Huzzah!
The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, who should as a priority be provided proper respiratory protection. Cloth masks are a more suitable option for community use when medical masks are unavailable. Protection provided by cloth masks may be improved by selecting appropriate material, increasing the number of mask layers, and using those with a design that provides filtration and fit. Cloth masks should be washed daily and after high-exposure use by using soap and water or other appropriate methods.
Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Results
The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone messes around with cloth masks, or even those useless surgical masks. FFP2s seem to do the job, they fit well, they're comfortable, they're easy to take off and on and they're cheap. (I think you call them N95s in America?)
Do cloth masks do anything at all? There's an in-between option which is disposable surgical masks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510705/#R4
The only published randomized controlled trial compared the use of cloth masks against "medical masks" in healthcare workers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
I'm not anti-mask, I'm wearing one right now (a disposable surgical-type mask). I just think that most cloth masks probably have no practical value as far as preventing infection. They may be fashionable however.
I wore face-fitted FFP3 masks for two and a half years ...
... One afternoon's lack of rigour on holiday, and I caught it...
My point is that if you're going to put on a mask at all, why downgrade from an FFP2 at all? I can't think of one single advantage to anyone of wearing a cloth mask or a surgical mask.
I believe something is better than nothing, when it comes to risk mitigation.
I believe something is better than nothing, when it comes to risk mitigation.
That's true, but it's totally missing the point. Why use something that's giving you less protection when there is literally no downside to the thing that gives you more protection.
That's true, but it's totally missing the point. Why use something that's giving you less protection when there is literally no downside to the thing that gives you more protection.
*clears throat* ...An analogy comes to mind, which argues for your side of the argument, Rolfe. But I'll leave it unsaid, merely hinted at.
Haha, I didn't know you could get bespoke masks! Designer ones, yes; but not tailored ones. Cool.
I myself continue to wear masks. N95s. Have a large supply of them, that should last me over the next three or four months. After that, the way things gradually seem to be winding down, I'm hoping --- knock on wood! --- I won't have to restock again, or wear these damn things again.
At this point, though, while no doubt things are indeed winding down, but it still seems stupid to unnecessarily subject oneself to risk by not masking up. But yeah, I guess we're at the stage now where the YMMV thing might apply, so that should somone elect to go without, I won't necessarily judge.
Oh really? That's too bad. Hope it didn't hit you too hard, and you're OK again?
Of course, that's kind of where we're at now I guess. The risk of actually catching it hasn't gone away, really. (I mean after adjusting for vaccines and all, I mean over the last three or four months.) What has gone down is the risk of getting it bad.
eta: How on earth do they fit you for your tailored masks, though? I'm sure you don't actually go to a mask-tailor and have him or her run their measuring tape over your face! What, then?
Do you remove your seat belt when you exit the vehicle, or do you leave it on?
If we're doing the same analogy as I'd picked on, I guess I leave it on, until after I'm out of the car?
It is you who are missing the point here. This is in context of winding down protective measures as the pandemic ends. If I thought it necessary to continue protective measures then I wouldn't make any changes at all.
No, I'm asking if after you're out of the car do you still have your seat belt on? What's being suggested here is that the protective measure should remain fully employed even after the point of using it has been removed.
If it's not necessary to continue protective measures, then don't do anything. Simple.
The last couple of weeks have been nice, because I reckoned I really wasn't going to get it again so soon, so I temporarily joined the no-mask contingent. Back to the masks this week though. Not getting this again!
No, I'm suggesting that if the point of protection has not gone away
No, I'm asking if after you're out of the car do you still have your seat belt on?
What's being suggested here is that the protective measure should remain fully employed even after the point of using it has been removed.
Oh really? That's too bad. Hope it didn't hit you too hard, and you're OK again?
That is, if one's of the opinion that there's no point to this any more, then I guess one simply goes without, where one can. But to the extent that one thinks there's still some risk, while I agree with you that a lesser protection is better than zero protection, but it isn't very clear to me why one might go for that lesser protection when one might opt for greater protection without making any difference to anything else.
Assuming we're not talking of different things here, the answer has to be a Yes?
[speaking literally now] I think the point of it hasn't quite been removed yet, right? Lessened, sure, but not actually removed?
That is, if one's of the opinion that there's no point to this any more, then I guess one simply goes without, where one can. But to the extent that one thinks there's still some risk, while I agree with you that a lesser protection is better than zero protection, but it isn't very clear to me why one might go for that lesser protection when one might opt for greater protection without making any difference to anything else.
I take your point about generally weaning off of the thing, in very general terms, sure. But ...I don't know, that would kind of apply, in this case, only if you're implying that the actual risk has gone away and the reason one is still wearing these things is primarily psychological.
(As far as I am concerned, that isn't the case. That is, it is possible that my risk perception is wrong, and maybe I'm simply overdoing it now. And I'm happy with doing that, if indeed that's the case, for a while more. But should I come to see, now or after a few months, that the need for wearing masks has gone away, then I don't think I'll have any difficulty, psychologically, getting rid of them cold turkey. In fact I'll be super happy to.)
Has it? The context, I remind you again, is "the pandemic is over".
To return to my initial post:
IFF (if and only if) the pandemic is "over",
AND I have received my newstyle booster (scheduled for Friday),
THEN I will reduce my masking to just the cloth one.
Do you not understand conditionals? If the pandemic is still continuing then I will not downgrade my masking.
I'm talking of cars and seat belts. How can you be outside a car with the seat belt still on? If it's that elastic then it can't be functioning effectively.
THAT'S THE QUESTION OF THE THREAD. Is it over, or not? If it is, then a different course of action is suggested than if it isn't. I've just been saying what I will do if it IS "over".
