Isn't the whole point of the article that school mask mandates probably don't reduce spread? If it doesn't reduce spread than it won't help your overwhelmed friends working in medicine. Sorry I guess I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
His point is that the job satisfaction of adults is important and saving it requires our collective agreement that 1+1=3.
The point of masking in schools was maybe, once, based on the theory that it would keep the children and teachers safe. Now, the point is that we must exert every lever of control at our disposal. It just so happens that the only group of people who we can reliably control are children, as they cannot vote, do not have fully-formed civil rights, and (in the main) are legally required to attend government run schools each day.
So, while they'd love to make everyone else mask, they realize they practically cannot -- so they focus on children. It's grotesque.
The thesis of the article is that even though studies show masks work studies in schools had obvious flaws and are measuring multiple confounding factors ergo masks might not work so we have no justification for mask mandates. This is materially different from knowing they don't work.
I cannot countenance the idea that keeping most of your spit with you rather than floating around the room doesn't reduce spread of a respiratory virus. At best I would suggest instead that schools ought to have had a mandate to use and reuse sterilized n95 masks instead of a loosely fitting cloth mask oft worn with the nose exposed.
Yeah I don't think they are really saying that they absolutely don't work but that the evidence that they do is weak enough to justify removing the mandates. They address N95 mask in the article (did you read it) pointing out that they are more difficult to breath in and hinder communication more (I'll add my own point in that they are harder to keep a seal with which seems to be quite important according to the studies I have seen). Personally I have used N95 mask quite a bit for sanding projects and can to attest to the difficulty of wearing them for long period in a properly fitting way.
> N95 masks are not at all difficult to breathe in in my experience. Not at all.
My default assumption would be that if the mask doesn't make it more difficult to breathe then it is unlikely to be effective. The filtration mechanism should introduce friction which you then have to compensate for with additional pressure in your lungs.
This is a bad assumption that you can disprove for yourself in 10 seconds. You aren't pushing air up a slope you are creating a pressure differential. An impediment ought to at best result in a small decrease in the speed of filling and a tiny amount at that because your mask is very porous. Your mask is effective not in proportion to keeping air out but because larger items like globs of spit get stuck on it and because of electrostatic charge.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that effectiveness at preventing infection is linearly correlated with difficulty breathing or that to a degree that the additional friction induces difficulty must rise to the level of preventing breath in order to be effective. You aren't preventing 50% of particulates from getting in by preventing 50% of oxygen for example.
For example I imagine that you didn't believe that doctors wearing masks pre pandemic or construction workers weren't just going without breathing well for hours given paucity of air becomes an problem very very quickly
Thanks for the extra perspective. Without going into specifics like linearity it still seems like it could be the basis of reasonable public health advice. Forgive the tongue in cheekness but something along the lines of:
"Expect some discomfort - that lets you know the mask is working"
It’s a natural assumption!, and it’s important to address it. Basically the filter material is… almost indistinguishable from magic? It’s a beautifully balanced construction of materials science. From the perspective of gases, the mask is almost transparent. From the perspective of aerosolized particles, the mask is a wall of electrostatic forces and difficult luck rolls. It’s sort of like a wide reef that the tide may pass over but just isn’t traversible by boat; And all boats are steel and the reef is magnetized.
“Duckbill” type masks are great too, like Kimberly-Clark / Kimtech pouch respirators: https://www.kcprofessional.com/en-us/products/scientific-and... … These might be the most comfortable article of clothing I’ve ever worn? Like really seriously. Very easy to breathe through. No drag or inertia at all. The 3M Aura mask has the edge in breathability though – feels impossibly transparent. I believe it’s due to the material itself. The duckbill type gets its breathability through using more material and a bigger airspace. I’d love to try a duckbill made out of the material in the 3M Aura. (Secret tip: If the duckbill is creased just right it looks more like a Stormtrooper than a duck. The free bread is nice though.)
I’m reading the Wikipedia page on HEPA filters now. Trying to get a better feel for how the material works. Seems like part of how the close-fitting masks can be made so easy to breathe through is that the possible speed of air flowing through is limited. Anywhere in the range of airspeed that we can breathe aerosolized particles in or out, the filter material causes slight turbulence in the atmospheric gas, it flows and eddies around the filter material – the air flows around the material – but the aerosol particles have much more inertia and hit the filter. I actually hadn’t understood or appreciated this aspect before now.
This 'they don't 100% work so we shouldn't even bother' bullshit .. is just that. Bullshit.
What is the cost of masked students, it's the cost of the masks. Now granted our schools are, frankly, criminally underfunded. However that PPE could be supplied from outside the school's budget for those students that don't take care of the costs themselves.
The other problem that i've been hearing from my public school teacher friends is that there are so many staff absences due to covid that more and more students are stuffed into the classrooms of those teachers that are there. So if you, as a teacher, have a class that is down 50% of students due to an outbreak but somehow you managed to avoid it. Well your 50% empty class that allows for better distancing will not last, you will be at 100% or grater capacity simply because another teacher is out, there are no available substitutes and you can't leave kids unsupervised.
The cost of masked students is not just the purchase price of the masks. It’s that plus the reduction in learning (academic, linguistic, and social) from wearing the masks (and the masks being fussed over).
That total cost may (or may not) still support the decision to have a mask mandate for kids, but let’s not get confused and think the only cost is measured in dollars.
What is the cost of masked students, it's the cost of the masks.
It's much more than that.
The other problem that i've been hearing from my public school teacher friends is that there are so many staff absences due to covid
Sure, and that's happening in schools with and without mask mandates. Unless you go into full hermit mode, you are going to be exposed to Omicron. And if you're young or vaccinated, that's very unlikely to be a big deal.
ah, so you didn't read the article I guess, because it never says that they don't work 100% just says the evidence that they do isn't great, it also covers what the writer sees at downsides (cost) to masking children. Its fine to have differing views but you should probably focus your arguments on the substance of article. The author laid out several very compelling paragraphs to back up her point along with sources cited, so I'm sorry, but if the only counter argument you can come up with is "its bullshit" you should probably quit the debate club.
I mean that is generally referred to as "safetyism" and while I guess its a fine personal choice it is not something that should be applied in public policy.
Yes, we're not at the top of spending on education as a percentage of GDP. Similarly, we're spending less on food as a % of GDP than Mexico, and much, much less than Somalia. Does it mean that US is not spending enough on food? That we're underfed compared to Mexico or Somalia? No, it just means that using percentage of GDP as a measure of something being over/underfunded is ridiculously wrong.
