Jump to content

Menu

Peer reviewed studies about Masks and covid


Recommended Posts

Our state and the next state over both issued mandatory masks orders today. I’m not going to get in the middle of Facebook debate that’s underway😀, and I’m a huge mask supporter, but I keep seeing anti maskers asking for peer reviewed scientific studies that prove masks work against covid. Evidence that prove they work enough to force people to wear them. 
Is there anything out there?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toocrazy!! said:

Evidence that prove they work enough to force people to wear them. 

Why are you going to try to argue with them? It's rhetorical and they don't want your studies. For every study you find, they're going to have more evidence that it's stupid, worthless, ineffective. I would not bother. As one who is not a fan of masks and wears them only because the state mandates it, I can tell you there is ZERO you're going to say or show them that will make one fig of difference. 

So don't bother, don't destroy your relationships, and don't go there. If they want to comply with the law, that's their business. If they don't want to comply with the law, that's their business. If they decide a mandate isn't a law (which is another discussion btw), again that's their business. This is an emotional issue and something they have to work through. It's not just rational.

2 hours ago, Toocrazy!! said:

peer reviewed scientific studies that prove masks work

Ok, now for a little cynicism. When you show them the study, they will be smart enough to see through it and know that it WON'T MATTER. In our state, we have a mask mandate. Other states have them too. Wanna know how people wear their masks? Well let's just say it's like that underwear commercial with the joey poking out of his mama's pouch. 

So people wear them half heartedly, and they wear things that are COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. Homemade thin things, neck gaiters, scarves, you name it. Dust masks. We've seen it all. Zero evidence for the efficacy of many of the things being worn. So if they do a study with something that has *some* utility, that's NOT the same as what is being worn by the public and not worn in the same way as what the public will wear them. Once again, your studies won't matter.

2 hours ago, Toocrazy!! said:

Is there anything out there?

Our state's numbers are up 800% in the last few weeks. Nothing has changed with how the average person in Walmart has been masking, but our numbers are up 8X. So our governor trots out all crotchety and says we're horrible and that he wants to shut restaurants and gyms, force stores to "enforce" the random people who don't wear masks, blah blah. So now we have poor walmart employees confronting customers, people getting hassled, threats, fines, and for WHAT? What ACTUALLY changed in the last 1-2 months that resulted in our numbers going up 8X?

They aren't addressing that. They aren't even giving us data to support proposed closures. If they won't admit what REALLY drove our numbers up, then does it matter? And if our numbers went up 8X when masking in Walmart DID NOT CHANGE (I make data, I'm kinda ocd like that, literally tallying as I shop), then what does enforcing it do?

Reality is, there are times when masks would have some bit of help. There are times when it will make nominal difference (Walmart). And if college kids are getting in cars, dorms, bars, together and getting all cozy with no masks, that's not our fault. But I can't find where me wearing a mask in Walmart makes a SHRED of difference. It doesn't. I'm off by myself looking at sheets and pillows, nobody nearby. Now if they'd tell the clerk at Walmart to STAY HOME WHEN YOU'RE COUGHING, I'd really appreciate it. I was really pissed that a clerk at walmart at the self-checkout was coughing near me. Her stupid mask WON'T KEEP ME SAFE. I was really upset.

So masking causes people to drop their guard and get too close, and GETTING CLOSE is definitely a top way to get close to the other person's germs. 

So you won't change their minds and I wouldn't bother. Let them work through it on their own. There's this dude that is into this stuff and people say his name, like woo woo read his stuff. Fine, if you want, share his name. It is bantered around here and people have. But no, they won't give a rip about your dude with his phd and his little restaurant diagrams. If you want to share anything, that's what you could share. But I really and truly wouldn't bother. Pass the bean dip, move on to other topics.

Edited by PeterPan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

PS. I wear a Happy Mask. It actually has data, and I figured if I was going to wear a mask (because the state mandates it) I might as well wear a mask that actually makes a difference. But that's when I got cynical, when I realized they weren't mandating that the mask have some level of effectiveness. It just had to be on, compliance. When you look at places where they really want it to work, like Disney, there are standards to the mask. 

So you'll never win on the why you should, but hey you might win on the if you're going to bother here's one that actually has data. 

https://www.happymasks.com

Remember, if you pee in a swimming pool and you have your bathing suit on, you still peed in the swimming pool. Ineffective masks make little/no difference.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

They aren't addressing that. They aren't even giving us data to support proposed closures. If they won't admit what REALLY drove our numbers up, then does it matter? And if our numbers went up 8X when masking in Walmart DID NOT CHANGE (I make data, I'm kinda ocd like that, literally tallying as I shop), then what does enforcing it do?

