Masks block 99.9% of large COVID-linked droplets: study

Wear masks and help to prevent the spread of the Virus.

Nature intended those droplets and everything else you exhale to leave your lungs, the masks force them all back into your system.

Nature intended humans to die from simple infections, antibiotics force them to live longer than 30 years.

B.B. your logic is impeccable.

gary

@BB: Wrong! They collect within the mask. That is why you should change disposable mask or wash reusable daily.

Omg ten months into a pandemic that’s killed millions and we still have people debating about masks . Just wear one .

Nature intended those droplets and everything else you exhale to leave your lungs, the masks force them all back into your system.

That is not how physics and biology work, you are mistaken.

Great video on the science behind aerosol transmission and what masks do, share it widely: https

Only if by great you mean misleading and false. The "opinions" are contradicted by science and they only "disprove" strawman fallacies. Drop the videos, they are a tool for misinformation more often than not, and go to primary sources (as in peer reviewed scientific reports) those are much more difficult to manipulate to give false appearances.

Omg ten months into a pandemic that’s killed millions and we still have people debating about masks . Just wear one .

This childishness and politically driven nonsense about masks has very probably seen people killed.

Grow up and put a mask on.

The point of mask wearing is to reduce the viral load the wearer breathes out, or the number of viral particles the wearer breathes in. The viral load you get is one factor in how sick you get, and likewise if you are infected, the viral load you breathe out will be a big factor in how sick any infected people will become. Your chances of getting or causing a milder or even an asymptomatic case are dramatically improved by mask wearing. Your immune system can work much more efficiently against a few hundred or a few thousand viral particles, compared to hundreds of thousands or millions of them.

So masks will catch a lot of the large respiratory droplets, and although they don't catch all of the airborne aerosols, reducing the load will definitely help protect the wearer from serious illness and death, or conversely, protect those around an infected person from serious illness or death.

In Japan, we are mostly denied testing. The number of infected people is increasing dramatically, so your chances of exposure are growing. As vaccine rollout here promises to be slow and you will be queuing for months for your turn to be vaccinated, in the meantime, mask wearing (along of course with handwashing and avoiding crowded and poorly ventilated indoor spaces) is the single biggest way to protect yourself and others.

Mask loving propaganda, people forget that they have functioning immune systems and the tiny minority who doesn't shouldn't be out and about during the pandemic, anyway. No masks for me, thanks. Do you really want to wear that thing forever?

Mask loving propaganda .... Do you really want to wear that ...

Leave feelings out of it. Viruses don't care what you or I feel. Maskless people are simply useful idiots for the virus, powerful disease vectors for it to replicate successfully. Just like rats during previous outbreaks of Bubonic plague, really.

Guess what your nostrils'job with its hairs are doing as a first occupation ?

Mask is improving it. Better be an improved human equipped with mask than thinking you don't need science to help you. For my older family members first. Especially today I do not wish to give any unintented thing.

I wish that all of the anti-mask and the anti-vaccination people would move in together to a remote area that is fenced in.

Only if by great you mean misleading and false. The "opinions" are contradicted by science and they only "disprove" strawman fallacies. Drop the videos, they are a tool for misinformation more often than not, and go to primary sources (as in peer reviewed scientific reports) those are much more difficult to manipulate to give false appearances.

Such as?

@ as the crow flies,

I like your explanation. I have seen that mentioned in a few places, but not as clearly.

So masks do little, if anything, to prevent catching the virus, but they are great at preventing severe symptoms, right?

Such as?

PMID: 33350330, 33347937, 33291939, 33291939, 33145693, etc.

pubmed doesn't have the best search engine, but it works well enough to let you find any information you may want quickly.

So masks do little, if anything, to prevent catching the virus, but they are great at preventing severe symptoms, right?

According to the best available evidence mask do quite a lot preventing catching the virus if used properly, specially when combined with other health and social distancing measures. This article is about one of such reports.

Theoretically, they may also work preventing serious presentations of the disease, but this is based on how severity correlates with the viral loads inoculated for other viruses so it cannot be said for sure.

That could explain why so many US republicans have caught the virus. But, please do carry on.

No masks for me, thanks. Do you really want to wear that thing forever?

I wear a mask precisely because I don't want to wear the thing forever.

I can't believe we STILL have anti-maskers, a year into the pandemic.

Come on, pull your head out of it and use your intelligence for something intelligent.

