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

Angeltp

Active Member
Aug 5, 2020
67
44
Salem
✟11,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"If you’re unlucky enough to encounter an infectious person, wearing any kind of face covering will reduce the amount of virus that your body will take in.

"As it turns out, that’s pretty important. Breathing in a small amount of virus may lead to no disease or far more mild infection. But inhaling a huge volume of virus particles can result in serious disease or death."


Masks offer much more protection against coronavirus than many think

additional articles:
How much of the coronavirus does it take to make you sick? - STAT

"A range of new research on face coverings shows that the risk of infection to the wearer is decreased by 65 percent, said Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital."
Your Mask Cuts Own Risk by 65 Percent


----------
So, you are not only helping protect other people, but also yourself, when you wear a mask in public places or at gatherings that have more than only your own household.

Generally the basic recommendation is to wear a mask whenever indoors with non-household members (even extended family), and for outdoors at any time when you are less than 6 feet from non-household members outdoors.
 
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I’m just detailing what was said and asking for the evidence you say exists because you’ve read it. The false accusations is illusory, they do not exist.
Since you clearly don't get it here you go... although I'm sure you could find a way to misrepresent this too.

Here is the article/study/overview I read about:
Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers

NOTE!!!! I am not, nor was I ever saying this proves anything. What I have been saying all along is I read this overview of a study based on virus on the surface of masks and it got me thinking... then I observed the people going in and out of a gas station pulling the masks out of their pockets and putting them on and then grabbing the handle of the door. This made me think that such behavior cannot be good, and in light of the study could potentially be very bad. THEREFORE, given the seriousness of the situation it would make sense to me for someone to study this type of scenario because it more closely resembles real world situations than studies that only look at the percentage of droplets a mask does/does not block. Studies like this are less likely to happen if people don't ask questions... I'm not talking about disrespectful questions or making excuses, but questions that come from critical thinking and a desire to help more people. Yet over and over again the mere suggestion of questioning has been met with antagonism and accusations, as it was here.

So there you go. That's what I've been consistently talking about from the beginning. BTW, saying, "I was wrong" or "I apologize" doesn't hurt. Outside of that, I'd ask once again for you to refrain from responding to me on this topic.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Good job, thanks I appreciate it.

For the record NotreDame has repeatedly and completely misrepresented me and manufactured an argument that was never there.

“Manufactured an argument that was never there”? I quoted directly from your exchange to Paulos! You made an argument to Paulos. Below is the argument you made.

You said: “Masks could very well be making it worse.” When asked how by Paulo’s you said: “By using them incorrectly.” When Paulo’s stated better to wear them than not wear them at all, you said, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all.”

Okay, pausing for a moment to look at this exchange. You’ve made an argument. You made a claim, mask could make it worse, supported your claim with a weak premise of using the mask incorrectly, and sought to refute the idea of using a mask was better than not using a mask. You’ve made an argument. You made a conclusion, provided a supporting premise, and sought to refute a claim by another poster.

But the above argument continued: Paulo’s asked, “Again, how?”, in replying to your claim of, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all.” Your response, in answering the question posed by Paulo’s is “how,” and in support of your claim, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all,” you said, “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.”

That’s an argument. You provide a real life example of how use of the mask is incorrect, and the incorrect use of the mask is used to support of your claim the incorrect use of the mask, making it worse, refutes Paulo’s view using the mask is better than not using the mask.

In addition, stunningly you claim what you’ve described “simply cannot be good” despite your admission it hasn’t been studied! Well, I’d it hasn’t been studied, then how can you confidently claim what you’ve witnessed “simply cannot be good”? I digress. Moving along.

So, that is making an argument, and you made that argument in this thread.

I asked if you whether there was data or evidence the virus was spreading by what you’ve witnessed as incorrect use of the mask. In other words, I’m asking for the supporting evidence of the argument you made to Paulo’s. You said, “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.”

Here, you’ve combined the remark “worth looking into” with a scenario where you are very conclusory, as you say, “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.”

I said it isn’t known whether someone would have, as you claimed, a “super concentrate right on their face,” from your scenario. Your reply was: “Actually there have been studies... With covid... that support this.”

