To add to this, there is a book called The Body Keeps the Score that dedicates several of its chapters to exploring the physiological consequences of trauma. Some of the changes are quite profound and I have a hard time believing that just one or two hundred years of evolution would have an appreciable effect in this matter. We can't teleport a combat veteran from antiquity into an fMRI but either the findings would be the same or something very profound changed in the human brain in a very short period of time and it went unnoticed.
I think it is far more likely that people either didn't discuss these things due to stigma, or they conceptualized it as the haunting of demons and ghosts since severe cases of PTSD can cause split personalities and convulsions and things like that.
I think it is about filtering. Even simple cotton t-shirt cloth is about 50% effective at filtering 23nm microbes. Definitely not good enough to give to a healthcare worker in a high exposure environment, but also definitely good enough to flatten the curve when used at a population level.
I have been asking myself the same question. I think it comes down to two reasons:
1. Masks are in short supply and they believed they could save them for healthcare workers by convincing the general population they don't work.
2. If you are measuring efficacy, the general population won't reach the same level as a healthcare worker because they have not been professionally fitted and trained in on/off procedures. So instead of reducing risk by 95% the average person would see something like a 70% reduction, and they decided "perfect is better than good enough".
Nobody said that they don't work. But they are not effective for the average person because a month ago there were so few confirmed cases in the US that it would be extremely unlikely that you would ever encounter a COVID positive person.
On the other hand, healthcare professionals have to deal with infected patients all day. Suppose a mask is 95% effective on a healthcare professional, and 90% effective on a normal person. But the healthcare professional is in close proximity to a coronavirus patient nearly all the time. Without a mask, there might be 20 chances of infection every day for them. A mask would prevent 19 chances of infection.
For a normal person, they might encounter one CoV positive person per day. That means that a mask prevents 0.9 chances of infection. This is much lower than 19.
This math is off because I didn't account for mask changings, etc. A healthcare worker should change their mask more frequently than a layperson. After accounting for mask changes, though, I'm sure that the healthcare workers still get more benefit.
If they say "Masks work" when it only works 70% of the time then a lot of people will get sick despite wearing masks, there'll be a big public outcry, and people won't trust the WHO in the future.
Maybe. Or they can just lose all trust instantly by claiming like the CDC, that they don't work. Now people who think will never trust the CDC ever again. Not sure what the WHO's wording was, but any organization not encouraging mass mask use cannot be trusted by anyone with a brain. Just because something isn't 100% effective, doesn't mean it's not effective. Only children and idiots think so. Unfortunately, we're surrounded by idiots.
It would certainly be a failure if it is communicated that mask wearing prevents you from getting infected. They reduce the risk of infecting others more than they reduce the risk of getting infected.
A 20% reduction in infection risk is already substantial and worth it. If there is a 50% reduction in infecting others, mask use alone could replace most social distancing measures.
I imagine that just like my grandparents who lived through the Depression hoarded ketchup packets despite being financially secure, as soon as N95 masks are freely available I will keep a stash handy for the rest of my life, regardless of whether I ever face another pandemic, or official organizations advise against it.
One intriguing question that I can't answer today is whether or not this global pandemic is the exception, or whether 100+ years without a global pandemic is the exception.
Not to mention, you look out over the next 50-100 years, you gotta be concerned about biological warfare. Having a population that knows how to handle a pandemic keeps the non-science-fiction viruses at bay pretty well.
We could improvise them though. I know in Hong Kong they have asked people to improvise using layered paper towels and tissues because those are readily available nonwoven fabrics.
It isn't as good as the real thing, but done at the population level I expect it would lower the reproductive value of the virus and thus help flatten the curve.
I read a paper on this last week but I can't find it at the moment. However I recall them polling people on mask usage, and pre-SARS it was single digits percentage, post-SARS it was 85-90%.
During the pandemic, yes. Not so much after. I live in S.E. Asia and have been to a large number of countries in Asia, and I can't say I've seen extensive mask usage anywhere except for Japan.
Of course, it's much more common than Europe or the US, but it's still in the single digit percentages.
This was before the current pandemic of course. But eve today, in Singapore, I'd estimate 15% to 20%?
It’s not about being “un-American”, which is ridiculous just for the mere fact that not wearing masks in public is a western country thing, not just an American thing. The reason it’s not culturally acceptable is because, in western countries, wearing a mask in public is like wearing a big “warning: I’m toxic” sign, precisely because we haven’t had to deal with these fucked up super viruses that Asian countries are used to.
