To Mask or Not to Mask - which is safer?

[RJG]

Ok, there's a room with 200 virions floating around. A woman is in there, and she is vulnerable. Aman walks in without a mask. He heroically breathes in one coronavirus virion, preventing her from breathing it in.

Again, Sy, this is just about the simple math involved in calculating risk assessment. Nothing more than that!

1. The more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.

2. An unmasked person takes on a significantly greater proportion of the total risk (greater exposure to the inhalation of viral particles) than does a masked person within the same environment.

Mathematically, she is significantly safer when he enters the room. Period. If he breathes in any viral particles, then that is just added icing on the cake.

No, there's 199 virions left. Besides, it makes little difference to the woman whether a virion is sucked into someone else's lungs or mask.

Sy, you are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter how many virions are in, or are left in, the room.

My point is that the probability of the lady getting infected greatly decreases (20X in this case) when the unmasked immune man enters the room. The 20X safety factor does not care how many virions are in the room.

[Sy Borg]

The viral load in the air certainly does matter.

If a room has poison gas in it, does someone else being in the room to breathe in some of it reduce your chance of breathing in the poison by 20 times?

[LuckyR]

The viral load in the air certainly does matter.

If a room has poison gas in it, does someone else being in the room to breathe in some of it reduce your chance of breathing in the poison by 20 times?

According to this "logic" superspreader events are the safest places on earth.

[RJG]

The viral load in the air certainly does matter.

If a room has poison gas in it, does someone else being in the room to breathe in some of it reduce your chance of breathing in the poison by 20 times?

If there is a fixed amount of poison in the air in this room, then the answer is mathematically and logically YES.

There is only so much poison to go around. And the more people sharing this poison, means the less poison per person; and the lower the odds of breathing in a lethal dose of this poison.

Also, imagine if you put on a mask that blocks out most of the poison and the other person in the room is unmasked. Now, the shared risk is no longer equal. Now, the unmasked person is taking on a much greater share of the total risk, thereby making you significantly safer.


**********

According to this "logic" superspreader events are the safest places on earth.

Masked vulnerable teachers in classrooms full of healthy "unmasked" kids is probably one of the safest places on earth.

When we mask healthy kids, we mathematically and logically make it much more dangerous for the vulnerable teachers.

[Sy Borg]

The viral load in the air certainly does matter.

If a room has poison gas in it, does someone else being in the room to breathe in some of it reduce your chance of breathing in the poison by 20 times?

According to this "logic" superspreader events are the safest places on earth.

So it seems.

Perhaps if there was a vaxxed and unvaxxed person trapped in a air-tight barrel together, the vaxxed person would deal with far more of the airborne viruses that usual, but at that point one would think that would be the least of the pair's problems :)

[Belindi]

RJG wrote:

1. The more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.

This would work for vacuum cleaners with working filters , but unmasked people breathe out without filtering. It is usually easier to open windows than condition the air with machines.

2. An unmasked person takes on a significantly greater proportion of the total risk (greater exposure to the inhalation of viral particles) than does a masked person within the same environment.

But he breaths it out again into the air in the room.Ventilation helps to disperse the virus. If your claim is that the immune unmasked individual 'kills' the virus he inhales this process takes time and also his immunity is not permanent.People who go into the presence of vulnerable others have to take daily or almost daily tests.

Mathematically, she is significantly safer when he enters the room. Period. If he breathes in any viral particles, then that is just added icing on the cake.

Yes but as described above it's not all about maths.
It's also about the intricacies of immune responses .

[LuckyR]

The viral load in the air certainly does matter.

If a room has poison gas in it, does someone else being in the room to breathe in some of it reduce your chance of breathing in the poison by 20 times?

According to this "logic" superspreader events are the safest places on earth.

So it seems.

Perhaps if there was a vaxxed and unvaxxed person trapped in a air-tight barrel together, the vaxxed person would deal with far more of the airborne viruses that usual, but at that point one would think that would be the least of the pair's problems

I think it is time to let this sad thread die from inactivity.

[RJG]

1. The more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.

This would work for vacuum cleaners with working filters , but unmasked people breathe out without filtering. It is usually easier to open windows than condition the air with machines.

