Masks protect others...But also *you* yourself

[topher694]

For a long time America was on the whole doing a lot of disinfecting of surfaces....

But for gas pump handles it has been (is) caveat emptor -- you'd better be aware, or else you could get the virus from a gas pump by touch, and no one would warn you. You had to figure it out on your own.

But also for a long time, too long, many Americans (too many) didn't know yet that masks are very helpful (have a big effect) to lessen spread and lessen severity of illness(!). Even masks that only are partially effective(!) -- because the virus spreads mostly by breathing in virus that is floating in indoor air, and initial viral exposure amount has a large effect.

So, it's hard to stop this virus, especially here in the U.S. and in other nations like us (Brazil for instance), where many people thought masks didn't matter much or the virus wasn't too dangerous, not knowing it matters just how much you get exposed to at once initially.

This highlights exactly why we need to keep up a healthy dialog. It is silly to think we've got it all figured out, but it has to be healthy and open to work and that's the struggle right now

 

[Paulos23]

And this right here is the problem. Go look how many times I've expressed my concern for others, but you just completely dismiss that. That's actually really poor taste. If someone doesn't see things 100% the same as you they MUST have selfish motives? What hubris. It is attitudes like that that are making things worse not better.

Part of the problem is that you don't acknowledge any benefit from masks. Your posts come off as if they are bad and so we should not even use them.

That is the part that irks me.

 

[topher694]

That's a good question. (and I found a link to read, and you'll quickly see it might not be enough and why; though also heat and humidity do degrade the virus over time also).

Does UV light kill the new coronavirus? | Live Science
(our ozone layer blocks the specific type of UV light that is the sure thing)

We just got a UV wand for our church

 

[topher694]

Part of the problem is that you don't acknowledge any benefit from masks. Your posts come off as if they are bad and so we should not even use them.

That is the part that irks me.

Not true. But regardless, masks are being talked about plenty, touching them not so much. Admittedly I was intentionally challenging in my initial responses, but the intent is to challenge people to think... And that has proven most difficult.

Additionally every expert I have read or heard, be they pro or anti mask have all said that touching it undoes any benefit... Seems to me a consensus like that is worth exploring further if our intent is truly to protect people.

 

[NotreDame]

No. Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all.

Is there data or evidence this is causing a spread in the virus?

 

[NotreDame]

It's remarkable how little critical thinking is going on about this. If someone says anything questioning about masks they automatically must not want to wear one and therefore not care about others... It is ridiculous.

Ok, let's say someone actually has covid, but no symptoms. That's what we are most concerned with right now. If masks do block a portion of the virus via our respiration that means the virus would be highly concentrated on the mask.

Now just a short time ago I watched people walking into a gas station. 5 in a row all did the exact same thing. Grabbed the mask out of their pocket. Touching the potential concentrated virus. Put it on their face. Grab the mask again at the nose/mouth level to pull it up over their nose thereby touching the most concentrated part a second time. Then, grab the door handle to open the door.

Every one of them touched that handle within a minute of each other. Inside people were touching and readjusting their masks all over the place.

That simply cannot be good. I don't know how bad it might be because no one is looking into it and if someone brings something like this up they are just called names and marginalized, as I have been several times.

I'm all for protecting people, I'm just not sure we are doing the best job we could be. And talking about that should be ok, but it's not.

That simply cannot be good. I don't know how bad it might be because no one is looking into it and if someone brings something like this up they are just called names and marginalized, as I have been several times.

And this is the issue to be resolved. Right now, according to the CDC, the thought is what you have described is not the primary means of transmission. Now, quantitatively I do not know what that means, but they are emphasizing the type of touch transmission would be someone coughing on a surface, sneezing on a surface, and then someone immediately or very shortly afterward touching that surface with their hands.

But I understand the concern, however, the data and evidence shows the vast majority of infection is occurring by the inhalation of respiratory droplets or aerosols. Hence, masks are going to reduce this route of transmission, which would improve the situation overall rather than making the situation worse.

 

[NotreDame]

Additionally every expert I have read or heard, be they pro or anti mask have all said that touching it undoes any benefit... Seems to me a consensus like that is worth exploring further if our intent is truly to protect people.

Sure, but I am doubtful, given what we know at the moment, the use of masks is making the situation "worse." Overall the use of masks will improve the situation as opposed to making it worse, including taking into account inappropriate touching of the mask.

