It looks like fleece and bandana are within the standard error of the control. Just because the mean of the fleece sample was greater than the mean of the control (no mask), it does not mean the fleece was worse. The overlapping standard error means that there is no statistical difference between no mask, fleece and bandana. It is ok to say that neither fleece or bandana were no more effective at stopping the water droplets than no mask at all. But just because the mean is greater for the fleece than the control is not enough to conclude the fleece was worse. But, all of the other materials are statistically better than no mask.

I see a lot of people going with the fleece because it is easier to breath. It makes sense it would be easier because they were primarily designed to block sunlight and an a wind break while allowing free air exchange and not absorbing moisture (2 design elements that are counter productive to excluding/retaining virus particles contained in water droplets). Intuitively, I had suspected the fleece, while technically meeting the mask requirement, would not actually serve any beneficial use and only serve to still annoy the person wearing it. This study supports my suspicions.

I had seen this study earlier and it has been helpful to me as a science teacher in allowing some group lab work if a student choses to wear one of the more resistant options. It reduces the 6ft limitation. However, if a student chooses to stick with a fleece or bandana, I am allowing them to do the lab individually, but not in a group.

DeBoss said:

---

I appreciate you bringing this. Pretty much confirms my belief that a mask is nothing but "virtue signaling" unless you take this seriously and wear the proper mask. And those that are high risk should take this seriously and invest in the correct mask if they want to be in public around others.

---

Agree and those who have had it and recovered shouldn't be forced to wear one

badbilly said:

---

DeBoss said:

---

I appreciate you bringing this. Pretty much confirms my belief that a mask is nothing but "virtue signaling" unless you take this seriously and wear the proper mask. And those that are high risk should take this seriously and invest in the correct mask if they want to be in public around others.

---

Agree and those who have had it and recovered shouldn't be forced to wear one

---

My son had it in early July, has the paperwork, etc. Remember when there was talk of getting a "certificate" or something to show you had it already? Anyway, he's frustrated that he had to sit in his first week of college with a mask. It would be cool if he wasn't forced to wear one now. Pretty much a waste for him to do so (and a distraction).

Masks slow transmission.

If your argument is that masks aren't as effective at slowing transmission as locking everyone in their house, I agree with you. But I don't see masks giving people a false sense of security and making things worse. Quite the opposite in fact, it seems like the places where mask compliance is highest also have the least number of people coming out in public.

Also this should be interesting when we get the results:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53875370

I also think people get the general idea of mask (or no mask), what they are supposed to be preventing and how to do it. I went to a convenience store (off brand-type) in South Austin yesterday. I was finishing a call right before I went in, but I noticed the 2 or 3 people go in weren't wearing mask. So I thought, "Well, if they aren't, I'm not". A couple of people came in after I came in too, no mask (I started wondering if this was the "local anti-mask store).

Anyway, I was watching, as sort of an experiment. Nobody talked to each other, everyone had proper distance. Basically the place was as safe with mask as without. Everyone knows the rules at this point, I'd like to see more relaxing of mask rules at this point...though I know it won't happen. An hour later, I was in line outside at virtue signaling central...Trader Joes. Everyone (15-20 people) standing 6' apart...outside, with mask. Well, except me (if 6' is appropriate, why mask outside?) Put mask on right before entering.

88planoAg said:

---

It isn't 2 minutes any more. It is 8 hours. For school kids, college students, teachers, and other office workers.

---

About 2 hours at church, including volunteer time. Yeesh! And at 25% (on purpose) capacity.

It is also not "no effort" for young children to wear masks when exercising! Ridiculous. I have friends who have to put a mask on their two year old if he rides his bike around the neighborhood.

AggieSarah01 said:

---

It is also not "no effort" for young children to wear masks when exercising! Ridiculous. I have friends who have to put a mask on their two year old if he rides his bike around the neighborhood.

---

wait, what? where is requiring this?

New Mexico. Masks supposedly required on everyone two and up anytime you are outside your car or house. A friend couldn't go into Walmart without putting a mask on her 2 year old first. Who then took his mask off and on and off and on, touching his face lots.

We are also only one of three states to still not have indoor dining. We have met the requirements for reopening, but they seem to be stalling because ?

AggieSarah01 said:

---

New Mexico. Masks supposedly required on everyone two and up anytime you are outside your car or house. A friend couldn't go into Walmart without putting a mask on her 2 year old first. Who then took his mask off and on and off and on, touching his face lots.

We are also only one of three states to still not have indoor dining. We have met the requirements for reopening, but they seem to be stalling because ?

---

Honestly. Good grief. I would risk the consequences with a 2 year old on the back of a bike.

ETFan said:

---

Those comparisons make no sense.

Thinking wearing mask to protect yourself and, more importantly, those that may be more vulnerable than you is some sort of attack on your personal freedoms makes you soft.

