Is virus exposure a threshold mechanism (some form of initial defense exists that gets saturated at some point) or is exposure to more virions simply the equivalent of a higher number of lottery tickets from the virus perspective?
I seem to remember having read wording in one of the many papers that we surely all skimmed in 2020 that looked suspiciously like a statement declaring side in a scientific community that still considered both possible. (something like "We are working with the Independent Probability per Virion Assumption here" or something like that.
For severity of infection, a bunch of "winning" lottery tickets make it difficult for your immune system to catch up. Getting a large exposure is like giving the virus multiple viral generations of a head start without being noticed by the immune system.
I believe the other salient factor is the coefficient of my-immune-system-tends-to-implode per unit of viral load, which may or may not vary a lot between different people. Although at this point maybe it's hard to tell if the different outcomes are more to do with differences in processing the virus or differences in magnitude of viral load at time of acquisition.
The study makes several references to "crowded" areas, and concludes that outdoor air is "safe" apart from these spaces. However, I was unable to find any clarification for what constitutes a "crowded" space (or not). I am not sure what the benefit of this study is supposed to be absent such a definition - am I missing something?
My reading is that the authors were unable to find any air with appreciable COVID levels, but they’ve just added the caveat that maybe they didn’t find a sufficiently crowded area to take a sample.
I would assume "crowded areas" are areas where there are more than 1 person per [pi * <social distance recommendation>^2]
So as a rough example, let's say social distancing recommendation is 6ft (this changes by jurisdiction). Then for a football field to be "crowded" you would need more than 57,600 / (pi * 36) = ~510 people evenly distributed on it. If the social distancing recommendation is 20ft, then you can only have 57,600 / (pi * 400) = 45 people on the football field before it starts getting crowded.
Your assumption is certainly a good one, but this should really be called out explicitly in the article. Perhaps the authors have a different idea about what constitutes a "crowded area."
I've been stopped and scolded by "concerned citizens" before (even recently) for going on runs/hikes without wearing a mask... I tried to explain how outdoors masks are only really necessary where social distancing isn't possible and crowd density is high but they seemed to think I was just an anti-masker. At least now I can point to an actual study, for whatever good it will do...
These people most likely did not arrive to their conclusions by reading studies themselves, and likely aren't going to be persuaded differently by one.
Most people gain their understandings of best public health practices from the statements of authorities they trust. Unfortunately, a lot of nuance is lost when people get their information second, third, or fourth-hand.
Judging by the replies a lot of people agree with those concerned citizens. I hope that the majority are terrified by this. It is one thing to recommend masks for legit health concerns, but it's a very slippery slope that we've already gone far down towards them becoming a religious/ political talisman that signified whether you are willing to shut up and agree with your leaders, or be an "anti-masker". We need to be more outspoken about all these baby steps toward complete submission to superstition.
The trouble is that there are actual "anti-masker" that don't wear masks in crowded areas and are actually responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.
Wow, so that’s where we are now: following sensible public health advice by wearing a little piece of cloth on your face = baby steps toward complete submission to superstition.
If anything, I hope this pandemic helps to normalize mask wearing. People’s mouths and noses are disgusting, and a common source of non-lethal aerosolized diseases. Prior to COVID people used to sneeze and cough all over everything in public without even thinking about it, and I used to get colds all the time. Haven’t even got the sniffles since masks became mandated. Sure, sample size of one, and all. I’ll probably continue to wear a mask in public after this all goes away. When I see an unmasked face now, I mentally think “disease carrier” and avoid. We really could use this small norm-change society-wide.
> masks are only really necessary where social distancing isn't possible
All well and good as long as everyone buys into social distancing. Unfortunately plenty of people believe in neither masks nor social distancing, so you can't trust that people (strangers in the same vicinity) will stay 6ft apart.
There is no magic "6ft apart". It's just the maximum that seemed reasonable to demand. It's about the width of a supermarket aisle or a typical business hallway. Metric countries surely don't use that distance. Nothing is said about length of exposure or ventilation quality either.
I saw a video where a person, walking alone on an apparently empty sidewalk, is not scolded but harassed for not wearing a mask (there is a mask, just not worn). The harasser was the one proudly filming their heroic act.
(Addendum: there’s the obvious question, why not just wear a mask 100% of the time? There are no downsides, right? — There can be. Perhaps my mask had been in use for a while, I suspect it’s gotten dirty enough to be a potential health hazard, but I don’t have another mask to replace it? I’d still use it if people are around, but would try to reduce my exposure to it otherwise. Maybe I have asthma or some type of breathing difficulty, and wearing a mask makes it worse? I think those two are probably among the most common reasons.)
