Science Magazine - "Masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"

Status
Not open for further replies.
dmspilot

dmspilot

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
6,169
Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/05/19/science.abg6296

Abstract
Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited) where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing.
 
For virus-rich environment they use a medical center treating COVID patients. That's a pretty "rich" environment. I'd definitely want a N95 mask, and more, in that scenario.

Paragraph two, after the abstract:

The effectiveness of masks, however, is still under debate. Compared to N95/FFP2 respirators which have very low particle penetration rates (around ~5%), surgical and similar masks exhibit higher and more variable penetration rates (around ~30-70%) (2, 3). Given the large number of particles emitted upon respiration and especially upon sneezing or coughing (4), the number of respiratory particles that may penetrate masks is substantial, which is one of the main reasons leading to doubts about their efficacy in preventing infections. Moreover, randomized clinical trials show inconsistent or inconclusive results, with some studies reporting only a marginal benefit or no effect of mask use (5, 6). Thus, surgical and similar masks are often considered to be ineffective. On the other hand, observational data show that regions or facilities with a higher percentage of the population wearing masks have better control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (7–9). So how to explain these contrasting results and apparent inconsistencies?​
 
extrapolation from personal experience is a poor method of prediction.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
The virus was nothing for most folks I know.....way too much fear over this.
Click to expand...
Tell my buddy Jeff's mom, and my cousin and her husband that. I'll give you the address of the two cemeteries. Way too much ignorance over this, way too many "freedom fighters" caused this to last much longer than it should have. I know some of them, and a couple of them actually regret it now.
 
Masks don't protect you from being infected, that's what vaccines do. They're to prevent you from spreading infection, and at that they're quite good. I guess I have to use an analogy that you guys will understand. if you've two naked guys running around and one pees, it's going to get on the other guy's leg. Now if the other guy wears pants it's better, the pee soaks the pants, not the guy, though some of it can get through if there's a lot. Now if both guys are wearing pants the odds on the other guy getting peed on drop significantly.
 
Last edited:
Why aren't there biohazard bins to dispose of used masks and gloves?
 
oh goodie, another opportunity to present cold hard numbers:

total US cases: 33,100,000
total US deaths: 588,000

total us pop: 331,449,281

total cases as % of pop: less than 10% (9.98)
total covid deaths as % of pop: 0.17 (Z E R O POINT 17)
% of deaths from covid cases: 1.77%

not sure if they are tracking the percentage of people who get ANY symptoms from getting the shots, but I'd bet money it's 80% or greater. numbers speak volumes.
 
Goodie....here are a few more additional tid-bits. Note, no notable change in the average life expectancy during this horrible "Pandemic? ;)
eman1200 said:
oh goodie, another opportunity to present cold hard numbers:
Click to expand...
life expectancy.jpginfluenza death rates 2018 MD.jpgsurvival rate race MD 03022021.jpg
 
steingar said:
Masks don't protect you from being infected, that's what vaccines do. They're to prevent you from spreading infection, and at that they're quite good. I guess I have to use an analogy that you guys will understand. if you've two naked guys running around and one pees, it's going to get on the other guy's leg. Now if the other guy wears pants it's better, the pee soaks the pants, not the guy, though some of it can get through if there's a lot. Now if both guys are wearing pants the odds on the other guy getting peed on drop significantly.
Click to expand...

Well, surgical / procedural masks won’t protect you but N95s will. I’m required at work to wear a surgical mask during any patient transport to help protect the patient if I have COVID. I’m required to wear an N95 to protect me from a suspected / confirmed COVID patient.
 
Sac Arrow said:
This horse has been beaten so badly, I don't think it has a solid bone in its body.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand the controversy. It’s a fact, COVID exists. Now, whether or not someone wants to take precautions or not. Who cares? It’s all about risk management and percentages.

For the Flu, I don’t see the need for wearing masks and distancing but I’ll get a shot for the hell of it. For COVID, I’ll do the mask thing, distance, reduce public events and do the shot. Roughly 50,000 dead a year vs 500,000 dead a year. The risk crosses my personal threshold to take added precautions. No different then taking precautions for cancer or heart disease.