The last part of my post was not meant as an antimask view. I was trying to bridge the gap between the promaskers and those who rely on their immune system.

The latter group should still wear a mask, they can still catch the virus and become immune, while avoiding a large viral load that can result in severe symptoms.

A doctor being interviewed on the radio described the use of masks in a way that makes a lot of sense to me. He said that masks are to Covid-19 what condoms are to HIV/AIDS.

well, isn't this quite the turnaround after the most comprehensive mask study was completed this past summer by the Dutch (spoiler alert: they have no effect)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-

Also flies in the face of the current spike in Japan where mask use is close to 100% of the population.

They don't work. Everyone knows they don't work. Its a performative action to show you submit. Nothing more.

well, isn't this quite the turnaround after the most comprehensive mask study was completed this past summer by the Dutch (spoiler alert: they have no effect)

No, that is not the concussion. The study was done the best as possible for the circumstances at the time, but it does not provide such strong evidence of "no effect"; instead it only provides weak evidence of "effect" which is not the same thing.

There is already a lot of commentaries on the limitations of the study or how to to take it in combination with the rest of the available evidence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/11/18/lead-researcher-behind-controversial-danish-study-says-you-should-still-wear-a-mask/?sh=5017282039e7

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/danish-study-doesnt-prove-masks-dont-work-against-the-coronavirus/

In short it is not the undeniable proof some people are trying to make it appear like, its good science but far from proving mask don't work, much less definitely.

Also flies in the face of the current spike in Japan where mask use is close to 100% of the population.

That is mistaken, the argument was never that mask protect perfectly, but that they help. So showing people can still get infected even if most use them does nothing to disprove it. Without proper data nobody can even prove that most or even all of the infected people were not using masks adequately.

Obviously infection rates are a complicated thing that are affected by a lot of factors, so it is not so easy as just saying "more mask means less cases" but taking in account the many different things that should have made Tokyo a public health tragedy already (no lockdowns, huge population crowding, tiny amount of tests and tracing, etc.) Masks do help explaining how it has been able to avoid becoming full of cases.

They don't work. Everyone knows they don't work. Its a performative action to show you submit. Nothing more.

Trump's out fella, you're allowed to start thinking for yourself again. Although I guess it must be tough after 4 years of Stockholm Syndrome induced blind bro-science compliance.

If you were in a room full of people with Covid I bet my house that you'd 'submit' to wearing a mask double quick. You talk tough, but you'd be praying to the docs if you caught it. You know they work. Everyone knows.

A woman standing two meters from a coughing man without a mask will be exposed to 10,000 times more such droplets than if he were wearing one, even if he is only 50 centimeters away, they reported in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

So people with coughs should wear masks?

I think Japan is doing a great job on wearing the masks. However, I have noticed numerous people not properly wearing their mask, not covering the nose. This is from national leadership to the common men/women. Might be a good idea if the government would put out clear and easy instructions/or a training aid on how to properly wear the mask which should emphasize the need to have the mask covering the nose. These instructions, training aids, or posters could be placed in public areas, places of business, schools, shopping areas, trains/and stations etc. If this is already being done, need to up the process to get better compliance. Just a thought!!!

A couple of questions for the multitude of epidemiologists on JT;

How is it that a mask is so great at controlling aerosols going out, but not coming in?

If Covid can be contracted through the eyes, why are we not wearing a full face covering?

Asking for a friend...

Quote from article: "Masks serve primarily to reduce the emissions of virus-laden droplets by people when they cough, sneeze, sing, talk or simply breathe, but they can also help prevent the inhalation of droplets by the person wearing them."

They act as a filter or baffle, reducing the easy ride for the virions. Slow down, thin out. If you can follow that logic, then two people wearing masks is even more effective than just one. Not perfect, but far better than nothing at all.

Tell your friend that if he/she is worried about contracting through the eyes, there are splash options available like goggles and face shields.

A woman standing two meters from a coughing man without a mask will be exposed to 10,000 times more such droplets than if he were wearing one, even if he is only 50 centimeters away, they reported in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

So they are assuming that people were just coughing openly into air, instead of covering their months before these mask mandates were invented. Nobody ever thought about etiquette or coughing into a a handkerchief or your elbow before. Right. We are looking at pure rocket science here.

Grandp Lightfoot

I think Japan is doing a great job on wearing the masks. However, I have noticed numerous people not properly wearing their mask, not covering the nose.

Ever tried coughing or shouting through your nose?