>FACT: People should NOT wear masks while exercising
>People should NOT wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably.
>Sweat can make the mask become wet more quickly which makes it difficult to breathe and promotes the growth of microorganisms. The important preventive measure during exercise is to maintain physical distance of at least one meter from others.
How about the downside of normalizing wearing a mask? These are not normal times and this is not the new normal; I want everyone to wear a mask because it must be done not because we should permanently condition ourselves that this is how we now live.
Typically, the best practice is to wait for results from multiple studies, and have them confirm the same conclusion. Otherwise, there is a risk it being a fluke or having some other bias in the data (e.g. environmental humidity, etc.)
Personally these days, for outdoors, I use the following algorithm:
1. Over 6 feet away from people: Wear a mask below the nose (so I can have it ready for state #2 below, when needed).
2. Under 6 feet away from someone (even if just passing them by): Wear a mask properly (i.e. over the mouth AND nose).
What is the point of wearing the mask below the nose? I find that the only reason to not wear a mask is discomfort from heat and sweat. Wearing a mask, but wrong, doesn't help that.
As for my personal set of rules: if I can distance 12 feet I don't wear one. If I am frequently passing people (on sidewalks or trails) I keep it on. If it is fairly empty and I pass someone every once in a while, I keep the mask in my hand and breath through it when I pass someone.
It doesn't matter what your understanding of the science is. By passing other people without having a mask you pull up, you're imposing your estimates of safety on others, who may wish to avoid having to pass people who aren't wearing masks, even outdoors.
That's extremely obnoxious behavior, even though you're likely right on the low risks of transmission in sparse outdoor settings.
I agree up to a point. Though I'd observe that outdoor dining with tables separated by 6 feet with people sitting for an extended period of time without masks is happening widely in many places. So the idea that outdoor dining is safe but walking past other people on a trail is not is pretty inconsistent.
I support wearing masks, but have seen the science on outdoor transmission and don't wear one on the very empty trails I hike on. However, I saw a big flaw in your logic:
So it's "extremely obnoxious" when the OP "imposes their estimates of safety on others", and the correct response is for the OP to allow the misinformed estimates of safety of the others to require a mask be pulled up.
Why stop there? Some people think that a neck gaiter or cloth mask isn't enough. Why not wear an N95 outdoors since some people "wish to avoid having to pass people who aren't wearing [N95] masks, even outdoors".
Who gets to draw the line between obeying the science vs obeying the theatrical needs of the anxious ignoramuses? Surface transmission isn't a factor with this virus, and yet I know a few folks who still insist on disinfecting every box they come in contact with. They are welcome to do that, but it's certainly not following the science. Am I to cater to these people to?
"By passing other people without having a mask you pull up, you're imposing your estimates of safety on others, who may wish to avoid having to pass people who aren't wearing masks, even outdoors. That's extremely obnoxious behavior, even though you're likely right on the low risks of transmission in sparse outdoor settings."
Wait wait wait...why should everyone be required to cater to the most paranoid people in the world, or be considered "obnoxious"? Where does this end? If I walk down the street, and someone twenty feet away from me scowls at me because I'm not wearing a mask, that's objectively their problem, not mine.
If you're so scared that you can't stand the idea of someone else being outside without obeying your rules, then perhaps you should reconsider being outside in the first place.
In my city many small streets have been closed to traffic. Haven't seen anyone complain about runners/bikers not using masks in the street. But we have more than a few runners on those same blocks not masking on the sidewalk.
None at all. I’ve taken to getting my daily exercise in the early morning and late evening just to avoid talking to/arguing with my neighbors/the busybody brigade. The fact that I walk well out into the street when there aren’t any cars keeping roughly 15 to 30 feet from just about anyone and line of sight on everyone around me does not change this.
> just to avoid talking to/arguing with my neighbors/the busybody brigade
You're right that avoidance is the best bet here, for the time being.
These are people that have been manipulated and fixed with beliefs inserted into their reptile brain.
This is not the neocortex speaking - arguing on the basis of reason (pointing to a study) will not convince them that a mask is unnecessary away from people, in a field or outdoors.
They must be engaged in the same way they were manipulated - by appealing to emotion. It's a tough nut to crack.
