SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Face masks don't even have to work especially well to be effective:
Advice on whether or not to use face masks to limit the spread of the pandemic has varied from country to country, even differing by location within countries. These policies have had to balance whether there were sufficient supplies for medical personnel to divert some to the general public. And the whole issue was decided without a clear idea of whether face masks were actually effective against SARS-CoV-2.
But there has been reason to think masks would at least be somewhat affective, based on studies of the spread of droplets of material we expel while coughing or sneezing. And a recent analysis suggested a large group of individual studies collectively pointed to their effectiveness. But that analysis left a large degree of uncertainty about how effective they'd be at the population level and how face mask use would interact with other policy decisions.
The situation left us needing population-level modeling, which a group of UK scientists has now provided. The group's model indicates that face masks don't have to be especially effective to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and can even bring benefits if they make people more vulnerable to infection. But to really control the pandemic, they will have to be combined with a lockdown if we want to see the total infected population shrink.
[...] Right now, we just don't know enough about SARS-CoV-2 and protective gear to evaluate which of these models best reflect reality. But the models do set some reasonable bounds about what we might aim for. For example, they indicate that masks don't need to be especially good if we get enough people wearing them and couple their use to other policy initiatives.
Journal Reference:
Stutt, R., Retkure, R., Bradley, M., Gilligan, C., and Colvin, J. A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with lock-down in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, Proceedings of the Royal Society A (2020) (DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2020.0376)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2020, @06:23PM (3 children)
I would like to see epidemiological studies on face shields (without masks) if everyone wore them. The shields don't seem to reduce oxygen levels nearly as much (ie: it seems much easier to breathe wearing them instead of the masks) so if they offer some level of protection that might be a good balance between not restricting oxygen levels (which harms the immune system and may have other health costs) while still offering some level of protection.
Plus the shields might be more convenient to clean/disinfect and if they cover the eyes they might also provide the wearer, and not just others, with better protection.
To what extent can everyone wearing only face shields reduce the R0 (R-naught) value of various infections.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2020, @07:44PM
I wear a K&N air filter around my head.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @01:40AM
Also it might be easier to tell if others have cleaned their shield or not.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday June 14 2020, @03:20AM
The problem with face shields is being basically open on three sides. So you still have a lot of potential for exchanging spew, both incoming and outgoing.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.