Belindi, this (your response) is a non sequitur, it has nothing to do with the 'truth' of my statement. My statement above is just a statistical/mathematical 'fact'. It is as true as saying:

• The more people that share the same apple pie, the smaller the portion each can have.

So again, I am just stating a statistical/mathematical, and therefore logical truth.

2. An unmasked person takes on a significantly greater proportion of the total risk (greater exposure to the inhalation of viral particles) than does a masked person within the same environment.

But he breaths it out again into the air in the room.

Again, my statement above is just another statistical/mathematical 'fact' (truth).

Furthermore, if people truly breathed out the viral particles that they breathed in, then there would be no risk at all (i.e. no one could ever be infected), and we would have had no pandemic in the first place.

Mathematically, she is significantly safer when he enters the room. Period. If he breathes in any viral particles, then that is just added icing on the cake.

Yes but as described above it's not all about maths.

Are you trying to say that she is NOT safer??? -- logically (and mathematically) she is SIGNIFICANTLY SAFER with him in the room, ...don't you agree?

If you disagree, then please show your logic (and/or math) that refutes my logic (and math).


*********

I think it is time to let this sad thread die from inactivity.

...spoken like a true "cancel-culture" mobster!

Note: the "cancel-culture" belief is that if you can't argue rationally, then "insult" and "cancel" those whose views differ from your own blind beliefs.

When someone resorts to casting insults and "cancelling" others, it is an obvious indication (to all of us experienced in rational debate/argument) that they have just 'lost' the argument.

Go away LuckyR. We don't need your 'troll-like' comments here. Either argue rationally, or buzz off.

[Belindi]

RJG wrote:

Furthermore, if people truly breathed out the viral particles that they breathed in, then there would be no risk at all (i.e. no one could ever be infected), and we would have had no pandemic in the first place.

But there would! Virus numbers increase in the body of infected individuals. Not immediately but within days or hours an infected person breathes out a lot more virus than they breathed in. There is no "same viral load" on the occasion of actual invasion by virus and in an epidemic, where acquired immunity is insufficiently distributed, there are discrepancies between one carrier and another.The masked carrier is less infectious than the unmasked carrier.

It is true that an individual who is not a source of infection is not a source of infection. It's also true that the more there are individuals who acquire immunity the fewer individuals there are to become carriers.

[Sy Borg]

I think it is time to let this sad thread die from inactivity.

...spoken like a true "cancel-culture" mobster! :)

Polly wanna cracker?

[RJG]

Virus numbers increase in the body of infected individuals. Not immediately but within days or hours an infected person breathes out a lot more virus than they breathed in. There is no "same viral load" on the occasion of actual invasion by virus and in an epidemic, where acquired immunity is insufficiently distributed, there are discrepancies between one carrier and another.The masked carrier is less infectious than the unmasked carrier.

It is true that an individual who is not a source of infection is not a source of infection. It's also true that the more there are individuals who acquire immunity the fewer individuals there are to become carriers.

1. Science tells us that it is highly unlikely for vaccinated people to spread the virus.

2. And logic tells us that it is even more unlikely (improbable) for healthy vaccinated people to spread the virus. - (since shedding and spreading the virus is dependent on replication. And replication is dependent on the health of one’s immune system).

Preventing healthy vaccinated people from saving vulnerable people for fear of spreading the virus is as IRRATIONAL as banning ambulances from responding to emergencies for fear they (ambulances) may get into traffic accidents. -- as this is playing the "exceptions game" (letting the rare exceptions dictate the rule) -- which causes much more HARM than good.


********
If we look at our current covid policy rationally and logically, we will see that it (the policy of masking and social distancing healthy people) is the ACTUAL CAUSE of the massive deaths and perpetuation of this virus.

Also, if you notice, whenever there is a rational debate on this topic, those that support the current policy always end up resorting to insults and cancel-culture tactics. This means that they are unable to rationally defend their irrational (fear-induced) indoctrinated belief.

We are foolish people, letting the short-sighted fear mongering dictate irrational self-destructive behavior. In short, we are too stupid to save ourselves. God help us.

THE END

[Belindi]

Virus numbers increase in the body of infected individuals. Not immediately but within days or hours an infected person breathes out a lot more virus than they breathed in. There is no "same viral load" on the occasion of actual invasion by virus and in an epidemic, where acquired immunity is insufficiently distributed, there are discrepancies between one carrier and another.The masked carrier is less infectious than the unmasked carrier.