So it took a government mandate, and then only in "some circumstances." Not exactly indicative of a cultural shift just yet.
At this point you might actually find a good number of people, even in the US, who would wear face masks without being forced to, assuming we could actually get our hands on them.
"People in the US" isn't a useful category for thought on this matter. There are subcultures where I find the idea that they will ever wear masks routinely risible. There are subcultures where I could easily see it becoming absolutely de rigueur with social consequences for non-compliance. You and I probably have different ideas about what those subcultures are, but for this post it would simply suffice to say that there would be different reactions.
I tried to give away cloth masks (not medical masks) to people in my area and nobody wanted one, and I live in a very liberal, highly educated part of the country. I'm hoping this attitude can be changed, I'm just pointing out that there seem to be some uniquely American psychological issues associated with mask wearing that need to be taken into account.
There have been doctors in the US in TV, articles, etc that have been recommending people not to wear masks. Doctors who work/worked for CDC, not just random doctors. Some say it's because masks don't work. Some say don't because Americans don't know how to wear masks properly. There have even been doctors saying masks will make spreading/getting infection easier.
People are probably just following their advice and once the advice switches, they will probably follow that advice too.
I would wear a mask I bought from a reputable vendor. I would not wear a mask given out on the street by someone I never met. Maybe it's a matter of trust and not attitude or education.
Well... this is why I said "you and I probably have different ideas about what those subcultures are". With my priors, "liberals" not wanting to wear masks doesn't surprise me at all.
Thanks for the link to the video.
Wouldn't ultra conservatives wear masks because of 'Ingroup', 'Authority', 'Purity', and only when it becomes law?
Wouldn't ultra liberals wear masks because of 'Harm', 'Fairness', as it becomes clear scientific consensus?
Thanks
Still not in Washington state. I'm routinely the only one wearing a simple surgical mask when I head to the grocery store, which I don't mind because people pro-actively avoid me because I guess they assume I'm infected instead of being precautious. Everyone should assume they are an asymptomatic carrier.
Agreed. The US surgeon general lied to the population about the efficacy of masks to try to preserve them for healthcare workers. It would have been better to ask people to preserve N95 for healthcare workers and instead improvise their own. Any reduction in droplet transmission is going to drop the R0 of this and help flatten the curve.
Improvised masks commonly provide little protection, but obstruct breathing so people suck in more air with more force, increasing their risk of exposure.
Unless you have a study that backs this up, this is just baseless speculation. I agree with the other posters, I am incredibly frustrated with the CDC for misleading about the efficacy of surgical masks with statements like "the virus particles are smaller than the holes in the mask" - that may be true, but all the studies I could find show that masks reduce flu transmission by 70-80%.
>> It would have been better to ask people to preserve N95 for healthcare workers and instead improvise their own. Any reduction in droplet transmission is going to drop the R0 of this and help flatten the curve.
> Improvised masks commonly provide little protection, but obstruct breathing so people suck in more air with more force, increasing their risk of exposure.
The point of an improvised mask should not be to protect the wearer, but to protect the community from the wearer.
Regardless of whether or not you are right, this is just not an appropriate way to respond to someone who has just shared a trauma. This is a case of "if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all".
No worries. I don't think its fair to say I'm traumatized. Just standard immigrant stories. We weren't rich, or comfortable, but never skipped a meal. Therefore we were actually very fortunate.
My wife, on the other hand, is from an ex commie country. She could write a book of her insane stories.
If they already have the batteries and they are this revolutionary, then why wait a year to give a demonstration? Surely a demonstration of such batteries right now would cause the value of their company to skyrocket.
One of these days I'm going to have to rig up something to start the house fan when the CO2 goes above 800 ppm and I think you'd need a different sensor with a realtime output port for something like that.
Direct feedback is cool, but a simple schedule is really easy & reliable. Even occupancy detection isn't all that critical- nobody wants to come home to a stuffy house, and most people's schedules are very predictable.
These days IoT is so widespread that something like a $25 WeMo smart outlet is hard to beat. Hard wired is "best" but a million times more hassle and more expensive.
I think it is far more likely that people either didn't discuss these things due to stigma, or they conceptualized it as the haunting of demons and ghosts since severe cases of PTSD can cause split personalities and convulsions and things like that.