You must log in or register to comment.

dukeofmadnessmotors t1_ivz3upq wrote

I thought that was the point of filters, they collect the stuff you don't want to get through.


footcandlez t1_ivzd4tl wrote

Right, the authors kept mentioning that it had the potential for health consequences, but I want to see the data that people who never change their masks are more likely to get ill.


grundar t1_ivzitln wrote

The methods used in this paper are pretty far from realistic. Worse, they keep making claims about things they do not have the data to show.

From "Results":
> "Even though not specifically related to virus transmission through water vapor and droplets32,33, measuring the relative humidity (RH) transmittance can be a simple, rapid and worst case method for testing the performance degradation of FFRs."

i.e., they use as a proxy for mask effectiveness against particles and droplets whether the relative humidity inside it changed over the course of an hour (Fig.2). That's highly questionable, as even with 100% droplet blocking one would expect water molecules to evaporate from the captured droplets and migrate to the other side of the mask (since molecules are far below filtration size).

That...doesn't tell us much of anything useful.

Moreover, it's in direct contrast to the evidence we have of healthcare professionals wearing masks for multiple hours with strong protection against infection. This is not a good proxy measure.

They appear to be trying hard to conflate this useless measure with a useful measure. From "Discussion":
> "According to our RH transmittance tests, the fast and significant drop in humid air filtering capability demonstrates a rapid functional degradation not specifically related to bioaerosols transmission."

i.e., "our method tells us nothing about protection against viruses, but we'll claim it shows "rapid functional degradation" in order to sound like we've shown masks are bad".

That's actively misleading.

They similarly overclaim in their conclusion to the discussion:
> "As a conclusion we can say that, while it is evident and commonly accepted that wearing a face mask is very important for reducing the virus spread, especially in circumstances where proper ventilation and social distancing cannot be guaranteed, our study underlines that wearing a face mask is really beneficial only if it is used correctly."

Their data does not support that claim.

Their data shows that relative humidity increases after a short time; it does not show that viral transferrence increases after a short time. They keep trying to conflate those two things, but their data does not support that conflation.

Ug - there's an obnoxious amount of conflation and overclaiming in this paper.

Hmm - the paper seems to be injecting a certain amount of bias into the text. From "Discussion":
> "The collected survey data highlight the lack of awareness of the basic principles of single-use face masks"

They do not have the data to make this claim.

In particular, none of the survey questions they asked give them information about awareness of mask use, only actual practice of mask use. It's entirely possible (and likely) that survey respondents were aware that single-use masks are single-use, but chose to re-use them for various reasons (convenience, cost, etc.).

Similarly, from later in "Discussion":
> "This confirms that government rules do not automatically lead to a proper face masks usage by the general population."

Is that a claim anyone has ever made? It reads as a low-effort complaint about government regulation.

All indications are that the paper was written with a specific conclusion in mind rather than as a dispassionate examination of the data.


notabee t1_ivznnut wrote

Thank you for taking the time to write a cogent response to this. Just so many strange scare phrases that don't belong in a scientific study. Like sure, it's probably a good idea to change out a disposable mask somewhat regularly because they get mechanically degraded after many uses, like straps wearing out, or might get gross if you get a bunch of food or mucus on them, but what's with all this hand-wavey "health effects" that they never substantiate? Are we going to start concern trolling about seatbelt skin chafing problems without mentioning car accidents next?

Lots of bunk insinuation, no new insights.


choke_da_wokes t1_iw0tmcp wrote

Agreed . The warmer and wetter the better. Someone should start selling pre-moisten masks.


tornpentacle t1_ivzom6l wrote

I think you've misunderstood the vast majority of what you've read. You're making assumptions about the authors' intent and motivations when there really isn't evidence to suggest those to be the case. For example, it's very clear that they weren't trying to say "masks are bad" as you asserted, and the later statement in no way reads as a complaint about government regulation.

I kind of wonder if you just anticipated that someone could try to use this study to say those things and then subconsciously projected that anticipation onto the authors themselves? Because you've read a lot into this paper that just isn't there.

Edit: I do want to add that your criticism of using RH as a proxy is not included in my comments here...that is pretty reasonable.


grundar t1_ivzrc6g wrote

> I think you've misunderstood the vast majority of what you've read.

If you would care to quote and discuss specific examples, I would be happy to dig into those. It is always possible that I've misunderstood.

Without anything specific to discuss, though, it's hard to meaningfully address your comment. Vague generalities don't provide much in the way of substance.

> I do want to add that your criticism of using RH as a proxy is not included in my comments here...that is pretty reasonable.

That's...80% of my comment.

80% of the rest was pointing out that they're making unsupported claims based on their survey (awareness vs. practice).

So, yes, there was indeed a small amount of editorializing based on my impressions having read through the paper. I believe I clearly marked those as such, so I don't think that's unreasonable. (As always, though, I could be wrong on that, and am open to specific arguments to the contrary.)


aairman23 t1_ivzy1vt wrote

Thank you both for having a civil exchange about COVID masks. This is what we NEED more of.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_iw34tgd wrote

If you are interested, he is hardly alone in making these criticisms. Check out these comments from when I posted this on a different sub myself.


NethereseWyvern t1_ivztrl3 wrote

Am an EMT, we wear a new mask for every patient then change at the hospital and once again when leaving. 2/3 masks over 1 maybe 2 hours.

Whos wearing the same mask for 8/9 hours? And if you say surgeon..its because they are in a sterilised room already.


ehchromatic t1_iw0m295 wrote

I actually came here because I designed a custom strapless mask (1 part to protect a wax handlebar moustache, 1 part cool looking) but I use it every time I went out; I was very interested in seeing if I could have been affecting my health in other ways (recurring exposure to fungi?) even though I sanitized it fairly regularly- so, different kind of exposure/overuse as well might apply? But sounds like maybe not worth the read?


Alarmed-Bluejay-9459 t1_iw0qf6r wrote

The nature url is clicknmbaity. It’s scientific reports Still how did this even get published ?


AutoModerator t1_ivz2fwq wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


dvdmaven t1_iw0zmqr wrote

We have enough masks to last us though 20 years of wildfires.


HistoricalSubject t1_iw24st8 wrote

i wear my mask until it starts growing mushrooms. the humidity helps, especially with primordia formation, though the yield often suffers from a lack of nitrogenous proteins.


[deleted] t1_ivz2vp6 wrote



first__citizen t1_ivzfskl wrote

>> Our study highlights therefore that wearing a face mask is really beneficial only if it is used correctly.