@luckytran Can I plead with you to stop advocating for the barely-adequate solution and start advocating for the much better in every respect solution, which is elastomerics?
More comfort, less expense, less waste, more effective, and yet the focus cannot be shifted from N95s. It's kinda disturbing at this point.
Can we please just get people masking, like AT ALL first? Please?
@cavyherd @luckytran Not if we're going to tell them it works and it doesn't.
N95 respirators are the minimum effective countermeasure for current circulating variants. And it's arguably a bit marginal for many N95s for long term wear or if you talk extensively.
If we're aiming for public health vs. individual health, do you see any chance that your option would garner adoption by more than a small fraction of the populace no matter how many of us advocate for it?
Let's crawl before we walk before we try sprinting.
@joeinwynnewood @cavyherd @luckytran I think I should care about the results—avoiding infection—far more than I should care about any particular behaviour.
The minimum ante for "works" is the necessary minimum for advocacy. Otherwise the advocacy does harm.
You can't separate the two when looking beyond yourself.
N95s and KN95s are certainly not perfect, but they're far better than nothing.
If we multiplied the number of people wearing quite good but not perfect masks in public indoor spaces by 10, there would be a very noticeable reduction in transmission.
If we multiplied the number of people wearing elastomeric respirators by 10, there would be a negligible change.
I see K/N95s daily. ERs? Not 1, ever.
@joeinwynnewood @cavyherd @luckytran I think you might be assuming your conclusion.
Hypothesis: granted the use of an alien mind control ray, I cause several popular right-wing influencer types to do repeated shows about COVID-induced penis shrinkage, while having them suggest that only elastomerics are likely to be effective enough to prevent this.
People would wear elastomerics.
What we're seeing now is a policy decision, not an inherent property of people.
@joeinwynnewood @cavyherd @luckytran The other thing is that "reducing the rate of transmission" isn't an appropriate objective. We know with some confidence that people don't stay functional after arbitrary COVID infections; a lower rate of transmission is a not-that-much-slower collapse.
The appropriate objective for public health is to prevent transmission. This isn't happening. If I get as far into the future as I can, maybe I'll reach functioning public health.
@graydon @joeinwynnewood @cavyherd @luckytran A transmission rate below R1 means a dying disease.
So yes, just reducing the rate of transmission can be enough, if your reduction objectives are sufficient.
People will, with quality messaging, do what they experience other people doing. It's called a permission structure.
I live in suburban Philadelphia. I see a minority of people wearing good quality masks. Growing that minority into a majority is possible if unlikely.
I have seen not a single person wearing an elastomeric respirator in 3+ years. You can't multiply 0 into anything.
That's not assuming a conclusion, it's seeing what is doable and what is not.
@graydon @luckytran you can interpret n95 as "n95 or better" -- plus, there are elastomerics that use n95 filters
I don't settle for less than p100 myself, but that doesn't mean n95 isn't where the bar for "blocks an extremely high amount of aerosolized SARS-CoV-2" begins
@currentbias @luckytran "Costs less, works better" should be a no-brainer.
I used both in the before times for the intended industrial purpose—not breathing sanding dust—and after a day, there was a lot of dust in the N95 and there wasn't in the elastomeric.
Disposable N95 fit is tricky.
While there are reasons for disposables in medical contexts, if we're going to give stuff to the public, let's get the best outcome for the public spending. Let's try to protect people as well as we can.
@graydon @luckytran Also more expensive, more difficult to mass produce, and a lot bulkier. N95 masks are at least much much better than surgical masks (or god forbid, cloth masks), and certainly anything is better then no mask.
Honestly just encouraging people to use ANY relatively effective mask is a good start, especially given in most places people have stopped wearing masks entirely (I am guilty of this too, to be honest...)
@katp32 @luckytran While the unit cost for the elastomeric is higher, the cost per year is much lower.
N95 is worth doing when you can't do better; https://readimask.com/ for the dentist or diagnostic machinery is a really good idea. And they can work! I do not at all dispute that N95 can work. It's working continuously that's the challenge.
So far as I'm aware, against current circulating variants, surgical masks, cloth masks, and nothing are statistically equivalent.
@katp32 @luckytran I agree that any-effective is a good start, too.
This thread started with "N95s should be provided with public funds" and I'm much rather the public funds went into the "costs less, works better" options.
@graydon @luckytran Also, fuck cloth masks in general. Like I have actual discomfort breathing with those, whereas I often completely forget about surgical and N95 masks when I'm wearing them.
They're less effective than any other option AND very uncomfortable, why do people buy those things.
@katp32 @luckytran Dunno!
(Least hypothesis is that they're stylish. Some cloth-shell soft masks, like Cambridge Masks, are pretty good for things like smoke, and I think there was a sort of transitive affection. There may also be a certain amount of self-reliance impulses getting involved, and as I recall there was definitely a "let me do something to feel safer" thing going on. Those don't have to work in a statistical sense to become popular.)
True. We have a very impoverished view of "national defense."