For people who don’t take any precautions. Who cares? Let them live their lives as they see fit.
 
steingar said:
Masks don't protect you from being infected, that's what vaccines do. They're to prevent you from spreading infection, and at that they're quite good. I guess I have to use an analogy that you guys will understand. if you've two naked guys running around and one pees, it's going to get on the other guy's leg. Now if the other guy wears pants it's better, the pee soaks the pants, not the guy, though some of it can get through if there's a lot. Now if both guys are wearing pants the odds on the other guy getting peed on drop significantly.
Click to expand...
To support your post, I'll bring this up again:
CarolineBrehmanRFS.jpg

Velocity173 said:
I don’t understand the controversy. It’s a fact, COVID exists. Now, whether or not someone wants to take precautions or not. Who cares? It’s all about risk management and percentages.

For the Flu, I don’t see the need for wearing masks and distancing but I’ll get a shot for the hell of it. For COVID, I’ll do the mask thing, distance, reduce public events and do the shot. Roughly 50,000 dead a year vs 500,000 dead a year. The risk crosses my personal threshold to take added precautions. No different then taking precautions for cancer or heart disease.

For people who don’t take any precautions. Who cares? Let them live their lives as they see fit.
Click to expand...
I suppose you don't mind getting peed on?
 
Velocity173 said:
I don’t understand the controversy. It’s a fact, COVID exists. Now, whether or not someone wants to take precautions or not. Who cares? It’s all about risk management and percentages.

For the Flu, I don’t see the need for wearing masks and distancing but I’ll get a shot for the hell of it. For COVID, I’ll do the mask thing, distance, reduce public events and do the shot. Roughly 50,000 dead a year vs 500,000 dead a year. The risk crosses my personal threshold to take added precautions. No different then taking precautions for cancer or heart disease.

For people who don’t take any precautions. Who cares? Let them live their lives as they see fit.
Click to expand...

It's a subject that tends to be very polarizing and for the majority of people, it's 100% one way or 100% the other way, to the point where the people I philosophically agree with start bringing self serve checkout kiosks in to the equation blaming them for massive joblessness stemming from COVID measures. (Yes, I think it's irrational and ridiculous too - in regards to self serve checkout kiosks.)

I've stopped even discussing the whole COVID/mask thing with friends, coworkers and drinking buddies (which, by the way, are mostly one and the same) because every time, things get irrational.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
To support your post, I'll bring this up again:
CarolineBrehmanRFS.jpg


I suppose you don't mind getting peed on?
Click to expand...

It’s all part of the job. ;)

Paramedic was telling a story the other day about how he was leaning over because he thought the patient wanted to tell him something. Threw up right in his face and some went in his mouth! :(
 
I don't know why people can't see both sides of an argument on this one and are always so polarized. Isn't it possible to say that that cloth masks aren't much use in preventing the spread of covid while also acknowledging that covid is a real illness and some can become very sick or even die from it? In my opinion the requirement for cloth masks were a way to give people the sense that they were doing something to try and protect themselves and others. It didn't matter a year ago if the cloth masks actually did anything to help or not. People were very worried about the lethality of the virus and were feeling like they were helpless to do anything to keep from getting it. First it was N95 masks but when those were in scarce supply it started to drive some people to become complete hermits in their own homes and not even see their family or friends for long periods of times. Telling them that a simple cloth mask would protect them gave them a feeling of control and a way to justify not hiding in their homes anymore. Now that there are vaccines out there to provide the same feeling of control it is a fair debate to start looking at if masks are effective and if so, what are the criteria that need to be met before people should stop wearing them. The same reviews should be going on for all of the different restrictions that were put in place in the name of safety against covid. It needs to be understood what worked and what diddn't so when the next pandemic virus comes around we don't over or under-react as bad as we did with this one.
 
OF all the people that died, how many were once alive? We should prevent people from being alive to prevent anyone from dying.

Also, how many of the deaths were SOLELY from C-19 with ZERO underlying conditions? Less than 50,000 is the number I saw.