I wore one on my last hike -- and in fact, the hiking trail was the most crowded place I've been in months. Parks all over the US have seen record-breaking attendance figures this year.
In the SF Bay Area, where the hiking is amazing, the majority of people I see are wearing masks. We also have some of the lowest incidence of Covid in the US for the density and population.
Personally, I figure if I can smell someone smoking as I pass them on the street, even with a KN95 mask on, it's probably a good idea to wear a mask all the time.
In Massachusetts, it's very common although not universal. (And many, like myself, tend to pull up a gaiter when I get near, especially mask-wearing, other people.)
I cycle (hard!), I wear a mask. People I pass wear a mask. Jeez, people -wear a mask.
It can't be that difficult...to breathe heavily, or contain such, far from others?
The problem is when you pass other people on the trail and it's not possible to maintain a proper physical distance in passing.
Also, people seem to think the virus magically stops at an invisible 6 foot distance whereas in reality you need much more if you're breathing and running where you leave a much bigger trail of aerosolized particles as you run, and there's also wind carrying your breath much further than in a still situation.
I do take mask off for hikes when nobody is in sight but I always put it on when I see people are about to pass. What's annoying is people who don't put their mask on to pass you and don't stop and wait for both sides to have mask on before passing. I've been forced multiple times to abruptly stop and backtrack my steps to maintain distance while fiddling my mask on because the other person kept pressing forward impatiently.
>Also, people seem to think the virus magically stops at an invisible 6 foot distance whereas in reality you need much more if you're breathing and running where you leave a much bigger trail of aerosolized particles as you run, and there's also wind carrying your breath much further than in a still situation.
But people also think (without evidence) that momentary contact closer than 6 feet is enough to spread COVID. It's almost certainly not.
You are very very very very unlikely to get COVID passing by a person for 2 seconds without wearing a mask. The infected person would have to sneeze directly into your mouth or something.
No offense, but it's not really feasible on a trail with any level of traffic to wait for each passerby to put their mask on.
Just wear it as a chin-strap and it takes 2s to pull up and adjust. Accept that sometimes, your mask will be your only defense, and then hiking is almost as easy as ever before.
I tend to consider not wearing a mask like smoking near some non smoker (I'm a smoker BTW).
The risk of them getting a serious disease caused by the smoke of my cigarette is non existent, if I am far enough the smell also is not strong enough to be of real disturbance, but I see their faces and I don't blame them, since I am the one doing something that is notoriously annoying and it costs me nothing, I don't smoke if there are non smokers around and I can't avoid them or am the only one smoking.
On the other hand I can't stand loud people and when I meet one, I ask them to lower their voices.
Wearing a mask it's the same thing: it costs nothing and wearing one prevents misunderstandings, while also adding a [nobody knows exactly how effective] additional layer of protection that does not hurt.
The other day I was driving down one of the major streets in Poughkeepsie, NY. There was an old woman sitting by herself on her front stoop, wearing a mask. The sidewalk was maybe 12 or 15 feet away, and there was no one out walking.
Best of luck pointing to the actual study. Are you going to print it out and carry it with you?
Please understand, I'm not criticizing you -- except to maybe point out that you place an awful lot of unfounded faith in your fellow human beings.
I do as that woman does for one reason: to socialize the normalcy of mask-wearing. It is as much a political statement as anything else, too. Wearing masks should be the norm, not the exception, and wearing one any time I'm in public reinforces that.
Pulling the mask up and down is unsafe for several reasons. First of all, you touch your face. Chinese scientists insist on fomite transmission being real. Second, more importantly, you need your mask tightly fit, to protect others. If you keep fiddling with it, moving up and down, it wont be tight after second or third time you do this. And from the social point of view it is just a bad signal. Period.
While I believe this study will be proven over time, it is just one study. Since it's getting colder I am keep most of my exercising inside, but when over the summer I masked up when doing outdoor activities just to be safe for myself, and to make others feel better.
It's definitely not the first study, I've seen at least 2 or 3 other since March (no links though, sorry). Also the only study that suggested the opposite was a simulation that I think wasn't even peer-reviewed.
I'm very pro-mask as a reasonable measure for controlling transmission however masks have been politicized and turned into a symbol of in/out group dynamics on both the left and the right. Masks are now triggers to the extremists on both sides and it's impossible to act reasonably and please either group as I'm either seen as a fascist anti-masker or a recruit in the red army. It seems the loud minority on both sides can only think in a Hitler/Stalin dichotomy with zero nuance. I choose to ignore the unreasonable and do what I think is good and reasonable and above all charitable, despite the discomfort.
