until you show me a study that proves with _finality_ that masks are not effective _at all_ or are worse than wearing nothing, imma default to assuming that it is logical to wear them

But I am not sure how much we know about the vectors of typical infection rates.

If it's primarily small aerosolized particles (likely), or large ones that slowly float down to the ground (unlikely).

I'm not personally against masks, but I have a feeling I understand where Doc is coming from.

Forgive me if I'm interpreting it wrong, Doc.

But if we say 99% of infections are caused by aerosolized particles, masks aren't really going to help in the slightest.

I could be wrong, but aerosolized particles are practically free-moving between surgical masks and the like. I'm not sure how effectively they filter them.

I don't think that's true

water isn't affected by pants

but it is

airflow affects air around it

But you're not breathing through your pants.

I would be extremely skeptical that a mask does not affect any sized particles

no matter how small

It'll affect larger particles for sure.

just google the studies about n95 masks and aerosolized particles

they talk about differences of .6% and a few percent

i.e it is bad when it is letting in 5% of particles

verses 100%

5% of particles could be the primarily-sized particles that lead to the most cases of infections.

no

they are not even talking about infections

just aerosolized particles

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200519/Aerosol-transmission-through-new-vs-reused-N95-masks.aspx#:~:text=The%20N95%20FFR%20is%20a,simulate%20the%20aerosol%20spread%20correctly.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20069567v2.full.pdf I've seen this study which is likely saying the same thing you're saying.

But as it says in the study, the size of the particles is not known.

"Data on the particle size distribution for particulates measured by the PortaCountsare not available, however, ~90% of the particles detected were produced by the TSI Particle Generator as described above"

So we don't really know what size was filtered out, or if those of a certain size were filtered at a success rate of as you suggested, high efficacy.

@realz Large studies show that around 90% of spread outside families can be traced back to nightclubs, bars, restaurants and hotels.

fecal-oral.

So aerosolized.

from toilets, yes.

It displays pretty much the spread pattern of Norwalk.

which explains the high R0

In places you likely wouldn't be wearing a mask.

The bathroom, specifically.

well, you contaminate your surface when using the restroom, go back out and eat/drink.

So a lot of surface contamination.

correct

Makes lots of sense.

indeed it does.