It is true that an individual who is not a source of infection is not a source of infection. It's also true that the more there are individuals who acquire immunity the fewer individuals there are to become carriers.

1. Science tells us that it is highly unlikely for vaccinated people to spread the virus.

2. And logic tells us that it is even more unlikely (improbable) for healthy vaccinated people to spread the virus. - (since shedding and spreading the virus is dependent on replication. And replication is dependent on the health of one’s immune system).

Preventing healthy vaccinated people from saving vulnerable people for fear of spreading the virus is as IRRATIONAL as banning ambulances from responding to emergencies for fear they (ambulances) may get into traffic accidents. -- as this is playing the "exceptions game" (letting the rare exceptions dictate the rule) -- which causes much more HARM than good.


********
If we look at our current covid policy rationally and logically, we will see that it (the policy of masking and social distancing healthy people) is the ACTUAL CAUSE of the massive deaths and perpetuation of this virus.

Also, if you notice, whenever there is a rational debate on this topic, those that support the current policy always end up resorting to insults and cancel-culture tactics. This means that they are unable to rationally defend their irrational (fear-induced) indoctrinated belief.

We are foolish people, letting the short-sighted fear mongering dictate irrational self-destructive behavior. In short, we are too stupid to save ourselves. God help us.

THE END

Nobody prevents healthy vaccinated people from helping people with covid. When we helped people who were ill with acute infectious fevers we had to be vaccinated, evidence our immune status, and also try to keep our distance from sources of infection by several methods.

Have you heard the expression 'belt and braces' ?

[RJG]

Preventing healthy vaccinated people from saving vulnerable people for fear of spreading the virus is as IRRATIONAL as banning ambulances from responding to emergencies for fear they (ambulances) may get into traffic accidents. -- as this is playing the "exceptions game" (letting the rare exceptions dictate the rule) -- which causes much more HARM than good.

Nobody prevents healthy vaccinated people from helping people with covid.

If we mask and social distance healthy vaccinated people, then more people die.
If we ban ambulance drivers from responding to emergencies, then more people die.

It's as simple as that.

When we helped people who were ill with acute infectious fevers we had to be vaccinated, evidence our immune status, and also try to keep our distance from sources of infection by several methods.

But "keeping our distance from [potential] sources of infection" by masking (and social distancing) healthy people only causes MORE DEATHS, not less! Again, playing the "exceptions game" (letting the exceptions dictate the rule) causes much more harm than good.

******
Belindi, it seems that you fail to recognize the significant 'life saving' benefits, that unmasking and socializing brings to protecting the vulnerable and to stopping this virus, probably because we all have been propagandized/indoctrinated to believe and hyper-focus on stopping all potential "sources of infection", including those potentially coming from healthy vaccinated people.

In other words, you (and seemingly most people) fail to see the deadly consequences of this hyper-focus of stopping all potential "sources of infection". Masking and social distancing healthy people only results in more people dying.

If we also hyper-focused on stopping all potential "sources of traffic accidents" then we would likewise ban ambulances from getting into traffic (for fear the ambulance itself may get into an accident). Banning ambulances from traffic only results in more people dying.

[AverageBozo]

Wouldn’t it be easy enough if the vulnerable woman got vaccinated and the immune man was not under a mandate?

After all, if the woman is safer in the presence of someone who is immune and unmasked, wouldn’t she be safest if she were vaccinated and in the presence of the maskless immune man?

[Belindi]

RJG wrote:

But "keeping our distance from [potential] sources of infection" by masking (and social distancing) healthy people only causes MORE DEATHS, not less! Again, playing the "exceptions game" (letting the exceptions dictate the rule) causes much more harm than good.

There are enteric infectious diseases e.g. dysentery, cholera, typhoid that even you would agree are less threatening when symptomless people distance themselves from sources of infection such as faeces and dirty drinking water. Covid virus may linger on non-living surfaces although this is not officially regarded as such a health hazard as during earlier days of the pandemic.

Typhoid fever is preventable by active immunity but dysentery not so because of a property special to the dysentery microbe. Covid with respect to active immunity is more like typhoid than dysentery. However both dysentery and typhoid are less infectious when healthy people distance themselves from sources of infection by appropriate means other than inoculation.