, allowing aerosols to leak through gaps around the mask.

                  Which, while it does explain the flaws in surgical-only masking, does make the point that it does "offer protection [...]70-80% ".

                  Which is indeed better than nothing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. But if you provide a fake email address, I will likely assume that you are a troll, and not publish your comment.

Starting a new top-level thread.

  • Previously