Because it's splitting the difference. Some people, and clearly I am among them, are cautious enough that even if the pandemic IS over, we'd prefer to gradually wind down risk mitigation measures rather than completely abandon them.
This is obviously, clearly, incandescently not the same thing as abandoning risk mitigation measures while the pandemic ISN'T over. Why two of you are talking as if those are the same situation is baffling to me.
Fine. For you. For me, I'd prefer gradually winding down measures, as stated above. You do your thing, I'll do mine. I'm not lecturing you for your choice of approach.
What I don't understand is your LOGIC.
If you feel safe, why wear any mask at all?
If you perceive that there is still some risk, why "downgrade" to a mask that's no more comfortable or convenient but offers substantially less protection?
My booster is scheduled for 11th October. Logically, since this offers better protection than an infection, and I was willing to go without a mask for a couple of weeks after the infection, I should be willing to go without a mask for a couple of weeks (at least) after the booster. Still thinking about that one.
But if I perceive any risk, I won't be compromising on mask efficiency. It doesn't work like that.
I'm talking of cars and seat belts. How can you be outside a car with the seat belt still on? If it's that elastic then it can't be functioning effectively.
THAT'S THE QUESTION OF THE THREAD. Is it over, or not? If it is, then a different course of action is suggested than if it isn't. I've just been saying what I will do if it IS "over".
Because it's splitting the difference. Some people, and clearly I am among them, are cautious enough that even if the pandemic IS over, we'd prefer to gradually wind down risk mitigation measures rather than completely abandon them.
This is obviously, clearly, incandescently not the same thing as abandoning risk mitigation measures while the pandemic ISN'T over. Why two of you are talking as if those are the same situation is baffling to me.
Fine. For you. For me, I'd prefer gradually winding down measures, as stated above. You do your thing, I'll do mine. I'm not lecturing you for your choice of approach.
The thing is, the virus is either present in the place you are, or it isn't. We're now (perhaps) in a situation where the probability of it being present in the place where you are is less than it was. That's the reduced danger. But if it is there, it's no less likely to infect you through a substandard mask than it was last month.
Peace, man. Absolutely, whatever you're comfortable doing. Wouldn't dream of lecturing you! I was just trying to understand how using cloth masks might make sense here, since it wasn't, and isn't, clear to me. I don't mean that, not for a minute, as an exhortatation for you to stop doing that!
---
As far as the car thing, well, clearly you were going for that literally. The analogy I was going for was --- well I guess I'd best spell it out now --- if one's doing the deed, and thinks protection is called for, well then one uses protection that's fully effective. If some protection is available that is more effective than zero protection, but still much less effective than using the regular protection, well then I don't see why one would go for the less effective protection. If one decides --- rightly or wrongly --- that one doesn't need protection, then one goes without. But if one decides on does need protection, then I simply don't see the logic of using the less effective protection.
I'd imagined that you were, half-jokingly, referring to the same analogy as mine (of doing the deed), except using a further analogy of cars rather than directly alluding to it. Jokingly, of course, because after all there's no kids here, and there's no reason why we shouldn't directly speak of sex and condoms!
But like I was saying, it's just that I wasn't getting where you were coming from, as far as that, and wanted to see what it is I'm missing. Don't mean to lecture you or anything. By all means, whatever works for you!
Still not getting it. What advantage are you gaining in wearing a cloth mask? Why would you choose to wear one rather than one that gives higher protection, when you know the virus might still be there?
If better masks were unobtainable, or prohibitively expensive, or hideously uncomfortable, or you were allergic to their components, yes I could see it. But I can find nothing at all to put in the upside column in the situation as you describe it.
If you want to use that analogy, then herpes. Condoms won't protect against herpes, but it's still wise to use them because they protect against other things. People who already have herpes should still use condoms so they don't get other things as well.
The lesson is that risk mitigation comes in degrees, and something is better than nothing. One shouldn't think the only choices are perfect protection or absolute abandonment.
In the case of this particular pandemic a cloth mask doesn't offer the best protection, but it offers more protection than absolutely nothing.
If the virus isn't present, a cloth mask does no harm. If the virus is present, a cloth mask is superior to no mask at all...
In the scenario of the pandemic being over the supposition is that the virus is not present.
I have no problem with having one step up in protection from zero protection. Never be the last to discard a safety measure is something I consider to be wise.
Not to beat this to death, TragicMonkey, and again, please don't take this as me lecturing you! But sure, take herpes. Why would one use a cloth condom, that maybe offers more protection than no condom at all, when one might just as well wear a regular condom and get the full protection it offers?
And an N95 is superior to the cloth mask, right?
If the virus isn't present, an N95 does no harm. And if the virus is present, even if at diluted risk than before but still present, then an N95 is superior to both no mask as well as a cloth mask. So that, unless there's some actual reason to, why would you go for the cloth mask as opposed to the N95? (Generic "you", I have no issues, at all, with you personally doing that if that is what you're comfortable with!)
Sure, but why just go one step up in protection from zero, and use a cloth mask, when you can go the full staircase up, and wear an N95?
That is, if it's a choice of either wearing no masks and wearing a cloth mask, I'm with you, I'd wear a cloth mask every time. But if it's a choice between wearing a cloth mask and wearing an N95 mask, then it isn't clear to me why one might want to choose the cloth mask.
There was a time, in the summer of 2020, when I was wearing a very flimsy cloth thing - it wasn't even a mask, it was a snood I had round my neck and pulled up over my face when going inside. The reason? There were regulations in place about wearing face coverings in indoor spaces, even though there was actually no virus about at the time. In addition, it was summer, small shops were operating with their main doors open, so that being inside was pretty much equivalent to being out of doors.
So then, no risk, but a legal requirement to wear a mask, I was indeed wearing the minimum.