I mean, everyone knows what drove the numbers up. Everyone. It's because it's getting COLD and people are indoors more. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree you won’t convince anyone.   That said NPR put this out yesterday, plenty of interesting links to rfollow and confirm.  

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/11/933903848/wear-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-the-coronavirus-not-only-others-cdc-stresses

cases in our state are up significantly.  They are contact tracing.   it was reported yesterday that 70% are due to social get togethers, incidence goes up after 10 pm with alcohol use.   Asymptotic to mildly symptomatic 18-35 year olds driving spread.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FuzzyCatz said:

I agree you won’t convince anyone.   That said NPR put this out yesterday, plenty of interesting links to rfollow and confirm.  

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/11/933903848/wear-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-the-coronavirus-not-only-others-cdc-stresses

cases in our state are up significantly.  They are contact tracing.   it was reported yesterday that 70% are due to social get togethers, incidence goes up after 10 pm with alcohol use.   Asymptotic to mildly symptomatic 18-35 year olds driving spread.  

Ooh, thank you. Will peruse after my Intro to Geo class... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

It's rhetorical and they don't want your studies. For every study you find, they're going to have more evidence that it's stupid, worthless, ineffective. I would not bother. As one who is not a fan of masks and wears them only because the state mandates it, I can tell you there is ZERO you're going to say or show them that will make one fig of difference. 

Well, at least you’re honest here. Half the people don’t care about science or data, and thus we are where we are. I have found exactly what you say here to be true; I can link to a lot of solid studies, but people who don’t want to believe masks work aren’t going to change their mind. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve asked the question, but I’ve asked mask deniers here many, many times whether they would be happy if we got absolutely incontrovertible evidence that mask wearing would allow us to keep things mostly open without Covid cases skyrocketing, and I have yet for one of those people to answer that question. For some reason, no one wants to touch it.

36 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

So masking causes people to drop their guard and get too close, and GETTING CLOSE is definitely a top way to get close to the other person's germs. 

Another thing I’ve refuted here several times. I’m not going to dig it up again, but the opposite has been shown to be true. People who wear masks are also better about social distancing. Which makes sense. People who wear masks are more likely to be conscientious about avoiding exposure for themselves or others.

38 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

This is an emotional issue and something they have to work through. It's not just rational.

Lol, You said it 😉

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

it was reported yesterday that 70% are due to social get togethers, incidence goes up after 10 pm with alcohol use.   Asymptotic to mildly symptomatic 18-35 year olds driving spread.  

This fits with what I suspect is going on. Football season started, people are partying and watching the games, our rates go up. 

44 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, everyone knows what drove the numbers up. Everyone. It's because it's getting COLD and people are indoors more. 

Haha, keep trying. It has been in the high 70s all week here. We have the #2 football team in the country and football is RELIGION here. They hold services, pass the cup, and sing loudly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PeterPan said:

This fits with what I suspect is going on. Football season started, people are partying and watching the games, our rates go up. 

Haha, keep trying. It has been in the high 70s all week here. We have the #2 football team in the country and football is RELIGION here. They hold services, pass the cup, and sing loudly.

And the week before that? And the week before that? It's been in the high 70s the whole of October? And half of November? 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I agree you won’t convince anyone.   That said NPR put this out yesterday, plenty of interesting links to rfollow and confirm.  

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/11/933903848/wear-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-the-coronavirus-not-only-others-cdc-stresses

cases in our state are up significantly.  They are contact tracing.   it was reported yesterday that 70% are due to social get togethers, incidence goes up after 10 pm with alcohol use.   Asymptotic to mildly symptomatic 18-35 year olds driving spread.  

Sounds reasonable (and I've seen some of the analyses), but this jumped out at me: 

"Interestingly, the CDC's scientific brief also cites an economic argument for masks, noting an analysis using U.S. data that found that "increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product."

This is not INTERESTING. This is OBVIOUS. The more you protect people from each other, the more things you can keep open. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wilrunner3 said:

I think this might be a commercial I'd like to see. Is this a rhetorical commercial or was there one made with a joey?

They showed this on tv recently and I had to do a double take as I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There are no man bits, but still...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zasyf5XqNCE

 

Edited by PeterPan
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And the week before that? And the week before that? It's been in the high 70s the whole of October? And half of November? 