That’s an argument. You made a claim, “super concentrate right on their face,” and alluded to supporting evidence for the claim, “studies...that support this.” That’s an argument. And as of this moment, those supporting “studies” are conspicuously absent from your posts.

No misrepresentations man. None. What’s attributed to you above are your own statements, in a dialogue to Paulos and me. You made an argument to Paulos and to me.

That’s the “record.” You are defensive and deflecting because you have taken a point of view, a position, and said evidence exists in support of your position because you’ve seen the evidence, having read the evidence, and being asked to cite to the evidence. Inexplicably, you aren’t citing to the evidence you say exists because you’ve read the evidence, but instead playing the victim role because it’s unfair to be asked to cite to the evidence you say exists, evidence you say that you’ve seen.
 
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
“Manufactured an argument that was never there”? I quoted directly from your exchange to Paulos! You made an argument to Paulos. Below is the argument you made.

You said: “Masks could very well be making it worse.” When asked how by Paulo’s you said: “By using them incorrectly.” When Paulo’s stated better to wear them than not wear them at all, you said, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all.”

Okay, pausing for a moment to look at this exchange. You’ve made an argument. You made a claim, mask could make it worse, supported your claim with a weak premise of using the mask incorrectly, and sought to refute the idea of using a mask was better than not using a mask. You’ve made an argument. You made a conclusion, provided a supporting premise, and sought to refute a claim by another poster.

But the above argument continued: Paulo’s asked, “Again, how?”, in replying to your claim of, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all.” Your response, in answering the question posed by Paulo’s is “how,” and in support of your claim, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all,” you said, “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.”

That’s an argument. You provide a real life example of how use of the mask is incorrect, and the incorrect use of the mask is used to support of your claim the incorrect use of the mask, making it worse, refutes Paulo’s view using the mask is better than not using the mask.

In addition, stunningly you claim what you’ve described “simply cannot be good” despite your admission it hasn’t been studied! Well, I’d it hasn’t been studied, then how can you confidently claim what you’ve witnessed “simply cannot be good”? I digress. Moving along.

So, that is making an argument, and you made that argument in this thread.

I asked if you whether there was data or evidence the virus was spreading by what you’ve witnessed as incorrect use of the mask. In other words, I’m asking for the supporting evidence of the argument you made to Paulo’s. You said, “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.”

Here, you’ve combined the remark “worth looking into” with a scenario where you are very conclusory, as you say, “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.”

I said it isn’t known whether someone would have, as you claimed, a “super concentrate right on their face,” from your scenario. Your reply was: “Actually there have been studies... With covid... that support this.”

That’s an argument. You made a claim, “super concentrate right on their face,” and alluded to supporting evidence for the claim, “studies...that support this.” That’s an argument. And as of this moment, those supporting “studies” are conspicuously absent from your posts.

No misrepresentations man. None. What’s attributed to you above are your own statements, in a dialogue to Paulos and me. You made an argument to Paulos and to me.

That’s the “record.” You are defensive and deflecting because you have taken a point of view, a position, and said evidence exists in support of your position because you’ve seen the evidence, having read the evidence, and being asked to cite to the evidence. Inexplicably, you aren’t citing to the evidence you say exists because you’ve read the evidence, but instead playing the victim role because it’s unfair to be asked to cite to the evidence you say exists, evidence you say that you’ve seen.
I enjoy how you ignore words like "could" and "if" and turn suppositions into "claims"... It's neat.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here is the article/study/overview I read about:
Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers

NOTE!!!! I am not, nor was I ever saying this proves anything. What I have been saying all along is I read this overview of a study based on virus on the surface of masks and it got me thinking... then I observed the people going in and out of a gas station pulling the masks out of their pockets and putting them on and then grabbing the handle of the door. This made me think that such behavior cannot be good, and in light of the study could potentially be very bad. THEREFORE, given the seriousness of the situation it would make sense to me for someone to study this type of scenario because it more closely resembles real world situations than studies that only look at the percentage of droplets a mask does/does not block. Studies like this are less likely to happen if people don't ask questions... I'm not talking about disrespectful questions or making excuses, but questions that come from critical thinking and a desire to help more people.