 

[topher694]

Is there data or evidence this is causing a spread in the virus?

Point is that it's worth looking into... Without being ridiculed.

I realize touch is not considered the primary transmitter... But if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face. This is not an outlandish scenario. You can watch it happen consistently almost anywhere public. Masks seem, (to me) to have caused people to become lazy in all the other ways we could protect people.

 

[NotreDame]

Point is that it's worth looking into... Without being ridiculed.

I realize touch is not considered the primary transmitter... But if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face. This is not an outlandish scenario. You can watch it happen consistently almost anywhere public. Masks seem, (to me) to have caused people to become lazy in all the other ways we could protect people.

It is worth looking into and there may be some risk of infection this route, but given what we know presently, the conduct you’ve described in regards to mask isn’t likely “making it worse.”

But if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face. This is not an outlandish scenario.

What you’ve described may not be “outlandish,” but you’ve made a claim, “They’ve got a super concentrate right on their face,” that isn’t known to be correct.

This should be studied more, especially since the use of masks may be with us for the rest of the year. My point is I’m not overly concerned this transmission route will “make it worse” based on the evidence at the moment.

 

[topher694]

What you’ve described may not be “outlandish,” but you’ve made a claim, “They’ve got a super concentrate right on their face,” that isn’t known to be correct.

Actually there have been studies... With covid... that support this.

If the masks work, then the virus is being collected on the mask, if not then we wouldn't need them. We can't have it both ways.

 

[NotreDame]

Actually there have been studies... With covid... that support this.

If the masks work, then the virus is being collected on the mask, if not then we wouldn't need them. We can't have it both ways.

What studies? I have not read any study that supports your statement of, "if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face."

Maybe those studies exist. Please link them for me.

If the masks work, then the virus is being collected on the mask, if not then we wouldn't need them. We can't have it both ways.

The false dilemma scenario is not the issue.

One can admit, as I am inclined to do, there is virus on a mask by someone who A.) Has an active COVID infection and B.) are wearing a mask long enough for some virus to be breathed onto, coughed onto, sneezed onto, spoken onto, the mask itself.

The issue is your statement of, ""if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face."

Now, it may be the case we "can have it both ways" because it is possible there is not in fact a "super concentrate right on their face" as you say.

 

[topher694]

What studies? I have not read any study that supports your statement of, "if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face."

Maybe those studies exist. Please link them for me.



The false dilemma scenario is not the issue.

One can admit, as I am inclined to do, there is virus on a mask by someone who A.) Has an active COVID infection and B.) are wearing a mask long enough for some virus to be breathed onto, coughed onto, sneezed onto, spoken onto, the mask itself.

The issue is your statement of, ""if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face."

Now, it may be the case we "can have it both ways" because it is possible there is not in fact a "super concentrate right on their face" as you say.

I'd have to go looking for it again. I've read so much on this it's hard to remember where it all came from. But I haven't just read the articles and conclusions, I've read some of the actual studies. Have you ever read those things? Sheesh! Lol. Talk about dry. Many might as well be in a different language.

Again my point is - which I know you have acknowledged - that it needs to be looked at. My wife has a degree in biology, she's studied this exact stuff, albeit not as detailed as those who do the studies. But she has been talking about this stuff for years, decades, long before covid. She likes to say taking microbiology will change the way you look at the world forever. That you will need healing and deliverance after taking that class... lol. Problem is, we are facing a microbiology problem and not (by in large) looking at it that way.

Studies done on the effectiveness of masks are done in a controlled environment under specific conditions... those conditions are not actually happening in the real world... could "it might be worse" be overstating it? Sure. But it is also possible that it is not overstating, and if it gets people to think about such things and do a better job, then I think it has value.

btw, this is only one area where I see possible issues. Imagine if I had mentioned the others too! But again, I'm not against masks, I'm for constructive conversations and studies... but those seem to be in short supply.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd have to go looking for it again. I've read so much on this it's hard to remember where it all came from. But I haven't just read the articles and conclusions, I've read some of the actual studies. Have you ever read those things? Sheesh! Lol. Talk about dry. Many might as well be in a different language.

Again my point is - which I know you have acknowledged - that it needs to be looked at. My wife has a degree in biology, she's studied this exact stuff, albeit not as detailed as those who do the studies. But she has been talking about this stuff for years, decades, long before covid. She likes to say taking microbiology will change the way you look at the world forever. That you will need healing and deliverance after taking that class... lol. Problem is, we are facing a microbiology problem and not (by in large) looking at it that way.

