read your own article. Not single moleculesTobacco smoke is not a single chemical. Some of its components are simple (and therefore small) molecules that are readily detectable by smelling them, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and the like.
Tobacco smoke - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
However, several components of tobacco smoke (e.g., hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, phenanthrene, and pyrene) do not fit neatly into this rather arbitrary classification, because they are distributed among the solid, liquid and gaseous phases
Keep digging. This is amusing.
Like this? It still goes up which is why indoors in a poorly circulated room they aren't as good. They basically stop you from giving as high a viral load to the person right in front of you, but not from releasing the stuff into the environment of the poorly circulated room.
That's why when they thought it was droplets this makes more sense, but if aerosolized, as the prior studies we've discussed, it can fill a room pretty quickly.
Exactly. The mask keeps you from blowing virus directly into someone’s face as you talk to them. That’s it. The rest of the benefit is minor. But we talk to each other so much that the primary effect is significant.
Imagine you are directly in front of the head in the video. Do you want them to have a mask on? Or do you want to be directly in the viral plume?
The mask doesn’t get any less effective when you walk indoors. You’re just adding a risk that the mask isn’t able to help with.
Truth about what? The CNN comment was definitely a jab at you and the Left wing propaganda machine, but I would say the same about FOX and the Right Wing propaganda machine.
The biggest problem with America is our politicians!
o.k. fair. If true, then the messaging should have been wear a mask when in discussions with others, whether walking outside side by side, talking to the grocery store clerk, talking with the doctor, or in the McDonalds drive thru. Not masks are better than vaccines or if everyone wears masks COVID is controlled. This doesn't, BTW, obliviate the need for an indoor mask mandate (since there's still some marginal benefit to reducing overall viral loads indoors and it's hard to police people for when they are talking and when they aren't to others) but my objection has always been more the messaging than the actual policy.
yes. Now think about how often in a normal day you are face to face with someone. And think about how long it takes people to remember minor tasks, like putting on a mask. Mask on/mask off 50 times a day would not have been the right message, because people can’t follow that kind of message.
This is how you get to “mask whenever indoors or in a crowded outdoor environment.”. It covers the times you are face to face with someone. It also gets you the 10% or so filtration effect, which is a definite nice to have.
I can’t believe you flipped it to the point where I need to argue the “people are social” and “people are fallible” angles.
Again, you misunderstand the point. My problem isn't the rule. It's why I agree this doesn't undermine the argument for an indoor mask mandate. My problem is with the oversell on masks (which was done, in the end it will be shown, to prevent the essential workers from going into a panic while you and I got to sit in front of zoom and have weekly take out). Treat people like adults....tell em why the mask helps (particularly in direct face to face conversation)....don't tell them stuff like masks are better than vaccines, or it's o.k. to fly if masked, or masks will control the outbreak. That way, I know I don't need to wear a mask when walking the dog or if my 5 year old is running around the park, but if I'm going to be sitting with a friend in the park less than 6 feet away even if outdoors I might want to wear one, and I'll definitely want to make sure it's on properly when talking to the grocery store clerk at checkout.
"masks are better than vaccines or if everyone wears masks COVID is controlled"
Strawmen.
No, examples of oversell.
They didn’t know why the masks help. Neither did you. Neither did I. None of that was widely accepted in April 2020. People still thought it was droplets. We thought you needed to trap them, or give them time to fall onto the floor.
It was purely environmental correlation at the start, with a healthy dose of s.w.a.g.. It just seemed to be helping. The elderly Chinese ladies thought the mask helped because it was a filter. They were miles ahead of the rest of us, but even they had the link wrong.
The Spanish study on this IIRC was published in May of 2020. It was why Spain didn't approve gaiters and bandanas. Many of us called them out on the outdoor mandates yet they still went ahead and did that anyways. Aerosolization began to be discussed around the same time period of early summer. Several of us laughed at the claim that universal masking could control the thing. They just didn't want to listen. It undermined the narrative of keeping the essential workers safe.
I don’t remember the main message being “ masks alone = containment. “
It was always “ mask and distance = flatten the curve “ as far back as I can remember.
I’m with espola on this. “masks = containment “ is a strawman from grace.
You can blame me for thinking we can contain it with “ masks + distance + outside + close high risk areas + enforcement “. But there is a lot more in that plan than just masks.
Grace, based on current understanding, you got masks totally wrong.
Based on what is known today, masks do “help much”. They do a great job of blocking person A’s respiratory plume from reaching person B. Your comments last May on masks were just as bad as the CDC lack of comments on being outdoors. And the correction was just as slow, and just as half hearted.
My expectation for the CDC is higher, but don’t waste time patting yourself on the back here.
That funny. Everywhere in the world mask mandates have failed. How’s that mask mandate going in India? Speaking of patting on the back what happened in the czech republic? How it work out in Los Angeles? And Sweden without their mask mandate? Again no where in the world, no matter how much you wish for it, does it make a substantial difference
Very easy to figure out why. On a micro level on the airplane it’s going to help prevent the person 12 rows out from catching it. That additional help though is only marginal utility because being so far away even on a 6 hour flight he’s only rolling a couple die. The person sick right next to you though is forcing you to take several rolls every hour so eventually the n95 will even fail. The end result is the mask was helpful for the people 12 rows away but the overall reduction of cases may be only a handful producing a less robust macro result
sorry dad4. Many of said masks weren’t a panacea while you embraced praying to them
The actual shaping of a plan. So tell us how you would have done it
The argument here has been about masks and what they can do...the answer is by themselves very little. Now you are goalpost moving and saying it’s distance too. Both I and k&s have said distancing is always preferable...the problem is you can’t always have distancing because humans are social animals and essential workers must work.
Back to normal, I see. If you find out you were wrong, it must be time to go on the attack.