Good for you. Fortunately where I live mask wearing is not a political statement and therefore people use common sense and their brain to evaluate when and where to wear a mask and everything is very relaxed and fluid. When mask wearing becomes a political symbol then all logic is out of the window and you get crazy mental ideologists on both sides destroying it for everyone. We should make a list of all those people on both sides and maybe one day that list might become useful lol.
It's mind-boggling to me that people act so irrationally. Maybe one won't get very ill if they are infected with Covid-19. But it's also possible that they'll inadvertently pass it on to others who may become gravely ill (or worse.)
What does it cost you to wear a mask? It's uncomfortable and annoying - I agree! If we make mask-wearing complicated (over nose, under nose, under the chin!) people will just do the most comfortable thing and it'll wind up being completely ineffective.
The coronavirus doesn't care if you are republican or democrat.
Simple rule: wear a mask when there's other people around - your life may not depend on it, but your or someone else's grandmother's might. If a vaccine is truly around the corner, we can actually cause some people not to die by wearing masks. There's just no good reason to be this selfish, prolonging this nightmare in the process.
If you don't have Covid then the only way to get Covid is to be exposed to someone who is contagious. I know that's stating the obvious. The point is, if you're outside and with no one but yourself, and not close to anyone else, there's no risk. A passing squirrel or a bird is not going to infect anyone.
People walking solo in open spaces with masks on - which I see a couple times per week on my morning run - perpetuates a scientifically false narrative. I'm not going to object. If that makes them comfortable. But it's also a false sense of comfort. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Mask is mandatory outdoors all the time in the big cities in France. Sometimes I think it’s just the government taking revenge for when we mocked them for not being able to procure masks — having destroyed their stock of 1 billion masks a year before the pandemic. “You want mask? Ok, wear them now. Who feels stupid now?”
That's a big "if". When's the last time you were tested?
Because that's the actual reason to wear a mask. Preventing yourself from getting infected is less relevant than preventing yourself from infecting others.
> A passing squirrel or a bird is not going to infect anyone.
I don't know about those two animals specifically, but it is very much possible for COVID to spread via animals (that is, indeed, in all likelihood how the COVID pandemic started in the first place).
> People walking solo in open spaces with masks on - which I see a couple times per week on my morning run - perpetuates a scientifically false narrative.
No, it perpetuates a narrative of "it's better to be safe than sorry", which is about as scientific of a narrative as it gets when it comes to infectious diseases. I wear my mask when out walking or hiking specifically because I don't trust others to keep their distance, and because I care more about the possibility that I might inadvertently spread COVID to someone who'd die from it than I do about messing up my beard with a mask.
I think it's patronizing to assume that someone is doing something out of a "false sense of comfort" instead of simply that it's easier for them to wear a mask 100% of the time than to take it on/off whenever they come near someone.
The open spaces by me are very narrow. When overtaking someone or passing by someone going the opposite direction, you can't avoid being close to them. Sure, it's brief, but you should probably have a mask on for that. For some people mask on/mask off is a lot more hassle than just leaving it on.
Reading your comment, it's unclear how far you're keeping from others. The only information is that other people don't feel safe given your distance and lack of mask.
It's analogous to you feeling like you're a safe driver but having passengers asking you to slow down. If you're not judging the danger to others commensurately to them, it seems like the onus should be on you to adjust your behavior.
Also, as others pointed out, this study's idea of "crowded spaces" might not align with your idea of it. If someone with COVID-19 passed me on an average-sized trail path or sidewalk breathing heavily while running, I wouldn't feel safe and I doubt many other reasonable people would either. It's not an issue of outside air vs. inside air as it is whether you end up breathing the same air as others, and you might not be a great judge of when that is or how it applies to this study.
Also, if you're interested in backing up your actions with studies, you should note that "social distancing" meaning 6ft distance which I'm assuming you're referring to has been debunked by MIT and Oxford studies.
Figuring out exactly what's safe and not is not clear cut, which is why simple rules like "wear a mask outside" is so important, because we clearly can't all be trusted to make good judgment calls.
I don't understand how the conclusion in the title can be drawn based on the data presented in the paper.
Basically, the researchers sampled 2 outdoor locations, and found low viral loads. Why is it reasonable to conclude that all outdoor non-crowded areas are safe?
I assume that not all outdoor environments are created equal. Variables like weather, wind, humidity, and population density probably all play a large factor in transmissibility. Certainly, more than 2 samples are required before making such a generalized conclusion?