So there you go. That's what I've been consistently talking about from the beginning. BTW, saying, "I was wrong" or "I apologize" doesn't hurt. Outside of that, I'd ask once again for you to refrain from responding to me on this topic.

Since you clearly don't get it here you go... although I'm sure you could find a way to misrepresent this too

Clearly “don’t get” what? I’ve quoted directly to your own words! What you aren’t understanding about what you’ve said is that you have both stated A) more research is needed while also B.) making conclusory remarks, as a response argument to Paulos and myself.

You keep repeating a narrative of what you’ve said and done that isn’t supported by your own remarks, in prior posts, that I’ve quoted from.

Yet over and over again the mere suggestion of questioning has been met with antagonism and accusations, as it was here.

An alternative narrative that is inconsistent with your dialogue with Paulos and myself. I have been questioning your view, asking ad nauseum for the evidence for this transference of “super concentrate” virus by three degrees of touching.

What you’ve encountered is what Carl Sagan characterized in his book, in a chapter famously titled, the “Fine Art of Baloney Detection,” evidence, among other things, is needed to support our claims, and necessary to evaluate the strengths or weakness of a point of view.

NOTE!!!! I am not, nor was I ever saying this proves anything. What I have been saying all along is I read this overview of a study based on virus on the surface of masks and it got me thinking... then I observed the people going in and out of a gas station pulling the masks out of their pockets and putting them on and then grabbing the handle of the door. This made me think that such behavior cannot be good, and in light of the study could potentially be very bad. THEREFORE, given the seriousness of the situation it would make sense to me for someone to study this type of scenario because it more closely resembles real world situations than studies that only look at the percentage of droplets a mask does/does not block.

You are right. The study doesn’t tell us much about transference of virus, to fingers, to door handle, to someone else’s fingers. It doesn’t tell us how much infectious virus, if any, has been transferred. Is the study edifying? Yes. Alarming? No.

But again, the bolded language is a narrative not supported by your exchange with Paulos or with me. You went well beyond merely taking the view more research is needed in your exchange with Paulos and with me, in which you made conclusory remarks about transference of the virus, the amount transferred, and making the situation worse by improper touching.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I enjoy how you ignore words like "could" and "if" and turn suppositions into "claims"... It's neat.

I enjoy how your use of the phrase “Not if” was followed up by a real life example of improper use, thereby moving your phrase from the realm of “Not if” to the it is a matter of fact improper use is happening, and driving home the view that the real life example weakens Paulos’ remark of improper use of the mask is better than no mask. Same can be said for your use of the word “could.” Those words do not save your view since you resorted to a real life example of improper use, to refute Paulos saying improper use of a mask is better than no mask. Same can be said for your matter of fact assertion of a transference of a “super concentrate” of virus.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Again, how? If someone is going to not wear a mask and they manage to wear one even if it doesn't cover their nose, I can at least see that and keep my distance.

If they are using it to cover the nose and mouth but doesn't seal well, that is still better than no mask and reduces the distance the droplets with the virus can travel. I would rather people make an effort to wear a mask than to just not wear one.

I just don't see how your statement adds up. Unless you just don't want to wear a mask.

Wearing a mask incorrectly could lead people to think they are protected and thus gather in larger groups. Since incorrect wearing of the mask does not prevent transmission, this behaviour will increase the spread. If the person in question either wore the mask correctly or did not gather in the group, then that spread would be reduced dramatically.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

There's a difference, though.

It's the difference between spraying a spray can of paint all over the place and just going around with some wet paint on your fingers. One of those is going to spread paint a lot more than the other.
 
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There's a difference, though.