Actually, it pretty much has been here in Virginia.  Well, not high 70's, but 70's.  We've had a few days with highs around 65, but the weather has actually been gorgeous.  Way, way nicer than in the summer, but most people aren't hanging out outside as much.  I think the darkness is a big part of it more than weather.  

Edited by Terabith
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, everyone knows what drove the numbers up. Everyone. It's because it's getting COLD and people are indoors more. 

This may be true in certain parts of the country but it is not true for everywhere in the US--here in Texas we have been having some of the best weather to be outdoors in most of the state and numbers have been rising.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toocrazy!! said:

Our state and the next state over both issued mandatory masks orders today. I’m not going to get in the middle of Facebook debate that’s underway😀, and I’m a huge mask supporter, but I keep seeing anti maskers asking for peer reviewed scientific studies that prove masks work against covid. Evidence that prove they work enough to force people to wear them. 
Is there anything out there?  

I find that talking with people, calmly, one-one-one, and asking questions, often with a lot of, "Well, why would someone do that?" is what leads people to saying masks are OK and questioning conspiracy theories. Once I bring supporting evidence, they see an arms race. But when they are forced to think for themselves and ask questions that are carefully avoided on media they listen to, good things happen.

Emily

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MercyA said:

My brain is not working. When you have a chance, can you explain this?

Here's two hints (meant in a completely non-snarky way; I just posted up-thread about asking questions vs thinking for people).

What pushes people to enact a mask ban?

How long does it take from exposure to a positive test?

Edited by EmilyGF
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, EmilyGF said:

Here's two hints (meant in a completely non-snarky way; I just posted up-thread about asking questions vs thinking for people).

What pushes people to enact a mask ban?

How long does it take from exposure to a positive test?

Yeah, I thought of those things, but thought I might be missing something! 

No offense taken. 🙂 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

And the week before that? And the week before that? It's been in the high 70s the whole of October? And half of November? 

We have not dropped below 65 since the pandemic started, and that was only a few nights in March. Daytime temperatures were in the upper 60s for a few days in early March, other wise they've been above 70. In summer we had over 100 days of temperatures over 90. Next week the forecast is for highs in the mid 70s and lows in the upper 60s. This will be our first "cold front" since February. Our numbers have been through the roof the whole time and we're surging again despite 6 months of heat and humidity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

This may be true in certain parts of the country but it is not true for everywhere in the US--here in Texas we have been having some of the best weather to be outdoors in most of the state and numbers have been rising.  

Same here in Florida. Our weather is just about to get cool enough to be outdoors, starting in the next week or so. Today we had another day of over 6000 cases.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterPan said:

PS. I wear a Happy Mask. It actually has data, 

 

I think it was you who was posting about Happy Masks some months ago and I should thank you. I love my Happy Mask! There was an odd odor for a short time when it was very new but it went away. I keep meaning to order more. I didn't like the pattern choices they had and they only had a few solid colors but it looks like they added a few so I might order something different next time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EmilyGF said:

Here's two hints (meant in a completely non-snarky way; I just posted up-thread about asking questions vs thinking for people).

What pushes people to enact a mask ban?

 

a mask ban? 
 

rather than masks required? 
 

1 hour ago, EmilyGF said:

How long does it take from exposure to a positive test?


probably at least two days more often 5 to 10 with outliers beyond 2 weeks.  Lots of people never get tested. 
 

 

The idea is that asking these questions would help people understand why masks should be worn?

 

I think with people I know who don’t believe in them those would not help because issue is that they don’t think masks will significantly reduce spread of infection .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But I can't find where me wearing a mask in Walmart makes a SHRED of difference. It doesn't. I'm off by myself looking at sheets and pillows, nobody nearby.

 

Not having been there, I feel compelled to ask: How's the ventilation at Walmart? Windows open, HEPA filters? Or maybe windows closed, no filters, nada?

Evidence here backs up common sense - if you're inside, then actual distance from other people matters a lot less because the air isn't getting changed up. Also, your mask provides some protection from viruses, even if other people are unmasked.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bootsie said:

This may be true in certain parts of the country but it is not true for everywhere in the US--here in Texas we have been having some of the best weather to be outdoors in most of the state and numbers have been rising.  

In the state, we've all been pretty much going about our business, most schools in person, etc.  It doesn't matter if the weather is "nice" for outside, because we don't live that way, especially when it is cedar bloom time and allergies plague so many of us.  There are also large swaths of buildings which don't even have windows that will open, so the weather is really of zero consequence:  we'll be indoors unless someone decides that drastic measures are needed.  It won't happen. People will die even though we could have been outdoors.  