That's the last statement of the conclusion sections of the paper:
> Considering a typical inhalation rate of about 1 m3/h, as average between rest and light exercise (Adams, 1993), the concentrations would be low to spread the contagion via airborne transmission even assuming the mentioned increase of a factor 2.
Yes, but the viral load measurements they're using were taken at only 2 different locations. I don't see why you would, then, feel confident in making a generalized statement about all locations.
The paper was about aerosolized virus. The title here misleadingly implies any kind of outdoor transmission (including droplet not just aerosol transmission) is unlikely.
The Federal Government is completely failing here. States can't run deficits, usually by force of law. They'd rather confirm judges than pass legislation to help, all of this damage is completely self-inflicted.
That's not a Federal issue. States might not be able to run deficits in quite the same way that the Federal government can but if States need additional revenue to support favored businesses then they can certainly raise taxes.
Some state governments such as Florida allow restaurants to remain open. We can debate whether that is a good policy from a pandemic control standpoint, but why should Floridians pay Federal taxes to support restaurants that were forcibly shut down by a California county?
It's still a valid concern. The government has mandated these businesses shut their doors it should also mandate that they get the assistance needed (which I'm hoping will come next year).
Small businesses can't afford a lot of the overhead of shuttering their doors and still paying mortgages etc. The employees there can't afford it either. I'm not saying it's a bad/good call by leaders. I'm just saying if you are mandated to shut your business, you should be able to "turn off" the economic issues associated with that. Mortgage gets extended, taxes get deferred, etc.
This is definitely a weakness of pure capitalism in a regulation environment like today. We cant shut down a businesses income and expect their expenses to remain the same.
I’ve paid very little attention but haven’t we known this for at least 4 months? Both the effectiveness of “indoor only” measures and the lack of spikes after BLM protests told us this.
We also know it’s airborne, worse if you’re old, obese or diabetic (which effects the immune system so no surprise there).
There seems to be a huge amount of effort and attention being put into covid research to reprove things we already knew. Is science always like this?
Readit News
I seem to remember having read wording in one of the many papers that we surely all skimmed in 2020 that looked suspiciously like a statement declaring side in a scientific community that still considered both possible. (something like "We are working with the Independent Probability per Virion Assumption here" or something like that.
For getting infected, it's like lottery tickets.
For severity of infection, a bunch of "winning" lottery tickets make it difficult for your immune system to catch up. Getting a large exposure is like giving the virus multiple viral generations of a head start without being noticed by the immune system.
So as a rough example, let's say social distancing recommendation is 6ft (this changes by jurisdiction). Then for a football field to be "crowded" you would need more than 57,600 / (pi * 36) = ~510 people evenly distributed on it. If the social distancing recommendation is 20ft, then you can only have 57,600 / (pi * 400) = 45 people on the football field before it starts getting crowded.
Most people gain their understandings of best public health practices from the statements of authorities they trust. Unfortunately, a lot of nuance is lost when people get their information second, third, or fourth-hand.
If anything, I hope this pandemic helps to normalize mask wearing. People’s mouths and noses are disgusting, and a common source of non-lethal aerosolized diseases. Prior to COVID people used to sneeze and cough all over everything in public without even thinking about it, and I used to get colds all the time. Haven’t even got the sniffles since masks became mandated. Sure, sample size of one, and all. I’ll probably continue to wear a mask in public after this all goes away. When I see an unmasked face now, I mentally think “disease carrier” and avoid. We really could use this small norm-change society-wide.
All well and good as long as everyone buys into social distancing. Unfortunately plenty of people believe in neither masks nor social distancing, so you can't trust that people (strangers in the same vicinity) will stay 6ft apart.
(Addendum: there’s the obvious question, why not just wear a mask 100% of the time? There are no downsides, right? — There can be. Perhaps my mask had been in use for a while, I suspect it’s gotten dirty enough to be a potential health hazard, but I don’t have another mask to replace it? I’d still use it if people are around, but would try to reduce my exposure to it otherwise. Maybe I have asthma or some type of breathing difficulty, and wearing a mask makes it worse? I think those two are probably among the most common reasons.)
>FACT: People should NOT wear masks while exercising
>People should NOT wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably.
>Sweat can make the mask become wet more quickly which makes it difficult to breathe and promotes the growth of microorganisms. The important preventive measure during exercise is to maintain physical distance of at least one meter from others.