What I want to know is who came up with the absurd idea of covering the nose, which be definition means controlled, slow breath, is a good idea.

How is it that a mask is so great at controlling aerosols going out, but not coming in?

If Covid can be contracted through the eyes, why are we not wearing a full face covering?

Asking for a friend...

Because of the speed of the particles, its much easier to trap aerosols when they are forced thru the mask.

You can use full face coverings, but for practical reasons eyes are not a priority, simply speaking most of the transmission is done by direct inoculation of the viruses on the tissue of the respiratory airways, if you can stop 99% of the infections if everybody wears a mask, and 99.5% if everybody wears a full face covering the benefits are not worth of the costs (including not only inconvenience but also difficulty to wear properly without contamination).

So they are assuming that people were just coughing openly into air, instead of covering their months before these mask mandates were invented. Nobody ever thought about etiquette or coughing into a a handkerchief or your elbow before. Right. We are looking at pure rocket science here.

No, that is incorrect, they are showing how mask work in a simple, easy to understand situation. You are the one that is assuming that mask would not work with coughing etiquette, that is not correct, there is no reason why the same reduction cannot be observed with different kinds of coughing.

What I want to know is who came up with the absurd idea of covering the nose, which be definition means controlled, slow breath, is a good idea.

If it can be proved as effective then it is not absurd. First, breathing with the nose is not "by definition" the same as breathing slowly and controlled, that is what is absurd. Second, breathing slowly do not stop aerosols from going into the airways, that is true if you are breathing with your mouth or with your nose. And third, it is already corroborated that masks do reduce the introduction of viral particles in simulated normal, slow breathing, without any negative health effects.

The masks work by "filtering" the air you are breathing, most people do that with their noses, so that is what needs to be covered.

99.9% of people in Japan wear a mask. So why the 4% daily increase?

Because of the speed of the particles, its much easier to trap aerosols when they are forced thru the mask.

But only going in 1 direction eh? The other direction is like a giant sieve because......science!

I guess those Dutch scientists and their 6000 diverse test subjects forgot to carry the 2.

99.9% of people in Japan wear a mask. So why the 4% daily increase?

the mental gymnastics needed to explain the Japan spike despite a virtual 100% mask usage is like watching Nadia Comâneci at the '76 Olympics

99.9% of people in Japan wear a mask. So why the 4% daily increase?

4% of what? the whole population? what is bigger? the 0.1% of the whole population or the 4% of the detected cases?

I guess those Dutch scientists and their 6000 diverse test subjects forgot to carry the 2.

If you are not able to understand the study it is hardly the fault of the authors, if they themselves say their study is not meant to address how well the mask protect others and that mask recommendations are still completely justified, who are you to tell the opposite?

If you are not able to understand the study it is hardly the fault of the authors, if they themselves say their study is not meant to address how well the mask protect others and that mask recommendations are still completely justified, who are you to tell the opposite?

"completely justified"?

from the paper in question;

Conclusion:

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

End quote.

Its fun misquoting people, isn't it? Most would not bother fact-checking you.

Its fun misquoting people, isn't it? Most would not bother fact-checking you.

How about fact-checking what I already linked to?

While the study found little evidence that masks protected the wearers from Covid-19, it should not be used as evidence to not wear a mask. “Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” says Dr. Henning Bundgaard, professor of Cardiology at Rigshospitalet in Denmark and lead author of the study, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease."

You yourself quoted from me how the main problem is that the study made no effort to quantify how much other people are protected by you wearing a mask, the conclusions you copied do nothing to falsify that. Mask recommendations depends on both kinds of protection, the authors found a small degree of protection from one side, and did not examined the other, how hard is to understand that is enough to justify it?

Try to understand better the science, and read what is being brought to the discussion, even the name of the link (lead-researcher-behind-controversial-danish-study-says-you-should-still-wear-a-mask/) would have been enough for you to get the point.

virusrex - see my above comment about mental gymnastics. The study's conclusion says it all.

The lead researcher threw a bone to the hypochondriacs with a "meh, it can't hurt" aside. Nothing more, nothing less.

and the tiny minority who doesn't shouldn't be out and about during the pandemic, anyway.

Why not make the environment safer for all of us, by wearing a mask, so we can leave the house/go to work etc?

No masks for me, thanks. Do you really want to wear that thing forever?

If needs be. I'd rather the selfish folk mask up so we can all rid ourselves of the pandemic.

Besides, doctors and medics get by for years with daily wear. As do Japanese (and residents) who wear masks daily during flu season.

The lead researcher threw a bone to the hypochondriacs with a "meh, it can't hurt" aside. Nothing more, nothing less.

Read the comments before replying, the study was not even made to prove the recommendations wrong, because they never examined how much protections for others using a mask can bring, which until now has been demonstrated scientifically as the most important part of the benefits from using them. The conclusions obviously not even touch that, since they examined the lesser of the benefits, and still found some of it, you false misinterpretation of it is not justified.

Read again the conclusions, why do you think they had to include such heavy modifiers (modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use)? it is because those are well known factors that can lead to the opposite results to be found easily.

And if I have the authors saying one thing, and you saying they meant the opposite, It is a sure bet which one is more worthy of listening. You have proved not to understand very well the science, not much to expect from you as a mind reader either.

And if I have the authors saying one thing, and you saying they meant the opposite, It is a sure bet which one is more worthy of listening. You have proved not to understand very well the science, not much to expect from you as a mind reader either.

I understand science at least as well as you. But what I don't do that you are very good at is crowbar your wished-upon narrative into it.

Masks are not 100% but then not wearing one surly spreads the virus.

Zichi - I guess you missed the results of the most comprehensive study done by the Dutch this past summer. They have no effect.

I understand science at least as well as you. But what I don't do that you are very good at is crowbar your wished-upon narrative into it.

You misinterpreting the results and conclusions prove otherwise, specially when the authors of the study clearly contradict your mistaken intentions to understand it. The data is clear and independent of whatever narrative you are desperately trying to use as an excuse.

For example.

Zichi - I guess you missed the results of the most comprehensive study done by the Dutch this past summer. They have no effect

This betrays a terrible lack of understanding of the study, out of the 2 main advantages the study tested one, under very specific circumstances and found a small benefit. This would mean it does the opposite to prove they are useless, it only proves you did not understand the study.

Other studies under different circumstances and methodologies have found a more important effect. In science nothing is ever decided by a single study, not even if it is big.

That’s completely crazy talking, because the necessary condition here is , that all the viruses are ‘caged’ in aerosol droplets. You cannot guarantee that and the viruses also don’t do you that pleasure to voluntarily jump into droplets so that your cheap useless masks can catch them. Compare it with all those PET bottles around you. Of course an exciting recycling rate is possible if you collect all of them and give them directly into the recycling center. But now have a look while driving or walking around. Masses of such unrecycled bottles laying around everywhere, beside the spilling over collection spots, on road sides, in the forests , coast side, beaches etc. The real recycling rate of those is therefore probably near zero...lol

That’s completely crazy talking, because the necessary condition here is , that all the viruses are ‘caged’ in aerosol droplets. You cannot guarantee that and the viruses also don’t do you that pleasure to voluntarily jump into droplets so that your cheap useless masks can catch them. Compare

It just seems crazy because of quite an unusual degree of lack of understanding of biology. How do you imagine the virus exist inside the body? flying around with tiny microscopic wings? It is as natural as expect viruses inside liquid as fish.

The viruses do not "jump" into droplets, they are always contained inside liquid, and go with it when that liquid is expelled out in the form of droplets. They are also contained inside normal sized drops, saliva, mucus etc. For all practical purposes viruses outside of droplets are non-existent, and even more, SARS-CoV-2 as all other enveloped viruses degrades very quickly when in contact with detergents, alcohol and when dessicated. So the very, very limited amounts of viruses not included in droplets can be considered "dying" already.

This betrays a terrible lack of understanding of the study,

You misinterpreting the results and conclusions prove otherwise,

It just seems crazy because of quite an unusual degree of lack of understanding of biology.

Sven - You must realize we are dealing with someone much smarter than you....because he insists he is.

Rex - well now, you're right. I don't have a great grasp of all this scienc-y stuff. For example, the first time I read this;

Conclusion:

The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

.....I mistakenly thought that meant masks have no effect. But now after your guiding hand, I know that it means Masks are conclusively effective!

Rex- why is it that flu numbers have fallen off a cliff in Japan this season?

Sven - You must realize we are dealing with someone much smarter than you....because he insists he is.

No such thing, I just make clear mistaken concepts that can be easily demonstrated as such, that has nothing to do with intelligence. On the other hand trying to discuss the person because you cannot do anything against the arguments would.