Studies done on the effectiveness of masks are done in a controlled environment under specific conditions... those conditions are not actually happening in the real world... could "it might be worse" be overstating it? Sure. But it is also possible that it is not overstating, and if it gets people to think about such things and do a better job, then I think it has value.

btw, this is only one area where I see possible issues. Imagine if I had mentioned the others too! But again, I'm not against masks, I'm for constructive conversations and studies... but those seem to be in short supply.

Maybe your wife knows where to find the studies you mentioned? Round here unsupported claims of 'studies' that other interested parties are unaware of and surprised by tend to get a sceptical response.

 

[topher694]

Maybe your wife knows where to find the studies you mentioned? Round here unsupported claims of 'studies' that other interested parties are unaware of and surprised by tend to get a sceptical response.

Thanks for filling me in on how things work round here. I'll be sure to get my wife working on that for you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for filling me in on how things work round here.

You're welcome.

 

[NotreDame]

I'd have to go looking for it again. I've read so much on this it's hard to remember where it all came from. But I haven't just read the articles and conclusions, I've read some of the actual studies. Have you ever read those things? Sheesh! Lol. Talk about dry. Many might as well be in a different language.

Again my point is - which I know you have acknowledged - that it needs to be looked at. My wife has a degree in biology, she's studied this exact stuff, albeit not as detailed as those who do the studies. But she has been talking about this stuff for years, decades, long before covid. She likes to say taking microbiology will change the way you look at the world forever. That you will need healing and deliverance after taking that class... lol. Problem is, we are facing a microbiology problem and not (by in large) looking at it that way.

Studies done on the effectiveness of masks are done in a controlled environment under specific conditions... those conditions are not actually happening in the real world... could "it might be worse" be overstating it? Sure.

btw, this is only one area where I see possible issues. Imagine if I had mentioned the others too! But again, I'm not against masks, I'm for constructive conversations and studies... but those seem to be in short supply.

Have you ever read those things? Sheesh!

Yes.

Studies done on the effectiveness of masks are done in a controlled environment under specific conditions... those conditions are not actually happening in the real world

Is this to suggest those same studies do not inform us, generally, of how effective masks will operate in the “real world”? The elements of a “controlled environment” and “specific conditions” are not necessarily negatives by which one or both are impediments to understanding the effectiveness of masks. Controlled environments and specific conditions exist for very good reasons in regards to studies and this is equally true for those studies pertaining to masks. What is more determinative of the efficacy of the study are the manner and kind of controlled environments and specific conditions in relation to what is being tested.

could "it might be worse" be overstating it? Sure. But it is also possible that it is not overstating, and if it gets people to think about such things and do a better job, then I think it has value.

Right now, the overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion a very large number of infection occurs from large respiratory droplets or from aerosol (the word aerosol is not agreed upon at the moment, so I’ll use the understanding of virus clinging to smaller water droplets than that for response droplets, and capable of migrating some distance) indoors, in close proximity to an infected person for X amount of time, and/or indoors with several people, or a large gathering, for X amount of time, in which there’s no air flow or air inside is recirculated to air inside, with no masks being used. Which is to say, even if what you’ve said is true, it isn’t likely to “make it worse” since transmission and infection in the manner you’ve described is de minimis from an evidentiary point of view. (See Korean call center outbreak study, in which only one floor was infected in the building despite the sharing of bathrooms, elevators, and break rooms).

But it is also possible that it is not overstating, and if it gets people to think about such things and do a better job, then I think it has value.

Can’t this be done without “overstating”? Can’t we achieve the above without making the unsubstantiated leap of a “super concentrate” does of virus exists in your scenario?

The U.S. experience has demonstrated the necessity of making cautious remarks about what is factual pertaining to the virus. With so much misinformation circulating and suspicion of science, “overstating” has the potential to exacerbate an already considerable mistrustful segment of society as it relates to the virus.

 

[topher694]

Yes.



Is this to suggest those same studies do not inform us, generally, of how effective masks will operate in the “real world”? The elements of a “controlled environment” and “specific conditions” are not necessarily negatives by which one or both are impediments to understanding the effectiveness of masks. Controlled environments and specific conditions exist for very good reasons in regards to studies and this is equally true for those studies pertaining to masks. What is more determinative of the efficacy of the study are the manner and kind of controlled environments and specific conditions in relation to what is being tested.