I am surrounded by morons who couldn't understand science if it bit them in the butt.  (Actually they could, but they don't want to.)  They could have us work from home without significant change to what we get done, our primary services could be delivered entirely outdoors, etc.  But instead we are in absolute, non-scientific denial.  I'm bracing myself for a bunch of funerals.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

In the state, we've all been pretty much going about our business, most schools in person, etc.  It doesn't matter if the weather is "nice" for outside, because we don't live that way, especially when it is cedar bloom time and allergies plague so many of us.  There are also large swaths of buildings which don't even have windows that will open, so the weather is really of zero consequence:  we'll be indoors unless someone decides that drastic measures are needed.  It won't happen. People will die even though we could have been outdoors.  

I am surrounded by morons who couldn't understand science if it bit them in the butt.  (Actually they could, but they don't want to.)  They could have us work from home without significant change to what we get done, our primary services could be delivered entirely outdoors, etc.  But instead we are in absolute, non-scientific denial.  I'm bracing myself for a bunch of funerals.  

 

 

 

I think asking people to "shelter-in-place" led to a lot of people choosing indoor activities rather than outdoor. The term itself made it sound that being indoors was what we were supposed to do.  It just gives me visions of being in a tight, not well-ventilated space providing safety and security--whereas being in a large, open space is the opposite of "shelter-in-place."  

 Is walking along a hiking trail, going to a park, sitting at an outdoor cafe, participating in an outdoor yoga class, or other such activities more or less risky than having a "trusted" friend over to my house for a cup of coffee?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

Same here in Florida. Our weather is just about to get cool enough to be outdoors, starting in the next week or so. Today we had another day of over 6000 cases.

But in most states that had high numbers over the summer it was hot enough to want to go indoors for air conditioning. 

 

The other unrelated point is exponential growth works that way. Once you get a crazy number of asymptomatic people running around then the answer to where is Covid spread is everywhere. Pure and simple- everywhere. 

 

The places where you are less likely to catch it are still going to produce more cases because there are more opportunities.  If you have small numbers and are trying to just contain outbreaks, you want smaller numbers to trace and isolate. That doesn't work with large numbers. It is just everywhere, period.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

*tries to imagine this* 

Soo... if science were a dog, what kind of dog would it be? 😄

I'm pretty sure it would be a Cocker Spaniel mix of some sort. Dumbest dogs I ever knew were Cocker Spaniels. (Apologies in advance if you have a smart Cocker Spaniel!)

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bambam said:

I'm pretty sure it would be a Cocker Spaniel mix of some sort. Dumbest dogs I ever knew were Cocker Spaniels. (Apologies in advance if you have a smart Cocker Spaniel!)

I had this cocker mix I got from the shelter, such a good dog, but he would WEE everywhere and make a huge mess. So well intentioned, loving, and making a huge mess. Yup, sounds like science. :biggrin:

And just to get back to the whole why are the numbers up in some states, apparently in ours they're ADMITTING IT'S FOOTBALL. Ok, weddings too. But it's football watch parties. https://www.nbc4i.com/community/health/coronavirus/with-ohios-covid-19-cases-on-the-rise-health-experts-urge-caution/

So what kind of dog SHOULD science be? Maybe a highly disciplined german shepherd? Following the rules, making things happen, surprising us? Not weeing all over the place and making messes, that's for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 4:02 PM, Bootsie said:

I think asking people to "shelter-in-place" led to a lot of people choosing indoor activities rather than outdoor. The term itself made it sound that being indoors was what we were supposed to do.  It just gives me visions of being in a tight, not well-ventilated space providing safety and security--whereas being in a large, open space is the opposite of "shelter-in-place."  

 Is walking along a hiking trail, going to a park, sitting at an outdoor cafe, participating in an outdoor yoga class, or other such activities more or less risky than having a "trusted" friend over to my house for a cup of coffee?  

I think you're right.  The first three weeks we worked from home (beginning in mid-March), I took four days off work, and the two adult males in my home started the fence project we'd been getting ready for, so they did spend several weeks outdoors!  They've both been working entirely from home for the duration, so I'm the weak link, in a workplace with a fairly low exposure ( compared to hospital or retail).  But my workplace could go to skeleton staffing, just enough of us to keep the doors open while everyone else worked from home or saw clients as needed.  But it won't happen... sigh.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For crying out loud. Covering your face, with ANYTHING, is going to spew fewer germs than NOT covering your face. 

If people are incapable of knowing something they have been taught all their lives (that's why we cover when we sneeze or cough) I can't help them. 

I'm going to ask someone for a scientific study bout being dressed in public, shoes, etc. For crying out loud anyone fighting this is being a PIA on purpose. Full stop. 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

For crying out loud. Covering your face, with ANYTHING, is going to spew fewer germs than NOT covering your face. 

If people are incapable of knowing something they have been taught all their lives (that's why we cover when we sneeze or cough) I can't help them. 

I'm going to ask someone for a scientific study bout being dressed in public, shoes, etc. For crying out loud anyone fighting this is being a PIA on purpose. Full stop. 

 

If only it were this simple.  There are studies that have shown certain fabrics, for example, result in the release of more, smaller particles.  If smaller particles remain in the air longer, it may be worse to have more, smaller particles than fewer, larger particles when you are considering the probability of someone else become infected.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

If only it were this simple.  There are studies that have shown certain fabrics, for example, result in the release of more, smaller particles.  If smaller particles remain in the air longer, it may be worse to have more, smaller particles than fewer, larger particles when you are considering the probability of someone else become infected.    

That was one study that found that about one very specific covering (a thin polyester gaiter), and the study authors have clarified repeatedly that the study wasn't designed to test the efficacy of any of the masks involved; the purpose of that study was to test a simple setup that could be used to test masks. What's the purpose of latching on to that one specific thing rather than the large body of evidence showing that masks reduce transmission?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kand said:

That was one study that found that about one very specific covering (a thin polyester gaiter), and the study authors have clarified repeatedly that the study wasn't designed to test the efficacy of any of the masks involved; the purpose of that study was to test a simple setup that could be used to test masks. What's the purpose of latching on to that one specific thing rather than the large body of evidence showing that masks reduce transmission?

I am aware of more than one study, so I am not sure what study you are referring to.  

I am not latching on to one specific thing.  I think there is a lot that is not known.  I think a lot of questions should be asked.  I think people should be open to asking questions and open to having others ask questions and seek answers and more knowledge.  I take issue with comments that covering your face with anything will be better--I would want people to cover their faces with things that actually do help, not things that could potentially make the issues worse.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone asks me for peer reviewed studies specific to Covid, and won't accept studies regarding respiratory illness in general, or studies about flu, or expriments showing how masks limit spread of droplets, and also can't comprehend that covering your mouth/nose when sneezing or coughing (nd we can't predict when we will or will not sneeze/cough), I got nothing. 

We do have studies on masks and other illnesses, we do have experiments showing how and why masks limit spread of droplets, we all know that sometimes you sneeze randomly and we should cover our mouth/nose when we do. We know all that. 

Someone arguing that masks don't help because one type of mask didn't work should just WEAR A DIFFERENT MASK and do their best to inform others about that, rather than wasting their energy arguing against mask mandates. 

Someone arguing tha tmasks are pointless because some people won't cover their nose could use that energy to tell people to cover their nose, and also realize that many people ARE covering their nose, so that's better than no masks. 

Perfect isn't possible, we get that. So to argue that we shouldn't bother if it isn't perfect is just ridiculous. I don't have energy for ridiculous people anymore. 

I'd probably ask them if they cover their nose when thy sneeze. If they say yes I'd ask them for peer reviewed studies on why they do that. Or maybe I'd ask if they have peer reviewed studies on the health consequences of smearing boogers on people and if they don't I'll ask if that means they are okay with me picking my nose and smearing my boogers on them. Sigh. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

IME there are very, very few stupid dogs. But there are untold legions of ignorant people who (1) aren't the least bit fluent in dog, (2) don't realize it, or (3) even when they do realize it have no desire to educate themselves; and (4) therefore very mistakenly think that any dog who is wicked smart and independent--and thus isn't interested at all in pleasing their human "just because" -- is stupid.

Just saying.

Edited by Pawz4me
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

IME there are very, very few stupid dogs. But there are untold legions of ignorant people who (1) aren't the least bit fluent in dog, (2) don't realize it, or (3) even when they do realize it have no desire to educate themselves; and (4) therefore very mistakenly think that any dog who is wicked smart and independent--and thus isn't interested at all in pleasing their human "just because" -- is stupid.

Just saying.

My dog is just an independent thinker. I’ll take that any day over blind obedience. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, caedmyn said:

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html  I think people are more likely to change behavior after seeing something like this than by seeing published studies.

This is another well done piece with animations, mask specific, showing how they work:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/30/science/wear-mask-covid-particles-ul.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...