50,000/300,000,000+
Oh the MF'ing horror!

Some people die prematurely. That's the way things go sometimes.
 
EdFred said:
OF all the people that died, how many were once alive? We should prevent people from being alive to prevent anyone from dying.

Also, how many of the deaths were SOLELY from C-19 with ZERO underlying conditions? Less than 50,000 is the number I saw.

50,000/300,000,000+
Oh the MF'ing horror!

Some people die prematurely. That's the way things go sometimes.
Click to expand...
Your sources have been shown to be questionable, at best. Lots of "hearsay" and data chosen selectively.
 
EdFred said:
OF all the people that died, how many were once alive? We should prevent people from being alive to prevent anyone from dying.

Also, how many of the deaths were SOLELY from C-19 with ZERO underlying conditions? Less than 50,000 is the number I saw.

50,000/300,000,000+
Oh the MF'ing horror!

Some people die prematurely. That's the way things go sometimes.
Click to expand...

Who cares if they had underlying symptoms? They still died of COVID. Friend at work died of CoVID and had underlying causes. Fact is, without Covid he’d still be alive today.

Yeah, a lot of people die prematurely and if they don’t want to take precautions to prolong their lives or even live healthier. It’s up to them. But, like I said, I see it as no different than cancer. I was at the doc today and requested a Colo Guard prescription. If I can prevent dying prematurely from colon cancer, why not do a silly test? Got a prescription for the shingles shot as well. If I prevent getting a debilitating after effects from shingles that could possibly make me lose my medical and in turn my job. Why not?

If people don’t care about dying prematurely, or getting serious “long haul” effects from COVID, then don’t do anything. More power to ya. The vaccines cause cancer anyway...;)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Way too much ignorance over this, way too many "freedom fighters" caused this to last much longer than it should have. I know some of them, and a couple of them actually regret it now.
Click to expand...
Or, maybe the mask/distance/closure mandates protracted an epidemic that would've been long gone by now.

steingar said:
I guess I have to use an analogy that you guys will understand. if you've two naked guys running around and one pees, it's going to get on the other guy's leg. Now if the other guy wears pants it's better, the pee soaks the pants, not the guy, though some of it can get through if there's a lot. Now if both guys are wearing pants the odds on the other guy getting peed on drop significantly.
Click to expand...
That analogy only works if both guys are standing in a swimming pool. It's ok to pee in the pool as long as you're wearing trunks.
 
Velocity173 said:
It’s all part of the job. ;)

Paramedic was telling a story the other day about how he was leaning over because he thought the patient wanted to tell him something. Threw up right in his face and some went in his mouth! :(
Click to expand...
It's not part of the job it you aren't a health care person.
 
steingar said:
Masks don't protect you from being infected, that's what vaccines do. They're to prevent you from spreading infection, and at that they're quite good. I guess I have to use an analogy that you guys will understand. if you've two naked guys running around and one pees, it's going to get on the other guy's leg. Now if the other guy wears pants it's better, the pee soaks the pants, not the guy, though some of it can get through if there's a lot. Now if both guys are wearing pants the odds on the other guy getting peed on drop significantly.
Click to expand...
I always thought that analogy was pretty stupid. I would rather have someone pee on my bare leg. That way I can wash it off. Otherwise I would be wearing wet pants all day. ;)

I've given up caring about masks one way or another. I wear one when required or asked, otherwise no. I'm surprised how many people are still scared, though, especially here where the chance of spread is miniscule.
 
Velocity173 said:
Who cares if they had underlying symptoms? They still died of COVID. Friend at work died of CoVID and had underlying causes. Fact is, without Covid he’d still be alive today.
Click to expand...

Can't make that statement and know it to be a fact. And no, they didn't die just from covid.

Not every wildebeest crosses the Serengeti successfully.
Oh, it was the lion that killed them! You mean the injured leg they had previously had nothing to do with it at all? If that leg wasn't injured it probably would have gotten away.

Someone over 80, someone weighing 400lbs, someone with stage twelve diabeetus, GTFO with "oh it was covid." BS. They were unhealthy or primed to go anyway.