---

ETF Fan - you had me at the ad-hominem attack.

AggieSarah01 said:

---

New Mexico. Masks supposedly required on everyone two and up anytime you are outside your car or house. A friend couldn't go into Walmart without putting a mask on her 2 year old first. Who then took his mask off and on and off and on, touching his face lots.

We are also only one of three states to still not have indoor dining. We have met the requirements for reopening, but they seem to be stalling because ?

---

Is this new? We were there for 3 weeks in July. The order stated that anyone over 4 must wear a mask. Some municipalities may have different orders. Taos, for example, was requiring masks on anyone over 4 at all times when in public unless you were exercising.

We didn't take the kids to the store, but we went to the ski valley a couple of times and road the list up and down. The only time we "had" to have masks on was in line or if we were near anyone.

I am not sure when it changed. Sometime in late July or early August. We had a total of 76 cases today in the state. Still no talk of reopening (except that MAYBE some kids might be able to start going back to school after Labor Day, although Albuquerque and Santa Fe already voted to stay online only until January.)

Hypo:

You are stuck in a small-ish room with someone else. They are sick and cough every minute or so. Would you prefer them wear a cotton mask or nothing at all?

Callate Donnie said:

---

Hypo:

You are stuck in a small-ish room with someone else. They are sick and cough every minute or so. Would you prefer them wear a cotton mask or nothing at all?

---

honestly, if you are stuck in a smallish room with someone sick and coughing, a cotton mask isn't going to do anything. If you aren't wearing a N95 mask, there is a high probability of getting sick.

1) smallish room = limited fresh air, constantly recirculating virus droplets
2) stuck = exposure > 15 min.
3) sick and coughing = lots of virus in the air.
4) cotton masks do a reasonable job of preventing the forward blast of the cough, but very little containment of the airflow around the mask. Every mask I have tried (short of a properly fitting N95) causes my glasses to fog.

I appreciate the analysis, but that is not the question. The question is would you rather the sick person be wearing something over their mouth or not? It's a binary question. Clearly, it is a loaded one, but that is the point. Would anyone on this thread say, "I'd rather they have nothing covering their mouth?" Of course not, because any protection, even if only modest, is better than none.

Callate Donnie said:

---

I appreciate the analysis, but that is not the question. The question is would you rather the sick person be wearing something over their mouth or not? It's a binary question. Clearly, it is a loaded one, but that is the point. Would anyone on this thread say, "I'd rather they have nothing covering their mouth?" Of course not, because any protection, even if only modest, is better than none.

---

Not a binary question. What if you don't care one way or the other and don't feel like it your place to tell someone what they can or can't do.

If it bothers you, remove yourself from the situation.

zebros_95 said:

---

Callate Donnie said:

---

I appreciate the analysis, but that is not the question. The question is would you rather the sick person be wearing something over their mouth or not? It's a binary question. Clearly, it is a loaded one, but that is the point. Would anyone on this thread say, "I'd rather they have nothing covering their mouth?" Of course not, because any protection, even if only modest, is better than none.

---

Not a binary question. What if you don't care one way or the other and don't feel like it your place to tell someone what they can or can't do.

If it bothers you, remove yourself from the situation.

---

It is binary. The question is asking for "would YOU rather." It is asking for your preference, irrespective of whether or not feel like it is your place to say anything. And in this hypo, you can't just hit the eject button (like you apparently want to do when faced with this question...that we all know the answer to).

Callate Donnie said:

---

It is binary. The question is asking for "would YOU rather." It is asking for your preference, irrespective of whether or not feel like it is your place to say anything. And in this hypo, you can't just hit the eject button (like you apparently want to do when faced with this question...that we all know the answer to).

---

I have no right to impose something on you just because I would rather you do it...

Callate Donnie said:

---

I appreciate the analysis, but that is not the question. The question is would you rather the sick person be wearing something over their mouth or not? It's a binary question. Clearly, it is a loaded one, but that is the point. Would anyone on this thread say, "I'd rather they have nothing covering their mouth?" Of course not, because any protection, even if only modest, is better than none.

---

Your hypothetical situation is very similar to every hospitalized COVID patient. Do they make patents with COVID wear face masks in the hospital? No. Why is that?


And to answer your question... No, I wouldn't care if the sick individual was wearing a crappy mask or not because I know it basically won't matter. I'm going to be getting exposed and infected in your scenario anyway.


However, this really has nothing to do with people wearing a mask in public. You have concocted a scenario so far to the extreme that the mask doesn't matter. Does it matter in a more public space where my risk of exposure is small enough that a further reduction of that risk is meaningful, but not so small that there is essentially no risk? Yeah, then I would rather, but I would also accept that my decision to be in that space is on me.