126
Comments (29)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
jbDonuts 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. Masks reduce the concentration of contaminants passing through it. It reduces risk en-masse. It does not eliminate individual risk. Is the benefit worth the cost? Maybe, maybe not.

2
Bennett76 2 points ago +2 / -0

At what concentration or viral load does someone catch the WuFlu? The CDCs own data shows "no significant" evidence that these masks prevent the transmission of Flu or WuFlu. Tell a virologist to wear a surgical mask while working with these viruses.

1
jbDonuts 1 point ago +1 / -0

No idea. All I know is the OP image, and the general rhetoric on both sides tends toward the idiotic. A mask is not 100% effective. It's also not 0% effective. On a macro-scale in public areas, it seems obvious to me that mask wearing would reduce the amount of virus in that environment. Masks stop large drops of spittle from landing on surfaces, and protect your mouth and nose from the same. Handy if in a crowd. Personally, I don't wear a mask (mostly), but I live in a sane State that avoids the impulse to micromanage it's citizens.

2
Bennett76 2 points ago +2 / -0

I can respect that stance.