It's the difference between spraying a spray can of paint all over the place and just going around with some wet paint on your fingers. One of those is going to spread paint a lot more than the other.
Except what are we trying to avoid here? Let's say we are trying to avoid getting paint on your face. So if you get paint on your fingers and itch your eye or touch your mask it's now on or near your face. Plus our breath is still going out into the air with masks, it's only being redirected. So there is paint in the air and on your fingers in your analogy. So, then the question - to me - becomes, what is the most beneficial/harmful combination. My strong suspicion would be that the answer would depend greatly on the setting. Those sorts of answers could help protect more people.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was asked for an example, I gave an example in the form of a statement... It happens all the time. I have stated multiple times my initial responses were intentionally pointed. I was attempting to get the OP to ask questions, which he did, which has been my contention all along... we need to ask these questions. You continue to make something out nothing. It's time to admit you were just looking for an argument and therefore saw what you wanted to see regardless of the truth.

I've asked you to stop multiple times now and to refrain from responding to me on this. You have ignored that and disrepected me enough. I'm putting you on ingore. It should have never come to this.

Again, revisionist history. You were asked “how” incorrectly wearing a mask isn’t better than no mask at all. You weren’t asked for an example. You were asked to show “how” incorrectly wearing a mask is not better than no mask at all. You chose to reply with an example, allegedly a real life observation, to support “how” incorrectly wearing a mask isn’t better than no mask.

Then you chose to conjure a three degree transference of a “super concentrate” of virus.

I was looking for evidence for your very serious allegation that improper mask use can make the situation worse.

My problem was, you never HAD any supporting evidence.

It is evident, now, you made a claim you couldn’t support, that the study you cited doesn’t support this notion of “super concentrate” on one’s face, and you became defensive, realizing you are in a corner, as the evidence you said existed because your own eyes had seen it, doesn’t exist. Your response, ad hominems, alternate narratives of what you said and did, all in an attempt to obscure the fact you made assertions you couldn’t support.

What you’ve said in those prior posts doesn’t support your repeated inaccurate characterizations of what you’ve said or done.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Except what are we trying to avoid here? Let's say we are trying to avoid getting paint on your face. So if you get paint on your fingers and itch your eye or touch your mask it's now on or near your face. Plus our breath is still going out into the air with masks, it's only being redirected. So there is paint in the air and on your fingers in your analogy. So, then the question - to me - becomes, what is the most beneficial/harmful combination. My strong suspicion would be that the answer would depend greatly on the setting. Those sorts of answers could help protect more people.

If the person adjusts their mask, then it is their own paint they are putting back on them, so that's not going to have much effect.

And even though our breath is going out, the moisture droplets that carry the virus are mostly caught by the mask, so it still helps prevent the virus from escaping.

So it seems to me that keeping the mask on as much as possible (over both mouth and nose), using hand sanitizer as much as possible (especially using it if you have touched public surfaces using hand sanitizer before touching your face) and staying home as much as possible and avoiding gatherings as much as possible is the best course of action.

I don't see how the setting would make much difference. Granted, there could be some settings in which the benefits given by one of those actions would be minimal, but I can't for the life of me imagine any setting where doing one of those things will make it MORE likely that the virus would spread.
 
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If the person adjusts their mask, then it is their own paint they are putting back on them, so that's not going to have much effect.

And even though our breath is going out, the moisture droplets that carry the virus are mostly caught by the mask, so it still helps prevent the virus from escaping.

So it seems to me that keeping the mask on as much as possible (over both mouth and nose), using hand sanitizer as much as possible (especially using it if you have touched public surfaces using hand sanitizer before touching your face) and staying home as much as possible and avoiding gatherings as much as possible is the best course of action.

I don't see how the setting would make much difference. Granted, there could be some settings in which the benefits given by one of those actions would be minimal, but I can't for the life of me imagine any setting where doing one of those things will make it MORE likely that the virus would spread.
Look at your second paragraph. If my mask is doing the job you say it is, I have covid, then I touch it followed by a door handle and items in a store, and others do the same... Plus some still remains in the air because the mask doesn't stop it all. What is the danger then? Truth is it could be no difference, it could be worse, and that's worth finding out.

Setting could matter a lot. Retail where people are coming and going would be different than a church where people are sitting by each other for an hour or more breathing the same air.

