New York Orders Residents To Wear Masks In Public (nytimes.com) 247
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Imposing a stricter measure to control the spread of the coronavirus, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would start requiring people in New York to wear masks or face coverings in public whenever social distancing was not possible. The order will take effect on Friday and will apply to people who are unable to keep six feet away from others in public settings, such as on a bus or subway, on a crowded sidewalk or inside a grocery store.
Mr. Cuomo said local governments would enforce the order, but he noted that riders without face coverings would not be ejected from public transit. The pandemic has devastated New York's public transit system, with 59 workers having died of the virus and 2,269 testing positive for the infection. The state would consider issuing civil penalties to people who fail to abide by the order, but not criminal penalties: "You're not going to go to jail for not wearing a mask," Mr. Cuomo said. Permitted face coverings include proper masks, as well as scarves or bandannas, the governor said. Maryland and New Jersey have also issued similar rules.
Mr. Cuomo said local governments would enforce the order, but he noted that riders without face coverings would not be ejected from public transit. The pandemic has devastated New York's public transit system, with 59 workers having died of the virus and 2,269 testing positive for the infection. The state would consider issuing civil penalties to people who fail to abide by the order, but not criminal penalties: "You're not going to go to jail for not wearing a mask," Mr. Cuomo said. Permitted face coverings include proper masks, as well as scarves or bandannas, the governor said. Maryland and New Jersey have also issued similar rules.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Wouldn't be the first (Score:3, Interesting)
Guy Fawkes masks? If set up to be medically effective this "mandate" could turn into fun.
Sucks to be the guy working on AI facial recognition tech right now.
Re: (Score:2)
"Guy Fawkes masks? If set up to be medically effective this "mandate" could turn into fun."
Alien Facehugger masks would be way cooler.
No Worry (Score:2)
No worry. China sorted that out for you.
https://qz.com/1803737/chinas-... [qz.com]
Actually Sensible (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A mask reminds you not to touch your face.
Re:Actually Sensible (Score:4)
Re: Actually Sensible (Score:2)
Or.to put it on, or remove it, or put it wherever you put it at home. (Before or after washing your hands?)
On that subject: It is beyond me, how people in supposedly developed countries still go their way every day, touching water taps with their dirty hands, wash their hand clean, then touch the same dirt on the same tap again with their now formerly clean hands, to close it. It shows that the vast majority of people, for the vast majority of time, are just mindless automatons in a walking daze, reeling of
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that about 10% of cases start in the eyes, with the implication that those cases were caused by touching.
It's only 10%, but there would also be nose touchers and mouth touchers so while most cases are air born, 10%+ is still enough that it would be worth attempting to eliminate that method.
Eventually there will be studies that will tell us more
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a new theory that the amount of virus matters. A mask, even the most basic one, reduces the amount being spread and it reduces the uptake.
Since outside dilutes a lot I I think there is little to worry about there.
Re: (Score:2)
Guy Fawkes masks? If set up to be medically effective this "mandate" could turn into fun.
Sucks to be the guy working on AI facial recognition tech right now.
And to add some excitement to the dull quarantined life, medical personnel should wear those masks that look like bird heads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wouldn't be the first (Score:2)
I'll bring the cocktails!
-- Sir Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Molotov
Re: Wouldn't be the first (Score:2)
That is the ... point! ... :D
Morons who want to punch people in the face for something quite fitting, where they /clearly/ know as little why they feel that way, as the intensity of them feeling that way, deserve to have their fists split by a steel-tipped needle-sharp plague mask. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Informative)
NY: prosecuted for not wearing mask
Re: (Score:3)
NY: prosecuted for not wearing mask
Not really. https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/p... [findlaw.com]:
Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place; â
So yeah, illegal in NY as well. The mayor is ordering you to violate state law. State law trumps local law.
Welcome to the clusterfuck of NY government.
Re: (Score:2)
yea but their mask's have pointed hats to go with them
Re: (Score:2)
What if you don't have one?
They are, after all, quite impossible to find now.
59 workers out of 70,000 (Score:5, Informative)
NYC has 70,000 transit workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. That's 43% more than in the rest of the population of NY.
Re: 59 workers out of 70,000 (Score:2)
This will all blow over when everybody is infected and the 'low lining fruit' have all died. They keep reporting the freak instances of the very young and healthy dieing, because the unusual is newsworthy.
The fact is, attrition numbers are dropping because the people already near death from other conditions are fewer and fewer all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
probably the high end of the fatality rate which is likely 0.01%-0.08%. Transit workers are at higher risk in general.
Given that 0.08% of New York State's population has ALREADY died of coronavirus, with many more yet to die and many more yet to be infected, your estimate is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers are completely meaningless. You can't just use the 'deaths' and 'recovered' numbers as you apparently did. You only get put on the 'recovered' list if you get re-tested, which is not often done. For instance, in my county you have to have a prescription from a doctor to get tested. The numbers the county provides are something like 3000 negative tests, 800 positive tests, 11 deaths, and 0 recoveries. By your method of calculation, the mortality rate is 100%, which is clearly nonsense.
Your
Re: (Score:3)
Context is important. There are two contexts of interest:
The answer to the first question is in the single digit percentages, perhaps lower. Because of the uncertainty of asymptomatic cases, and the fact that some people just won't get it, the first risk is low. However, the answer to the second question is very important: if you get sick enough to go to the hospital, and test positive, you
Re: (Score:3)
Reference for 37% - USA stats [worldometers.info]
The testing (or lack thereof) issue is spoiling the numbers. My belief is that in the US, at least, this is being done to manage the panic. Because this is a new virus, we simply don't know what the actual fatality rate is. Worse, it seems that - from the numbers we have - that mortality among the Western nations is far higher than that of Asian nations. It could be genetic, it could be health care system related, it could be policy related.
The issue at present is how y
Re: (Score:2)
Good Job Cuomo (Score:2)
Enforce mask rules by not doing anything to dipshits not following your limp wristed suggestion
Re: (Score:2)
About the most you can hope for is to give people "permission" to not be embarrassed to have a mask in public. Enforcement requires close contact with police. And in the current cultural climate, trying to do anything that has the slightest hint of authority is going to lead to mass stupid rebellion - more dangerous than the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Memory hole (Score:2)
Remember when they were saying that masks don't work, that they are even counterproductive because us rubes won't use them properly and will be touching our faces more, etc?
Now they are saying you have to wear one. Good thing I didn't listen to them before and have some to wear.
Signed, Winston Smith ...
Re: (Score:2)
Was that a real claim or just an attempt to persuade people not to hoard needed medical supplies? In the end, it turned out to be the wrong move. But at the time, it sure seemed like an indirect attempt to just prevent hoarding/gouging.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who delivers drinking water to my work was wearing a mask and gloves. He was adjusting the shit out of his mask. With the gloves on, that he touched everything with. So he was spreading anything relevant in both directions.
I'm more worried for black people, who have been harassed for wearing masks. Now they have to wear them if they go outside... Or just stay home
Re: (Score:2)
So he was spreading anything relevant in both directions.
~drinkypoo
It's a "wash"
~SHANGHAI BILL
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when they were saying that masks don't work, that they are even counterproductive because us rubes won't use them properly and will be touching our faces more, etc?
Which is still true.
Now they are saying you have to wear one
Because this is coming from government officials that have to adapt to what the situation on the ground actually is. People aren't doing the thing that they're supposed to be doing which is staying the fuck home. So officials are doing what they can to at least get people to do something to stop the spread. Because it's becoming clear that everyone is just begging for the military to be called in because the whole staying at home of your own volition is something that's not going to h
I remember! "Live free and kill" (Score:2)
Can't tell if you're trying to argue with a Libertarian or not. The OP might be joking. However, I do think that I can address the substance of your comment thusly:
Some people are extremely confused. They think this is a case of "Live free or die" when they are actually arguing for "Live free and kill". Obviously they don't believe that they, themselves, are going to be the people they kill, but they definitely believe that getting more money in their own pockets is more important than thinking too much.
The
Science (Score:2)
Remember when they were saying that masks don't work, that they are even counterproductive because us rubes won't use them properly and will be touching our faces more, etc?
Now they are saying you have to wear one.
The reason for the change in recommendation is new information about the spread of the virus from asymptomatic people. As data has come in, it has become clear that many people who have the virus do not show symptoms, and are thereby unknowingly spreading it. As we get new data, the recommended best defenses against spread change. It's, y'know, science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we knew about asymptomatic spread LONG before the mask recommendations, which were not that long ago.
It's, y'know, trivial to look up. It's not even science, it's just facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when they were saying that masks don't work, that they are even counterproductive because us rubes won't use them properly and will be touching our faces more, etc?
Now they are saying you have to wear one. Good thing I didn't listen to them before and have some to wear.
Another take on this...
Public relations. It could still be slightly worse for North Americans who are unaccustomed to safe use of masks, but if the public opinion has mostly shifted to "well, South Korea uses them and they're doing great", there's serious pressure to change guidance. With a case like this where it's theoretical, there's no clear right answer so public opinion alone might be enough to change official guidance.
How many people will become infected due to mishandling of masks? Unknown, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when people were smart enough to change their recommendations when new information came in that contradicted the old information?
Apparently, you don't.
The larger-than-previously-thought asymptomatic but infected people means the math changes on wearing masks.
Hand out masks (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, if you're going to demand that your citizens wear masks, you have to make them available. 'Make your own' or 'use a bandana' are pretty mediocre options. Better than nothing, but a proper pleated mask with ear loops and a little instruction poster showing people how to don and doff them would go a long way. Otherwise you're just getting people to touch their face or their contaminated mask and spread things around.
Also: a mask isn't a replacement for standing away from other people. You really need to try to do both.
Re: (Score:2)
It's arguably worse than nothing, since such a mask would offer literally *zero* protection to an uninfected person from the virus, and may give them a false sense of security, leading them to be less careful about maintaining social distancing.
A cloth mask will stop you from giving the virus to other people, but that's only applicable if you are actually infected with it, and is no more effective at stopping the spread t
Champion of the poor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about protecting you from COVID-19. It's about protecting everyone else from you.
The larger-than-expected number of asymptomatic but infected people mean it's better for everyone to slap a piece of cloth on their face to keep them from spreading it.
And it is much more effective at that than covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't infect anyone else if you aren't infected.
And yes, I know that asymptomatic spread is a thing, but that *only* happens when people are in quite close proximity because the water droplets do not travel very far before hitting the ground on account of gravity. If you keep your mouth shut when you cannot avoid breathing on other people you won't be spreading it to anyone else, period.
Strange Times (Score:2)
Spanish police hand out a mask (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, you can make one, but that can be difficult, especially if you're elderly.
And, well, the American police do not have a good track record with public interactions...
I'm not saying this isn't a good idea. It is. But again, we need more support to make it happen. And that means a government that can and will take positive action (giving people masks) instead of negative action (ticketing or arresting for not having a mask).
Re: (Score:3)
A non-medicinal mask will offer one precisely *ZERO* protection against getting a virus that is droplet-bound.
It's not about protecting you. It's about protecting everyone else from you.
The only thing that would protect you would be a respirator. Even a "medicinal mask" isn't enough.
but in fact no more effectively than any other method that can stop your saliva from getting to someone else, such as sneezing or coughing into the arm of your jacket or shirt
Studies have shown that any mask is much more effective than sneezing or coughing into your arm.
Re: (Score:2)
You got a citation for that, because that's exactly the opposite of what I've heard.
Re:Spanish police hand out a mask (Score:4, Informative)
"Cough ettiquite"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
All the assessed cough etiquette maneuvers, performed as recommended, do not block droplets expelled as aerosol when coughing
Vs masks (all studies showed effective)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Aerosol from a sneeze spreads in a room much larger than 1.5 meters in minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but only if you don't cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze
Which you can do just as effectively as a cloth mask by coughing or sneezing into the arm of your shirt or jacket.
Any reason for recovered to wear masks? (Score:2)
Aside from "unity" and everyone just saying "I've recovered" (when they haven't) ?
We have our localized herd immunity and would just like to get on with it. You all in this pandemic are becoming boring.
** probably we'll be the first to die of covid-20, the mutation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not known yet. We know that the recovered can get infected again, they're just going to fight it off very quickly. We don't know if they can spread it during that brief infected period.
Are masks helpful? (Score:2)
Serious question, do non surgical masks have any effect on the transmission of this virus?
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question, do non surgical masks have any effect on the transmission of this virus?
Obviously the material involved and the snugness of fit matter a lot. That said, there's nothing like layers to make things work better. Just because the pores in the cloth are much larger than the virus doesn't mean NONE of the particles get caught.
Here's a purely theoretical example: suppose a single layer of cloth stops 75% of the virus particles. Then four layers stops close to 99%. (this depends on the cloth being purely random in structure and so on and so on).
Public transit system (Score:2)
Cuomo refused to shut down the public transit system? Hundreds of people packed like sardines in busses and metro cars is a recipe for disaster. Nobody is supposed to be going to work anyway, why have a public transit system operational?
You can't infect someone if you are not infected.. (Score:2)
Where will this end? (Score:2)
What concerns me with forcing people to wear a mask is the principle. What else can government force you to wear? I am always paranoid of government overreach where the average citizen can be told what to do.
Before anyone else says "I'm the problem" or such, please understand my real concern. Also, see what happens when you do go too far. Take a look at the small revolt against their state mandates. Not that I'm calling what they did good or bad, but if you push people too far they will just ignore you
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Coming soon (Score:5, Interesting)
Masks are effective. They provide some protection to the wearer from micro droplets, but more important provide protection to others from micro droplets.
What the guy talking at around the 2:30 mark: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworl... [nhk.or.jp]
They don't have to be perfect, they just have to slow the spread of the virus enough for hospitals to be able to cope.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical professionals wear masks less to protect themselves from the patients, but from them making the patient more ill.
This isn't new. However, people don't like to think like that. I am fine, and I feel good, I am not a carrier. Everyone thinks they are not a problem. However, there are people who are.
Just like the bad drivers out, there are often the first to say they are great drivers, and it is all the other drivers out there that cause him to get into so many accidents.
While Social Distancing yo
Re: (Score:2)
I believe elementary masks are cheap and effective in a statistical manner but I can see that introduction has been slowed down and officials tend to delay them till after lockdown
- only the high quality masks really protect you from others.
- the factory made masks have been low in stock and officials worried people would try and get those at the expense of the healthcare people.
- it is not easy to use masks in an effective manner. So what if people make them themsevles? They accumulate virus, they don't fi
Re: (Score:2)
Only medicinal masks do this. Non-medical masks provide no real protection because many of the droplets are already far smaller than the holes in the fabric anyways. They are arguably worse than not wearing a mask at all because it may cause people to be less careful about maintaining social distancing than they otherwise would.
Re: (Score:2)
Masks are effective. They provide some protection to the wearer from micro droplets, but more important provide protection to others from micro droplets.
Masks are only effective when used properly. Otherwise they do nothing but provide a nice moist warm environment close to your face for a virus to survive on for an extended period of time. Then you go home take off your mask with your hands, just lay it on the counter, scratch your nose lick your fingers, drink milk directly from the bottle and then put the mask on for another trip outside in contaminant town. The way most people act with their PPE, masks do more harm than good.
Re: Coming soon (Score:3)
I got exposed. A dentist's assistant worked on me about 10 days ago for more than an hour. Same evening he went down with symptoms and later was confirmed it is COVID 19. So, for sure he was contagious that day.
So far no patient treated nor a colleague has symptoms. I doubt we all got it and are all asymptomatic. Much more probable is that masks work and work well.
They were wearing their usual protection with extra plastic sleeves so that no bare skin on their hands is exposed. For the patients they asked t
Re:Coming soon (Score:4)
Also a fine if you don't have a pocket full of posies, because posies keep the bad vapors away. It is known.
News like this seriously makes me wonder how much authorities and their cousins/uncles/brothers in laws have invested in face mask production and sales...there is NO conclusive proof that they are of any use to prevent acquiring the illness.
Take some time and read online. The masks, properly made ones and not scarves, do reduce transmission to others. It wont prevent you acquiring the illness.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The masks, properly made ones and not scarves, do reduce transmission to others.
You can't make an authoritative claim like that because the data doesn't exist to support your claim. There is data to support that in specific tested cases, in laboratory and hospital settings, face masks can and do reduce transmission of disease from the sick to the healthy. However it is completely invalid to try to extrapolate this to the population at large - a population with very little training, a very low attention span, and the possibly counterproductive attitude that the mask confers immunity. It
Re: (Score:3)
...there is NO conclusive proof that they are of any use to prevent acquiring the illness.
There is plenty of proof. Western governments just chose to ignore it for months when it really would have made a difference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
To quote from this study: "vaccination during the influenza season (OR 0.866, 95% CI 0.786–0.954) and wearing a mask (OR 0.859, 95% CI 0.778–0.949) showed significant protective association. In contrast, hand washing was not associated with protection (OR 1.447, 95% CI 1.274–1.644)"
In other words, the exact opposite of what the govern
Re: (Score:3)
There is plenty of proof. Western governments just chose to ignore it for months when it really would have made a difference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p [nih.gov]...
To quote from this study: "vaccination during the influenza season (OR 0.866, 95% CI 0.786â"0.954) and wearing a mask (OR 0.859, 95% CI 0.778â"0.949) showed significant protective association. In contrast, hand washing was not associated with protection (OR 1.447, 95% CI 1.274â"1.644)"
That study was on school children. School children are in a confined space with lots of talking, and few opportunities to wash hands, with frequent handling of things touched by other children. Thus is that scenario we'd expect hand washing to be useless and masks to be effective.
The scenario masks are being required for are brief contact with strangers. It is a completely different situation - there is generally little or no talking; touching of items touched by strangers be be minimized, and washing of
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, people seem to forget that our our US Surgeon General stated that masks are ineffective against the spread of COVID-19 back in late February. Look at up!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Science is not about truth, it's about evidence. Over time evidence accumulates, and evidence-based advice has to change.
What's changed now from the early days is that we now have good evidence many transmitters of COVID-19 are asymptomatic. So the new upside is that masks prevent asymptomatic carriers from infecting other people. You wear the mask for the benefit of others, and they do the same in return.
The downside of masks has always been that they're uncomfortable. People fiddle with them unconsciou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like an anti vaxxer.
Re: (Score:2)
Posies didn't keep the "bad vapors away" it let you avoid or coverup the smell of rotting and festering flesh from overwhelming you from "ring around the rosies" aka bucolic uclers from the plague.
Re: (Score:2)
The miasma theory might have held true during the first outbreak, but by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, that wasn't the case. You can dig through the literature of the time, that people carried them to avoid the smells. Shouldn't be a surprise either, when you figure in big cities you could have 50% of the population rotting in their homes faster then the mass graves could be dug.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not certified to 'prevent acquiring the illness', just certified to prevent acquiring the illness by breathing in airborne virus.
(*) Filtering Facepiece Particles certified in Europe to protect against viruses.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't matter if they invested in mask production -- mask production is already balls-to-the-wall.
The point of making you wear a mask isn't to protect you. It's to protect others from you. Recent data suggests that up to half the people who are infected with COVID-19 are asymptomatic, and there's abundant evidence that asymptomatic people can be infectious.
Re: (Score:2)
With hayfever season already started a lot of those asymptomatic people will be sneezing too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize that you are probably a JavaScript programmer
No I'm a doctor, so there's that
Do you think healthcare workers who wear masks do it for fashion?
The key part of aseptic medical technique when dealing with a contaminated patient is DISTANCE. Reducing the number of passengers allowed on public transport by blocking every other seat/row, for example, would be far more effective than masks. Sure it's common sense to think that a mask or any other barrier must certainly help and can't harm - they are far more effective at preventing the transmission of bacteria than viruses. Bacteria exist on a scale of micro meters. Virus
Re: (Score:3)
Surgeons do not wear surgical masks to prevent "the vapours" from wafting into their noses while cutting into the body on the table. They are worn to prevent the surgeons' snot and spittle from landing inside the cut open patient on the operating table, thus preventing infection.
Whatever medical school you went to, you should ask for a refund because they didn't teach you shit. Or if you are some kind of Doctor other than a Medical Doctor, then please stick to your knitting and leave the medicine to those
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that you are probably a JavaScript programmer
No I'm a doctor, so there's that
Doctor, not fluid scientist. Yes you have related knowledge, however you also have more of a duty to be careful.
Do you think healthcare workers who wear masks do it for fashion?
The key part of aseptic medical technique when dealing with a contaminated patient is DISTANCE. Reducing the number of passengers allowed on public transport by blocking every other seat/row, for example, would be far more effective than masks. Sure it's common sense to think that a mask or any other barrier must certainly help and can't harm - they are far more effective at preventing the transmission of bacteria than viruses. Bacteria exist on a scale of micro meters. Viruses exist in the nanometer realm. Coronavirus is about 120nm, which means it's going to slip right through your 750nm N95 mask just like air has no trouble moving through your screen door. But if you make every idiot wear a mask they're all going to think they're immune and will not respect distance and hand washing protocols. Thus you'll possibly make things worse.
So, with a mask handwashing protocol is even more important than without, you have a point there. The solution to this is education that used masks are even more dangerous than outdoor surfaces you touch. If you instil some fear of the used mask people will wash their hands after mask use and things will be fine.
On the other hand, when it comes to your filtering physics, with sub-30 micron pa
Re:Coming soon (Score:5, Interesting)
Coronavirus is about 120nm, which means it's going to slip right through your 750nm N95 mask just like air has no trouble moving through your screen door.
A few inaccuracies. First of all, N95 masks are rated to filter smaller particles way smaller than 750nm. Even particles smaller than what they are rated for do not "slip right through". It is possible for them to get through in some cases, especially if a person is breathing very heavily (like when running or something), but they still capture the vast majority of particles at 120nm.
Second, virus particles are not smooth or round. They have spikes sticking out. That helps entangle them within the mask, again, it's not like we're talking about ping pong balls falling through a metal mesh. Saying they go through an N95 mask like air through a screen is drastically inaccurate.
Finally, you don't have individual virus particles nice and clean like specks of dust floating around. When they leave the body they are part of mucus, water, and who knows what else, all clumped together in droplets held together by all the various bonds. So those entire droplets will get caught up in a mask (or even a cotton cloth over the face), and tend to entrap it all together in place.
So from a clinical, technical point, because a mask of some kind might not stop 99.999% or whatever the FDA's rating requires it to say, doesn't mean it isn't highly efficient at blocking the majority of virus particles. We aren't talking about a researcher in a lab requiring foolproof, proven, measurable protection against some virus they are handling, but vastly reducing casual spread of the virus in public in general.
Re:Coming soon (Score:5, Informative)
For being a "doctor" you sure don't know physics very well. Or how most viruses are spread.
Here's a hint - viral particle size doesn't matter then the least, since the virus itself isn't aerosolized. N95 masks, and to a lesser amount due to fitment to the face, surgical masks absolutely WILL help protect you from inhaling this virus because it is suspended in micro-droplets and droptlets of liquids from respiration and coughing. Droplet which will absolutely be filtered out with a mask.
As a side note - the damn masks aren't "like a screen door" and one layer thick, they are multiple layers thick leading to statistical improbability of a droplet making it through the whole mask AND getting inhaled. Infections of nurses are happening due to having to use the same masks and other PPE way past the recommended amount, missed areas of decontamination when removing used PPE, and some carelessness due to tiredness.
Re: (Score:2)
Coronavirus is about 120nm, which means it's going to slip right through your 750nm N95 mask
The virus is not traveling as a single particle. It's traveling inside a droplet that is much, much larger. When the droplet hits the mask it sticks to the mask, sticking the virus to the mask along with it. The virus can not travel without a droplet, because it dries out and dies.
Coronavirus isn't pollen.
Re: (Score:2)
but science is real.
As is people's understanding and application of it. And people are much more likely to be affected by the very real science that goes into the study of the longevity of a virus on moist warm surfaces, the science of touching surfaces with your hands, the science of improper sterilization, and the science of misuse of PPE.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing magical about COVID-19 vs other viruses. I can't believe I am arguing with people about MASKS. WHY THE FUCK ARE ALL THE MEDICAL PERSONNEL WEARING MASKS THEN?
Re: (Score:3)
Population density is the real correlation on your stats. Lots of Europe is dense, but not as dense as NYC. Especially metro areas that rely on mass transit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because East Asia is omitted from the stats. If South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore were included, the correlation would be in the reverse direction.
Re: (Score:2)
They are all dense, but they all took far more extreme measures at containment - especially South Korea. SK tested more people than the US with 1/5 the population. They were able to actually do contact tracing because of good test data. If we actually had enough testing kits available, we could have done the same.
Re: (Score:2)
My county of 71k people has seen 32 cases. One death of an 80 year old. It's suburban / rural.
Re: (Score:2)
No, population density did not cause the growth. The density of people meeting other people caused the growth. But you can have huge meetings of people at a rural Texas high school football game, just as much as at a Broadway theater. The largest cities in the developed world are in East Asia, and none of those megacities had a major coronavirus outbreak. In the US, big cities suffered earlier and more, but that's because they are destinations for international travel, so infected people tended to come ther
Re: (Score:2)
For "it's a travel destination", you may read "does Mardi Gras"....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly has the Federal government done other than sign the checks? We're battling the outbreak on the State and local level. Whoever is President doesn't even matter anymore, not only does he/she/it not deserve special praise, he/she/it isn't even relevant anymore.
The real question you should ask is, why does the media even show White House press conferences when we can get all that information and more on Twitter?
Except this is exactly the kind of crisis for which a good leader is necessary.
Things like lockdowns, self-isolation on a national scale, and allocating scarce medical resources are collective actions that require strong leadership. Without that leadership people won't be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get through the crisis.
For all Trump likes being President he's really abdicated the role, states are forming their own groups to manage the lockdowns because the Federal response is so incoheren