A short thread on how face masks work, why we wear masks *to protect other people from ourselves* and not the other way around, & why wearing face-shields without a mask, masks with valves, or masks that hang open on the bottom or sides IS ACTUALLY DANGEROUS FOR EVERYONE ELSE...

I am going to start off by citing from a great paper by @trishgreenhalgh about the benefits of mask wearing, which you can read in full here: https://t.co/l0NfuU85cZ
Masks can work in 2 ways: protecting the wearer, & protecting other people from exhalations emitted by the wearer. Surgical grade masks are supposed to do both. They block out small particles emitted by the source, AND they filter those particles out from other emissions
For cloth masks, however, they are not so good at filtering out tiny particles which can contain viruses. But what they are good at doing is limiting the large droplets people give off when they breathe or cough – before they become aerosolised.
This means when you wear a cloth mask, the most important role that it plays is not protecting you from other people's exhalations but *protecting them from yours*. @trishgreenhalgh calls this 'source control' i.e. 'protects other people from droplets emitted by the wearer'
Unfortunately most people seem to think they are wearing a mask to protect *themselves* from everyone else. Which, unless you are wearing a fancy medical mask with a fancy rating, is not only selfish but also incorrect.
What cloth masks are supposed to do is filter the air you breath out, right at the source. This blocks large droplets as they are emitted, before they can become smaller aerosols (which are harder to block & can more easily make their way through another person's cloth mask)
Early on, when people were (mentally) struggling to breath with a mask on, lots of people bought & sold masks with vents. This meant what the wearer breathed in was filtered, but what they breathed out (via the vent) was not. So, no source control.
The same goes for these terrible 'half face shields' now on sale, that cover the nose & lower part of the face with clear plastic but are *open at the bottom*. This actually means both inhalations AND exhalations are not filtered by anything. You might as well not wear anything.
the same applies if you have a mask – even a medical grade one – that does not fit or is not properly tied, and has gaping holes under the chin, above the cheeks, or on the side of the face. If there are gaps where air can get in or out, your mask is pointless and even dangerous.
Masks made using only one layer of fabric – like buffs – are also not great at doing anything except making it look like you are wearing a face cover. Which is why most medical centres etc won't accept them. They are ok-ish for exercising outdoors, and can be worn by kids.
Face shields by the way have similar flaws *as masks* (which they are not, which is why they *must be worn together with a mask* and are not sufficient on their own). Shields are barriers not filters, and may protect the eyes, eg.
Bottom line:
The reason you wear a mask because *you* could be a source of SARS-CoV-2.
If you wear masks that allow your breath to leave unfiltered by layers of cloth, you may as well not even wear one.
Please, for all of our health, wear a proper mask and wear it properly
Also, thank you to @trishgreenhalgh who has been sharing and publishing this knowledge for nearly a year, and for all the other medical professionals who have been doing everything they can to teach us about *why* and *how* masks work to protect other people.

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like