Why is there always so much resistance to seeking more information? I see people say things like, "if the masks are only 1% effective in preventing transmission, then it's worth it.". But somehow if I suggest looking into doing something different or additional or complementary I get responses like, "I don't see how that would make much difference". Ummm, I thought 1% was worth it... But apparently that's all just talk.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why is there always so much resistance to seeking more information? I see people say things like, "if the masks are only 1% effective in preventing transmission, then it's worth it.". But somehow if I suggest looking into doing something different or additional or complementary I get responses like, "I don't see how that would make much difference". Ummm, I thought 1% was worth it... But apparently that's all just talk.

That didn’t take long, the fabled but useless, I’m the enlightened one seeking information, and the rest of you are buzz kills to seeking this knowledge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Look at your second paragraph. If my mask is doing the job you say it is, I have covid, then I touch it followed by a door handle and items in a store, and others do the same... Plus some still remains in the air because the mask doesn't stop it all. What is the danger then? Truth is it could be no difference, it could be worse, and that's worth finding out.

Are you seriously playing the "If it isn't 100% effective then we might as well not bother" card? REALLY?

Setting could matter a lot. Retail where people are coming and going would be different than a church where people are sitting by each other for an hour or more breathing the same air.

And yet, as I said, this is not a situation where increasing the amount of precautions will have a negative effect.

Why is there always so much resistance to seeking more information? I see people say things like, "if the masks are only 1% effective in preventing transmission, then it's worth it.". But somehow if I suggest looking into doing something different or additional or complementary I get responses like, "I don't see how that would make much difference". Ummm, I thought 1% was worth it... But apparently that's all just talk.

I haven't seen where you have proposed exactly what you would do differently, nor any explanation as to why doing things differently would increase the beneficial effect. All you've said is, "We could do things differently and it might help." But such vague statements are practically meaningless.
 
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are you seriously playing the "If it isn't 100% effective then we might as well not bother" card? REALLY?
No. I said nothing of the sort. Sheesh. People need to calm down and stop reading into things.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good to know research results on cloth masks:

"...Although the filtration efficiencies for various fabrics when a single layer was used ranged from 5 to 80% and 5 to 95% for particle sizes of <300 nm and >300 nm, respectively, the efficiencies improved when multiple layers were used and when using a specific combination of different fabrics. Filtration efficiencies of the hybrids (such as cotton-silk, cotton-chiffon, cotton-flannel) was >80% (for particles <300 nm) and >90% (for particles >300 nm). We speculate that the enhanced performance of the hybrids is likely due to the combined effect of mechanical and electrostatic-based filtration. Cotton, the most widely used material for cloth masks performs better at higher weave densities (i.e., thread count) and can make a significant difference in filtration efficiencies. Our studies also imply that gaps (as caused by an improper fit of the mask) can result in over a 60% decrease in the filtration efficiency, implying the need for future cloth mask design studies to take into account issues of "fit" and leakage..."
Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks - PubMed

It matters that the cloth mask is densely woven, has more than 1 layer, and fits the face reasonably well. Having 2 types of material helps, as pointed to above.
 
Upvote 0

topher694

Go Turtle!
Jan 29, 2019
3,828
3,038
St. Cloud, MN
✟186,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And yet, as I said, this is not a situation where increasing the amount of precautions will have a negative effect.
Also, completely missing the point and reading into things.

I haven't seen where you have proposed exactly what you would do differently, nor any explanation as to why doing things differently would increase the beneficial effect. All you've said is, "We could do things differently and it might help." But such vague statements are practically meaningless.
Have you read anything I've wrote? I. PROPOSE. WE. STUDY. THINGS. LIKE. THIS. That way we can find more and better ways to protect people. NOTE: That doesn't have to disregard what we are currently doing. MORE INFORMATION IS GOOD. That's all I'm saying. I give examples of the types of things we could be looking into... looking at real world situations and studying those more closely. Yet time and time and time and time again people blow it out of proportion.

If I say "might" you give me a hard time. If I don't say "might" (or even if I do) then ND gives me a hard time... It's ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0

St. Helens

I stand with Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
CF Staff Trainer
Supporter
Jul 24, 2007
59,024
9,668
Lower Slower Minnesota
✟1,216,969.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
ADMIN HAT ON
241636_9f4a3046555e3431f8a087b68dbce899_thumb.jpg

ADMIN HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums