Hacker News Reader

You're missing my point. Do you remember last year, very early in the pandemic, when Fauci went on TV and urged people not to go out and horde N95s, claiming that they didn't work, when in reality he just wanted to ensure that they were available for healthcare workers? And then he flipped around weeks later and recommended surgical masks for everyone?

I'm not claiming that masks do or don't work. I'm just claiming that they lied about it (twice) to suit their interests.

> Research published long before COVID-19 proved the efficacy of masking in blocking particulate matter. That's why terms like N95 even exist.

Sure, but what about for aerosols? If you want to see what the self-proclaimed rational community thought of masks and research available at the time in March of 2020 as it pertained to COVID, see this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...

I agree with you on that point. Fauci told a noble lie about the N95 masks and it really harmed credibility. Perhaps I did miss your point.

My intention was to say that, outside of Fauci, the science around mask efficacy was well-known because you said that it wasn't.

once you start accepting the existence of "noble lies" told by authority figures, why do you continue to trust them?

Your anecdote is false.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28201328

>Inaccurate and dangerously wrong conjecture. Research published long before COVID-19 proved the efficacy of masking in blocking particulate matter.

Sure, but what wasn't certain was things like: Was covid transmitted in the air by particles (yes)? Was it transmitted via aerosols (no)? Was it transmitted by touch (no)? How many particles are needed to infect someone (unsure)? Do masks protect me or someone else? What type of masks are needed to protect? How many masks do I need to wear?

From my exposure, I saw non experts being very emphatic about answers that actually took a long time to get answers to. These emphatic non experts alienated people that continued continued be unsure. In some cases, the experts were emphatic - and then wrong - which further alienated people.

If you wouldn't trust a cloth mask to protect you from asbestos dust or second hand smoke, you shouldn't trust it to protect you from a disease that spreads as an aerosol.

OSHA doesn't, and you shouldn't either.

Not all cloth masks function the same way. If you read the studies, it depends on the weaving and the material. Cotton vs. denim, for example, is studied.

None are as effective as a non-woven material. But they are still more effective than no mask.

Edit: > asbestos dust or second hand smoke

You have to know what size of particulate matter that you're looking to filter is in order to determine whether that mask material works for the given application. What you're saying is too broad to be useful and isn't very insightful.

Aerosol viral loads are (if I heard correctly) 50x smaller than asbestos particles. OSHA doesn't allow cloth masks to be used around asbestos.

If this were a flu that spread primarily as droplets, cloth masks would have their place. As it is, we have known since early on that wasn't the case, and that cloth masks are about as useful as a cloth bonnet would be useful as a motorcycle helmet.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c05025

"Materials were microimaged and tested against size selected NaCl aerosol with particle mobility diameters between 50 and 825 nm. Three of the top five best performing samples were woven 100% cotton with high to moderate yarn counts, and the other two were woven synthetics of moderate yarn counts"

This image in particular: https://pubs.acs.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/achs/jou...

You can see N95 non-woven performs the best, but cotton twill does provide protection.

Cool analogy tho.

50-850nm is way off; coronavirus are 20-500 tops.

I guess we should call OSHA and tell them that it is okay to consider cloth masks as safety equipment around asbestos.