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

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?