Oregon is one of an increasing number of states requiring “face coverings” to be worn in public places, unless you meet one of several exceptions, one of which is having a disability. Unfortunately, it's generally illegal under federal law to ask for proof of a disability. But that’s another subject.
So let’s talk just about masks. Viruses, and for that matter any contagion, cannot move on their own. They require a carrier, in most cases moisture droplets. Wearing any face covering will cut down on the volume of moisture droplets the wearer releases into the air. The simple fact that the inside of your mask gets hot and damp ought to convince you of this fact. While it is true that no mask, not even all but the most professional ones, will filter 100% of particles, it will reduce the volume, and that’s the actual goal. As for what you’re breathing in, again, reducing the volume of particles that other people are spewing into the air reduces the likely volume of particles you will walk through. So I don’t know if the “science” supports masks or not, or in what percentages. But the common sense does. Therefore, I usually wear one.
So that raises a question no one seems to be asking: If masks, “enhanced cleanings,” business closures, and “social distancing” are effective, shouldn’t we be seeing a precipitous drop in ALL communicable diseases? Shouldn’t other viruses that are not as contagious as COVID-19 be virtually eliminated? Are people still getting the flu as often? Bacterial infections? Common colds? Is this on anyone’s radar?
Some have made the argument that the packaging of disposable masks expressly states that they provide NO protection against COVID-19 or any other virus. This is partly a matter of relative filtering efficiency, but mainly it is simply a matter of liability. When someone inevitable gets, or makes someone else, sick while wearing their product, their lawyers can say “we told you right on the package…” This is the same reason why Lysol(TM) and other sanitizers say they kill “99.99%” of germs. In reality, if used properly, they kill 100% of germs (although, reading the label, it takes up to THIRTY MINUTES to do so), BUT, just in case they are used IMproperly, or some single virus cell magically survives, they can say “we told you some small percentage would survive.” But back to masks; not filtering 100% of virus particles is not the same as filtering ZERO percent of particles. Anything is still better than nothing.
What about hypoxia? Does wearing a mask lead to brain damage (which would be difficult to measure without a baseline reading beforehand)? Considering that doctors wear masks in the operating room for HOURS during surgery, an activity that certainly would not lend itself to a harmless reduction in brain O2 saturation, I tend to discount this argument, though they’re designed for sterile environments, and thus can afford to be less efficient. But certainly, if you already have trouble breathing, trying to breathe through any kind of restrictive filter is going to be more difficult.
Masks are uncomfortable, and if they’re comfortable, they’re probably not doing much of anything. They fog up my glasses. They get nasty very quickly, and if you’re not replacing or washing them regularly, then yeah, you’re not gonna like them much. Have I examined a cross section of peer-reviewed journals on mask efficiencies? No. Do I trust the government to be an unbiased source of benevolent enlightenment? HA! No. But I generally wear them because common sense tells me something is still better than nothing. Because wearing them advances the case for reopening businesses, many of which are suffering badly due to draconian lockdowns. And because I’m not an insensitive clod, or a person who has a legitimate excuse to not wear one. But don’t get all pissy with me if I happen not to have it with me, a friendly reminder will usually do. Being discourteous is uncalled for, especially if you’re wearing yours below your nose.
No comments:
Post a Comment