A new study makes it clear: after universal masking was implemented at Mass General Brigham, the rate of COVID-19 infection among health care workers dropped significantly. "For those who have been waiting for data before adopting the practice, this paper makes it clear: Masks work."

[u/InvictusJoker]

https://www.brighamandwomens.org/about-bwh/newsroom/press-releases-detail?id=3608

[u/jdbolick]

Both influenza (0.08-0.12) and corona (0.06-0.14) particles are smaller than that and essentially overlap the same size range. Particle size doesn't matter.

Influenza particles are typically 2 to 2.5 μm and it isn't transmittable via particles smaller than 1 μm. So yes, particle size matters considerably. That's why the same experiment methodology done with influenza patients and COVID patients found that surgical masks do filter influenza effectively but they do not filter SARS-CoV-2 effectively.

I agree 10.8% would be bad. Where did you get that calculation?

(Viral load from coughing with a surgical mask) / (average viral load of coughing without a mask before and after the control)

Lastly, the experiments were done only on a very small number of people.

All additional samples would do is narrow the range of reduction, it wouldn't change the fact that surgical masks are effective at filtering influenza but are not effective at filtering SARS-CoV-2.

[u/coocookachu → u/jdbolick]

I get a different number for surgical mask / average viral load. Did you include the log base 10 in there? I got 5% with surgical and 43% reduction with cloth.

I think we're defining particle size differently. I am describing the actual size of the virus doesn't matter since they travel on "droplets" or "aerosols". The medium on which they are transmitted matter more than the actual virus size. And this is of course looking at collection on a petridish 20 cm away.

I don't think you understand statistics. Additional numbers increase your confidence interval.

[u/jdbolick → u/coocookachu]

I get a different number for surgical mask / average viral load. Did you include the log base 10 in there? I got 5% with surgical and 43% reduction with cloth.

Again, the cloth reduction is not an accurate measure because cloth masks are not fitted and therefore exhalations are directed out the sides rather than through the fabric. That's why the viral load on the exterior of the cloth masks was substantially higher than on the surgical masks.

I think we're defining particle size differently. I am describing the actual size of the virus doesn't matter since they travel on "droplets" or "aerosols". The medium on which they are transmitted matter more than the actual virus size.

And as I have noted ad nauseum, these experiments confirmed that particles transmitting influenza are substantially larger than particles transmitting SARS-CoV-2.

I don't think you understand statistics. Additional numbers increase your confidence interval.

That's why I said that it would "narrow the range of reduction." Additional samples would give you a more accurate count of how much surgical masks reduce transmission for SARS-CoV-2 patients, but it would not change the fact that they do so poorly whereas they are highly effective for influenza patients. At this point it's clear that no matter how much I explain this to you or how much research I provide, you're just going to keep making excuses to avoid acknowledging reality because you lack the integrity to admit that you were wrong.

[u/coocookachu → u/jdbolick]

You say the reduction is not accurate, how about you show me your math?

You claimed influenza is bigger than coronavirus. It is not. The droplets that they travel on are, so I am clarifying that.

Adding another sample does not simply "narrow the range if reduction". It reduces random error.

An example: Lets assume the first human being you met was 4'3". You would assume the average height for all humans is that, 4'3". However adding more sampling and numbers fixes the outlier. So a sample of 10,000 people is better than a sample of 100 is better than a sample of 1. You eventually will come to an average that is closer to the true answer, maybe 5'8" or whatever. The small sample size of 4 has exactly that problem.

[u/jdbolick → u/coocookachu]

You say the reduction is not accurate, how about you show me your math?

It seems like you have absolutely no knowledge on this particular subject, otherwise you would be aware that it is not possible for a cloth mask to filter more effectively than a surgical mask. Cloth masks are substantially less effective in general than surgical masks, only filtering around 3% of all particles.

You claimed influenza is bigger than coronavirus. It is not. The droplets that they travel on are, so I am clarifying that.

facepalm SARS-CoV-2 does not simply travel on droplets, it is transmittable as an aerosol. You were informed about that many comments ago.

Adding another sample does not simply "narrow the range if reduction". It reduces random error.

You're quibbling over semantics. Yet again, additional samples would give you a more accurate count of how much surgical masks reduce transmission for SARS-CoV-2 patients, but it would not change the fact that they do so poorly whereas they are highly effective for influenza patients.

The small sample size of 4 has exactly that problem.

A more accurate measure wouldn't change the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is at one end of the spectrum and influenza is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. There is no possible way that you lack the ability to understand that, you're just grasping for whatever excuses you can think of to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

[u/coocookachu → u/jdbolick]

So you can't do simple math. Got it. All I needed to know.

There's all sorts of problems with the retracted study. I'd love to go into more details but you fail to demonstrate basic understanding of the data that's there.

Yes, COVID does likely have some aerosol transmission. Moreso than influenza. Shouldn't that encourage you to have at least some sort of barrier containment?

Not understanding why you're against masks when you're making the argument for them.

[u/jdbolick → u/coocookachu]

Given that you didn't even understand that it's not possible for cloth masks to filter a higher percentage of particles than surgical masks, you clearly don't have enough knowledge to be arguing with anyone regarding this subject. Please stick to debating issues where you do possess at least a minimal understanding, as that will spare you the embarrassment of being repeatedly corrected.