Right now, the overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion a very large number of infection occurs from large respiratory droplets or from aerosol (the word aerosol is not agreed upon at the moment, so I’ll use the understanding of virus clinging to smaller water droplets than that for response droplets, and capable of migrating some distance) indoors, in close proximity to an infected person for X amount of time, and/or indoors with several people, or a large gathering, for X amount of time, in which there’s no air flow or air inside is recirculated to air inside, with no masks being used. Which is to say, even if what you’ve said is true, it isn’t likely to “make it worse” since transmission and infection in the manner you’ve described is de minimis from an evidentiary point of view. (See Korean call center outbreak study, in which only one floor was infected in the building despite the sharing of bathrooms, elevators, and break rooms).



Can’t this be done without “overstating”? Can’t we achieve the above without making the unsubstantiated leap of a “super concentrate” does of virus exists in your scenario?

The U.S. experience has demonstrated the necessity of making cautious remarks about what is factual pertaining to the virus. With so much misinformation circulating and suspicion of science, “overstating” has the potential to exacerbate an already considerable mistrustful segment of society as it relates to the virus.

Give me a break. "Can't this be done without 'overstating'"? As I have said before, I have been called a murderer on 3 different occasions for suggesting more information would be good, much more mildly that I have here. Or, like here, my word choice gets picked apart and therefore the entire point can be thrown out because of vocabulary... it's just more petty games.

Every single doctor, every single [related] study I have seen/heard says something along the lines of touching the mask removes any benefit. It's about closest thing I have heard to a consensus in this whole thing. I have yet to observe a single person use their mask correctly (myself included, even though I try). But somehow *I* am the one minimizing? Yeah, ok.

 

[NotreDame]

Give me a break. "Can't this be done without 'overstating'"? As I have said before, I have been called a murderer on 3 different occasions for suggesting more information would be good, much more mildly that I have here.

It's about closest thing I have heard to a consensus in this whole thing. I have yet to observe a single person use their mask correctly (myself included, even though I try). But somehow *I* am the one minimizing? Yeah, ok.

Give me a break.

Why? If you’re overstating, then you’re overstating. Regardless, I have no evidence for what you’ve alleged. Do not ask for “breaks” for claims you cannot substantiate with evidence.

As I have said before, I have been called a murderer on 3 different occasions for suggesting more information would be good

The above wasn’t done by me and isn’t our dialogue. Leave the baggage of other dialogues with the other dialogues.

Or, like here, my word choice gets picked apart and therefore the entire point can be thrown out because of vocabulary... it's just more petty games.

Your blaming me for your poor word choice? Oh tell me more! Blaming others for your poor choice of words is your problem!

Apparently it has never occurred to you but words matter. Words communicate ideas, beliefs, claims, thoughts, notions, and so forth. If you intended to say something different than the words you chose to communicate your point, then fine, say it, no big deal. It happens. No one communicates ideas, thoughts, beliefs, or converses error feee at all times.

But to blame others for your less than preferred word choice to properly and effectively communicate what you intended to say, and expect me or anyone else to be the Pythia in the temple and divine from your cryptic message of sloppy wording what you intended to say, is the “petty games.” Just state you meant to say X, not Y, and move on.
Do not blame others for doing the logical thing of, unsurprisingly, focusing upon the words you chose to express yourself and communicate your thoughts.

You described a phenomenon and made a deduction, a conclusion, about the phenomenon. You subsequently provided no supporting evidence for your very specific claim. That’s what happened.

Now, ostensibly, you meant to say something else and are irritated this forum lacks a mind reader.

Every single doctor, every single [related] study I have seen/heard says something along the lines of touching the mask removes any benefit.

You’ll forgive my incredulity, as I’ve yet to read or hear any doctor, or read any study, making any such exact claim. I have read it is plausible to contaminate a mask by touching mask with one’s: A) Fingers, specifically a healthy person wearing a mask who touches the outside of the mask. The risk here being it is plausible they could then transfer infectious virus from mask to their fingers and then they rub their eyes or take the mask off and touch their nose or mouth with their finger(s), B.) It is plausible a person somehow has infectious virus on their fingers and touch the mask with their fingers, thereby transferring the infectious virus to their mask. The risk being the infectious virus, now somewhere on the mask, could make contact with the nose, mouth, or eyes.

