Thanks. I'm with you - willing to hear evidence for the other side.
I think part of the confusion is purpose. Reusable "cloth masks" may be ineffective for use for medical personnel treating SARS patients (per the meta-study quote), yet could still have value for people buying groceries, which really is a different situation.
Thanks. I'm with you - willing to hear evidence for the other side.
I think part of the confusion is purpose. Reusable "cloth masks" may be ineffective for use for medical personnel treating SARS patients (per the meta-study quote), yet could still have value for people buying groceries, which really is a different situation.
If you watch the "mask testing" videos with illuminated clouds of exhalate, it looks like most of what the "cloth face masks" do is redirect the flow to avoid projecting it as widely, rather than passing most exhalate through a filter and removing virus containing particles.
If you are standing 6' from somebody in a line, that deflection could be a very useful dynamic, compared to blowing it in their faces. But if you are operating on somebody right in front of you, a actual air filtering mask is much more necessary.
The official turnabout in message to the public was basically from "you don't need medical grade masks (please don't deplete the supply because medical folks DO need them)" to "please do use face coverings (which need not be medical grade)". However the shorthand versions of that can be changing from "don't use masks" to "do use masks", which confuses people.
But then, some segments of the population are already confused and distrust scientists because the newspaper has carried stories like "wine is good for you" and "wine is bad for you", and people fail to understand that the studies were talking about different aspects of health, instead seeing it as "scientists don't have any idea what they are doing, they keep changing their minds, believe whatever you like".
The media is horrific in handling science and scientific findings. I taught my children to read all mass media science stories by first going down to the bottom of the article and trying to determine who is distributing the story to the media (because God knows US mass media is not paying people to survey scientific literature for useful information!), and who, if anyone, benefits from a particular interpretation of the data.
If you pay attention, it becomes clear that skepticism of media-distributed "science" is a sound principle.
Thanks. I'm with you - willing to hear evidence for the other side.
I think part of the confusion is purpose. Reusable "cloth masks" may be ineffective for use for medical personnel treating SARS patients (per the meta-study quote), yet could still have value for people buying groceries, which really is a different situation.
If you watch the "mask testing" videos with illuminated clouds of exhalate, it looks like most of what the "cloth face masks" do is redirect the flow to avoid projecting it as widely, rather than passing most exhalate through a filter and removing virus containing particles.
If you are standing 6' from somebody in a line, that deflection could be a very useful dynamic, compared to blowing it in their faces. But if you are operating on somebody right in front of you, a actual air filtering mask is much more necessary.
The official turnabout in message to the public was basically from "you don't need medical grade masks (please don't deplete the supply because medical folks DO need them)" to "please do use face coverings (which need not be medical grade)". However the shorthand versions of that can be changing from "don't use masks" to "do use masks", which confuses people.
But then, some segments of the population are already confused and distrust scientists because the newspaper has carried stories like "wine is good for you" and "wine is bad for you", and people fail to understand that the studies were talking about different aspects of health, instead seeing it as "scientists don't have any idea what they are doing, they keep changing their minds, believe whatever you like".
The media is horrific in handling science and scientific findings. I taught my children to read all mass media science stories by first going down to the bottom of the article and trying to determine who is distributing the story to the media (because God knows US mass media is not paying people to survey scientific literature for useful information!), and who, if anyone, benefits from a particular interpretation of the data.
If you pay attention, it becomes clear that skepticism of media-distributed "science" is a sound principle.
Excellent.