Rex - well now, you're right. I don't have a great grasp of all this scienc-y stuff. For example, the first time I read this;

Yes, that does it, because you can copy and past it repeatedly and still you don't understand how that is very different from what you concluded about it.

Me, the experts around the world and the main author of the study interpret that conclusion meaning that evidence of one of the secondary benefits existing but being weak on these specific circumstances, and the main benefit being not examined. You on the other side thinks it means any and all benefits from the masks are nonexistent. That would mean that yes, you don't really understand very well those conclusions and that is why you think you are right, and everybody else, including the authors are wrong.

Rex- why is it that flu numbers have fallen off a cliff in Japan this season?

Because influenza virus is much more sensitive to all the different measures to stop the transmission of respiratory viruses, including mas use. It is very likely those measures also work for COVID-19, we just don't have previous years to compare with.

I have already made the interpretation of that conclusion extremely clear, and it is something shared by the main author, that this study do NOT prove that mask are noneffective. Your strawman (that anybody has said that this study proves mask are conclusively effective) is only a false argument you use because you cannot do anything against the real one.

Because influenza virus is much more sensitive to all the different measures to stop the transmission of respiratory viruses, including mas use. It is very likely those measures also work for COVID-19, we just don't have previous years to compare with.

Hi Rex - Can you explain why masks are so effective against the flu, but seemingly useless when it comes to Covid?

Rex - also curious is this statement "influenza virus is much more sensitive to all the different measures...."

Im not a science-y type fella. Could you show me the evidence on that one?

Hi Rex - Can you explain why masks are so effective against the flu, but seemingly useless when it comes to Covid?

No, you have not yet understood the situation,

First, the whole set of measures are effective, that includes masks, other hygienic measures, social distancing, etc.

Second, what makes you think they are useless against COVID-19? to what numbers are you comparing what we have now? It is perfectly possible that we could have 10 or 20 times more cases without the measures in place right now. To say this is not the case you need epidemiological data to say that without masks we would have the same numbers, do you have that data?

I have already said this before, but just in case you didn't get it, masks have never been thought to offer perfect protection to all and every person using them. It is expected that we will have cases even if everybody wore the masks properly (something that is obviously not true). You are again discussing against a strawman, a false argument that nobody has proposed (that masks could prevent every single case) because you cannot do anything against the real one (that masks are very likely to help according to the whole scientific evidence available right now).

COVID-19 is much more contagious than the flu, it is part of what is expected that any measure would be much more effective against influenza virus, specially because lots of people are vaccinated against it, and that asymptomatic people are not tested regularly against influenza (even if it is well known that also happens frequently).

Im not a science-y type fella. Could you show me the evidence on that one?

Do you understand the concept of R0? asymptomatic infections? vaccines?

COVID has a higher R0, its frequently transmitted by asymptomatic carriers and the vaccine for it has not yet been available. Influenza is the opposite, that means that its easier to stop spreading.

Being able to recognize you don't understand the topic is a big improvement. Instead of just assuming your mistaken conceptions must be right just because you came up with them, its much more productive to ask about what you ignore, so you can avoid getting things wrong.

Every piece of information to support this argument is easily available with google, but if you feel insecure about finding it just ask.

You love to pretend you have all the answers, but when pressed for an answer....

You love to pretend you have all the answers, but when pressed for an answer....

If you cannot disprove even one of those answers and have to lower yourself to attack the person instead, that should make you realize you are wrong.

It is also against the rules.

zichi

If you don't want to wear a mask, stay at home.

How about: If you have a fever, cough, and sneeze, stay at home. So difficult?

Masks are not 100% but then not wearing one surly spreads the virus.

Simple breathing through the nose does not spread any virus. And if you cough and sneeze constantly, doing that into your mask is both repugnant and ineffective.

Interesting to see how many people believe in magic, if the media tells them to do so.

How about: If you have a fever, cough, and sneeze, stay at home. So difficult?

For the pandemic that is not enough, people apparently healthy, without any symptom can spread the disease, this decreases with masks. Not really difficult to understand.

Simple breathing through the nose does not spread any virus.

Scientific evidence says the opposite, perfectly healthy people spread the virus without needing of any kind of sneeze or cough. Doing that into a mask makes the spread less important.

"Believing in magic" is more appropiate to say for people that think their misconceptions are enough to contradict scientific knowledge.

This thread was both educational (thanks Rex) and entertaining (thanks bob).

The anti-mask minority are mostly just posturing or looking for an argument. Walk around them in the street, same here.