**** happens, and life goes on. My dad would have been one of the 20,000,000 projected deaths had he not had a heart procedure done previous to this whole thing going down. He ended up in the hospital as it was. Guess what it wasn't covid that would have killed him. Would have been that his heart was running at like 30% capacity. Same as if he tried running a marathon. Was it the marathon that killed him? **** no it wasn't. Any other claim is disingenuous.
 
Everskyward said:
I always thought that analogy was pretty stupid. I would rather have someone pee on my bare leg. That way I can wash it off. Otherwise I would be wearing wet pants all day. ;)

I've given up caring about masks one way or another. I wear one when required or asked, otherwise no. I'm surprised how many people are still scared, though, especially here where the chance of spread is miniscule.
Click to expand...
Most analogies break down, at some point.

I hear you about the masks, at this point I'd consider dropping the mandates and those who choose not to get vaccinated can just take their risks now. I don't know about those (what percentage is it?) who can't get vaccinated due to allergies or an another problem.
 
EdFred said:
Can't make that statement and know it to be a fact.

Not every wildebeest crosses the Serengeti successfully.
Oh, it was the lion that killed them! You mean the injured leg they had previously had nothing to do with it at all? If that leg wasn't injured it probably would have gotten away.

Someone over 80, someone weighing 400lbs, someone with stage twelve diabeetus, FTGO with "oh it was covid. BS. They were unhealthy or primed to go anyway.


**** happens, and life goes on. My dad would have been one of the 20,000,000 projected deaths had he not had a heart procedure done previous to this whole thing going down. He ended up in the hospital as it was. Guess what it wasn't covid that would have killed him.
Click to expand...
Or the fool who gave it to them while spreading it to other people. Lions hardly bother us because we have tools to keep them at bay and make them fear us, so the person with the broken leg can walk on the Serengeti. The wildebeest doesn't. We have the tools to keep the virus at bay, and some of us chose not to use them, and furthermore worked to prevent their efficient use. Those people are less smart than wildebeest.
 
While I never personally was all that concerned about the virus I was OK with throwing a mask on when going into places where other people did. I just considered it being nice to people with a higher fear/lower risk tolerance than I have.

Now there's a vaccine available to anyone who wants it. I chose to get it, I don't care what everyone else does. However with the vaccine being available the risk drops from very low to nearly non-existent and I don't think mask mandates can be justified anymore. I'm done with it personally, if others want to wear them that's fine but I won't.
 
I think we should appreciate the Wuhan Institute for its groundbreaking research. They have completely eliminated death from seasonal flu, which used to claim as many as 70,000 lives.

In the last last 2 years, have you heard of anyone dying from the regular flu?
 
As a doctor, all day I see people denying scientific facts to support their own preconceived delusions. I'm generally fine with it, because it only hurts you. I give you the information, you decide.

The problem is that with this pandemic, choosing to ignore science directly places other people's freedoms at risk.

If you should choose not to try to participate in preventing the spread, can I also choose to not treat you when you get hospitalized? You're lucky I haven't, and have been willing to put my health and my family's health at risk for the past year for it.
 
cowman said:
While I never personally was all that concerned about the virus I was OK with throwing a mask on when going into places where other people did. I just considered it being nice to people with a higher fear/lower risk tolerance than I have.

Now there's a vaccine available to anyone who wants it. I chose to get it, I don't care what everyone else does. However with the vaccine being available the risk drops from very low to nearly non-existent and I don't think mask mandates can be justified anymore. I'm done with it personally, if others want to wear them that's fine but I won't.
Click to expand...

Pretty much where I am.
 
samiamPA said:
As a doctor, all day I see people denying scientific facts to support their own preconceived delusions. I'm generally fine with it, because it only hurts you. I give you the information, you decide.

The problem is that with this pandemic, choosing to ignore science directly places other people's freedoms at risk.

If you should choose not to try to participate in preventing the spread, can I also choose to not treat you when you get hospitalized? You're lucky I haven't, and have been willing to put my health and my family's health at risk for the past year for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I have that in my living trust, and has been relayed to the person that makes medical decisions for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top