But somehow *I* am the one minimizing? Yeah, ok.

I’ve yet to say you’ve minimized.

 

[topher694]

Why? If you’re overstating, then you’re overstating. Regardless, I have no evidence for what you’ve alleged. Do not ask for “breaks” for claims you cannot substantiate with evidence.



The above wasn’t done by me and isn’t our dialogue. Leave the baggage of other dialogues with the other dialogues.



Your blaming me for your poor word choice? Oh tell me more! Blaming others for your poor choice of words is your problem!

Apparently it has never occurred to you but words matter. Words communicate ideas, beliefs, claims, thoughts, notions, and so forth. If you intended to say something different than the words you chose to communicate your point, then fine, say it, no big deal. It happens. No one communicates ideas, thoughts, beliefs, or converses error feee at all times.

But to blame others for your less than preferred word choice to properly and effectively communicate what you intended to say, and expect me or anyone else to be the Pythia in the temple and divine from your cryptic message of sloppy wording what you intended to say, is the “petty games.” Just state you meant to say X, not Y, and move on.
Do not blame others for doing the logical thing of, unsurprisingly, focusing upon the words you chose to express yourself and communicate your thoughts.

You described a phenomenon and made a deduction, a conclusion, about the phenomenon. You subsequently provided no supporting evidence for your very specific claim. That’s what happened.

Now, ostensibly, you meant to say something else and are irritated this forum lacks a mind reader.



You’ll forgive my incredulity, as I’ve yet to read or hear any doctor, or read any study, making any such exact claim. I have read it is plausible to contaminate a mask by touching mask with one’s: A) Fingers, specifically a healthy person wearing a mask who touches the outside of the mask. The risk here being it is plausible they could then transfer infectious virus from mask to their fingers and then they rub their eyes or take the mask off and touch their nose or mouth with their finger(s), B.) It is plausible a person somehow has infectious virus on their fingers and touch the mask with their fingers, thereby transferring the infectious virus to their mask. The risk being the infectious virus, now somewhere on the mask, could make contact with the nose, mouth, or eyes.



I’ve yet to say you’ve minimized.

I only read the first sentence, since you clearly haven't read what I've written previously in it's entirety or at least not very closely. You are twisting and manipulating my words to fit your debate... Not mine. I'm not going to argue with someone whose sole purpose appears to be arguing. It's childish and silly.

 

[NotreDame]

I only read the first sentence, since you clearly haven't read what I've written previously in it's entirety or at least not very closely. You are twisting and manipulating my words to fit your debate... Not mine. I'm not going to argue with someone whose sole purpose appears to be arguing. It's childish and silly.

I only read the first sentence, since you clearly haven't read what I've written previously in it's entirety or at least not very closely.

If saying it only made it so! There’s no supporting evidence in any of my posts for what you’ve said above. I have addressed exactly what you said.

You are twisting and manipulating my words to fit your debate...

Oh? Whose words were “super concentrate”? Who wrote that? You did! Not twisting, you typed those words. You, and only you, conjured an example of a transference of a “super concentrate” of virus. When asked for evidence? You submitted none. Suddenly, your example of touching a mask “makes it worse” is an unsubstantiated claim.

Then your approach was to remark how you’ve been mistreated by others, an irrelevant lamentation.

You transitioned to another claim, yet, as before, submitted no evidence for the most recent claim.

What happened here is you made a claim, was asked for supporting evidence, you submitted none.

I'm not going to argue with someone whose sole purpose appears to be arguing. It's childish and silly

This implies you’ve “argued” at all, you haven’t. Making a claim and then failing to substantiate your claim with evidence isn’t “arguing.” That is childish, except, well, I know children who grasp the idea of providing supporting evidence.

My “sole purpose” is to discover what is true or very likely true. You presented a scenario of touching the mask, then touching a door handle, and another touches the door handle and has a “super concentrate” amount of virus on the hand. When asked for evidence? You submitted nothing. Suddenly, your notion touching the mask “makes it worse” has no supporting evidence.

It is important to know whether what you’ve said is true, but to do that requires the very thing you are anemic at providing, evidence.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself and own up to what happened! You made specific claims you cannot so far provide any supporting evidence. Lesson to be learned: at least be aware whether you have or lack supporting evidence for a claim.