Yeah. I saw that 65% thing and snorted...
It isn't the percentage that's the problem but the characterization as "reduction in risk of infection".
Hunh ?
As everyone's specific risk is mediated MORE by their own issues... age, weight, diet, other health factors, etc. than by a sliver of fabric... I'd say... yeah... that's not really a result its possible to determine that broadly in a statistically valid result.
You might determine all sorts of "actual" differences imposed by presence of one mask or another... or not... but, a limit is reached at "the risk of exposure to X in a measurement of some amount/concentration of Y"...
Beyond that... "risk of infection" depends on all sorts of stuff that has basically nothing at all to do with the mask... or not... rather than the potency of whatever virus strain is being addressed... the pore size of the mask materials versus the size of the virus, and its potential for infection at some threshold concentration... so, also, the nature of the exposure being modeled versus concentration, time, external conditions, etc...
So, even without having read it... its an easy bullshit call...
They're pretty obviously stretching some result into misrepresenting whatever it is that someone did find in whatever study it was they did...
I've still not changed my opinion on mask use...
Sure, masks work IF you use the right mask properly... and, then, there's a statistical issue in the probability of a functional mask providing some incremental protection X against known Y...
But, an N95 mask is pretty much useless against any virus that's smaller than the pore size in the mask...
A real study done right would easily show that any putative benefit from N95 mask use is overwhelmed by the impact in the population of wrongly believing you are "protected" if you wear one... with that misinformation altering behavior in a way that amplifies the problem more than mask use can possibly compensate for.
Reverse the "math" in the name... an N95 is allowing 5% of all larger particles to pass... screening out only 95% of those larger than the pore size. But, if you behave as if that 5% is 0% of particle smaller than the pore size because you don't understand it... your actual risk of exposure is made much larger than that 5% number suggests...
Basically, don't even bother with "protecting yourself" using a mask unless its proven sufficient to the task... just practice avoidance instead... and, for any chance at protecting yourself, you need an N100 mask... not an N95.
From there, its an easy enough thing to validate its function as useful or not...
A HEPA filter... which a decent N100 is... will work even to scrub odors out of the air. Wear one to the grocery store, and that old lady with the stinky perfume will pass by unnoticed... and you might find your breathing improved... because its filtering out the smoke and the allergens that used to bother you. That N95 surgical mask will do... exactly nothing that has any similar impact on the "obvious" stuff...
If you can smell the smoke or the perfume... you still can't smell the virus... but, its not inhibited in getting to you any more than the smoke, perfume, or allergens are ?
A fairly simple mask for $10 or $15 seals plenty well enough for that basic purpose... but, the seals, made pretty much the same as those on high end earphones... will wear out and crack with repeated use.
I wouldn't trust such a mask in a high risk environment... but, then, hopefully the grocery store isn't that sort of a high risk environment... and if you suspect it is... postponing the trip makes far more sense than wearing a high end respirator.
The N100 masks out there now do work to protect YOU... they are NIOSH certified to do that... but they have an exhalation port that is not filtered... so if you are already infected... it will do nothing at all to protect others. The bigger lie is that N95 masks work to protect other people from you, as well as you from them...
They don't.
That's assumed true... only because N95 surgical masks do "sort of" work to prevent doctors spreading bacterial infections into surgical patients.... But, that's about bacterial infections... not viruses. Doctors with colds or flu bugs hopefully aren't strapping on surgical masks and calling it all good... hopefully.
Do you think it "all good"... if your surgeon, working with a flu bug, intends to reduced the risk of infecting you during surgery by as much as 65% because of some stupid study claiming "yeah - that should work" ?
Beyond that obvious bit... advocating for widespread use of surgical masks is "medical misinformation"... fostered by politicians more anxious to be seen "doing something" by imposing red herrings as mandates... than it is actually useful.
Its useful to have a few N100 masks hanging around... to protect yourself from those things they will protect you from... when you can't stay inside a clean air environment created using HEPA in the HVAC. |
