![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyHoly shit. I hope her job reimburses this expense. I just put a hefty amount of black ink on auto-delivery, and also paper.
In other news, we ran out of coffee, so I made an emergency run to the dollar store to get more. Nothing else would've impelled me to go there just now, but since I was there already I got more snacks, soup, milk, and bleach. They were sold out of butter, alas... I may have to brave the over-expensive Western Beef pricing! Talked to the cashier, she's stuck, when she's not at work, in a home with ten other people, only one bathroom. Puts my complaints about being cooped up in perspective!
Now, here's a thing I'm curious about. Two people I know - two people who are pretty reliable when it comes to this sort of thing, and whose opinions on science article abstracts I can trust - have recently linked me to this article, using it to back up a claim that use of cloth masks increases spread of disease compared to not wearing a mask at all: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
The reasoning around this makes sense - even careful users are going to have more moisture near the face, which may breed disease, and most people are not careful users and do all sorts of stupid things with face masks like lower and raise them willy-nilly. And, of course, there's not much quality control on the homemade cloth mask front.
However, the article does not seem to back this conclusion up at all, for the simple reason that they were not ethically able to put together a control group of hospital workers who don't wear masks, and their "normal use" group overwhelmingly used masks, so what you're comparing is "workers who use surgical masks" and "workers who use cloth masks". It's also not clear if the cloth masks were being changed with the same frequency as the surgical masks (twice a shift) or not. And, importantly, we definitely haven't established if using masks all day in a hospital gets results that can be generalized to the casual wearer who only wants to go out briefly to walk their dogs or buy butter.
(Other people, without citing any articles, have suggested that people wearing face masks may go out and about more and thus spread more disease. This is funny. The mere thought of having to breathe through a mask is enough to make me reconsider even the most dire of errands.)
So I don't actually know what to make of this article. Is there any data at all to back up the conclusion that face masks are riskier than no mask? Obviously I want the best and most accurate information so I can make the best choices.
In other news, we ran out of coffee, so I made an emergency run to the dollar store to get more. Nothing else would've impelled me to go there just now, but since I was there already I got more snacks, soup, milk, and bleach. They were sold out of butter, alas... I may have to brave the over-expensive Western Beef pricing! Talked to the cashier, she's stuck, when she's not at work, in a home with ten other people, only one bathroom. Puts my complaints about being cooped up in perspective!
Now, here's a thing I'm curious about. Two people I know - two people who are pretty reliable when it comes to this sort of thing, and whose opinions on science article abstracts I can trust - have recently linked me to this article, using it to back up a claim that use of cloth masks increases spread of disease compared to not wearing a mask at all: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
The reasoning around this makes sense - even careful users are going to have more moisture near the face, which may breed disease, and most people are not careful users and do all sorts of stupid things with face masks like lower and raise them willy-nilly. And, of course, there's not much quality control on the homemade cloth mask front.
However, the article does not seem to back this conclusion up at all, for the simple reason that they were not ethically able to put together a control group of hospital workers who don't wear masks, and their "normal use" group overwhelmingly used masks, so what you're comparing is "workers who use surgical masks" and "workers who use cloth masks". It's also not clear if the cloth masks were being changed with the same frequency as the surgical masks (twice a shift) or not. And, importantly, we definitely haven't established if using masks all day in a hospital gets results that can be generalized to the casual wearer who only wants to go out briefly to walk their dogs or buy butter.
(Other people, without citing any articles, have suggested that people wearing face masks may go out and about more and thus spread more disease. This is funny. The mere thought of having to breathe through a mask is enough to make me reconsider even the most dire of errands.)
So I don't actually know what to make of this article. Is there any data at all to back up the conclusion that face masks are riskier than no mask? Obviously I want the best and most accurate information so I can make the best choices.
Face Masks
Date: 2020-03-28 08:07 pm (UTC)They are useful for someone who is sick because it contains their contagious bits to them - but then people need to dispose of them (or with cloth: sterilize them) carefully. Touching an infected mask is also trouble.
Finding lots of opinions, but no facts -> Re: Face Masks
Date: 2020-03-28 08:25 pm (UTC)https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52015486
The two studies cited about flu do show a reduction of transmission with face masks even though the article pooh-poohs them:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/do-face-masks-prevent-virus_l_5e304a13c5b6ce51a4ec0a09
So - I probably read an opnion piece and thought it was the reporting of a study.
Re: Face Masks
Date: 2020-03-29 08:02 am (UTC)Re: Face Masks
Date: 2020-03-29 11:30 pm (UTC)The above is the link to an article behind a paywall at Washington Post, so I have not read it, but it was posted by someone I trust, and the conclusion is that even homemade fabric masks are protective enough to be worth wearing to the grocery store.