This behavior seems to be part of Call Out Culture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e9VYf9FKHo
How close did these people get to you when trying to express their concern?
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a32097735/coronavirus-viral-s...
Personally these days, for outdoors, I use the following algorithm:
1. Over 6 feet away from people: Wear a mask below the nose (so I can have it ready for state #2 below, when needed).
2. Under 6 feet away from someone (even if just passing them by): Wear a mask properly (i.e. over the mouth AND nose).
Edit: Formatting.
As for my personal set of rules: if I can distance 12 feet I don't wear one. If I am frequently passing people (on sidewalks or trails) I keep it on. If it is fairly empty and I pass someone every once in a while, I keep the mask in my hand and breath through it when I pass someone.
That's extremely obnoxious behavior, even though you're likely right on the low risks of transmission in sparse outdoor settings.
This is precisely the insufferable safety-ism that characterizes the 21st century.
If you feel particularly at risk in the case of infection, and you'd wish to avoid infection - stay inside and isolate.
Isn't completely fair to say that the frail among us are imposing on everyone else outdoors keeping healthy and not depressed by exercising, etc?
If you "may wish to avoid having to pass people who aren't wearing masks": stay home!
Is that obnoxious?
So it's "extremely obnoxious" when the OP "imposes their estimates of safety on others", and the correct response is for the OP to allow the misinformed estimates of safety of the others to require a mask be pulled up.
Why stop there? Some people think that a neck gaiter or cloth mask isn't enough. Why not wear an N95 outdoors since some people "wish to avoid having to pass people who aren't wearing [N95] masks, even outdoors".
Who gets to draw the line between obeying the science vs obeying the theatrical needs of the anxious ignoramuses? Surface transmission isn't a factor with this virus, and yet I know a few folks who still insist on disinfecting every box they come in contact with. They are welcome to do that, but it's certainly not following the science. Am I to cater to these people to?
Wait wait wait...why should everyone be required to cater to the most paranoid people in the world, or be considered "obnoxious"? Where does this end? If I walk down the street, and someone twenty feet away from me scowls at me because I'm not wearing a mask, that's objectively their problem, not mine.
If you're so scared that you can't stand the idea of someone else being outside without obeying your rules, then perhaps you should reconsider being outside in the first place.
Deleted Comment
None at all. I’ve taken to getting my daily exercise in the early morning and late evening just to avoid talking to/arguing with my neighbors/the busybody brigade. The fact that I walk well out into the street when there aren’t any cars keeping roughly 15 to 30 feet from just about anyone and line of sight on everyone around me does not change this.
You're right that avoidance is the best bet here, for the time being.
These are people that have been manipulated and fixed with beliefs inserted into their reptile brain.
This is not the neocortex speaking - arguing on the basis of reason (pointing to a study) will not convince them that a mask is unnecessary away from people, in a field or outdoors.
They must be engaged in the same way they were manipulated - by appealing to emotion. It's a tough nut to crack.
Personally, I figure if I can smell someone smoking as I pass them on the street, even with a KN95 mask on, it's probably a good idea to wear a mask all the time.
I'm all for wearing masks and I do it.
But not when road biking where I very rarely (1 in 20 rides) come within 20 feet of a human being, other than people driving by me at 55 mph.
I also don't wear a mask when running, for the same reason.
Maybe if you're running / biking on the sidewalks of NYC, then sure, wear a mask! But on an empty country road outside of major cities?
Dead Comment
Also, people seem to think the virus magically stops at an invisible 6 foot distance whereas in reality you need much more if you're breathing and running where you leave a much bigger trail of aerosolized particles as you run, and there's also wind carrying your breath much further than in a still situation.
I do take mask off for hikes when nobody is in sight but I always put it on when I see people are about to pass. What's annoying is people who don't put their mask on to pass you and don't stop and wait for both sides to have mask on before passing. I've been forced multiple times to abruptly stop and backtrack my steps to maintain distance while fiddling my mask on because the other person kept pressing forward impatiently.
But people also think (without evidence) that momentary contact closer than 6 feet is enough to spread COVID. It's almost certainly not.
You are very very very very unlikely to get COVID passing by a person for 2 seconds without wearing a mask. The infected person would have to sneeze directly into your mouth or something.
Just wear it as a chin-strap and it takes 2s to pull up and adjust. Accept that sometimes, your mask will be your only defense, and then hiking is almost as easy as ever before.
The risk of them getting a serious disease caused by the smoke of my cigarette is non existent, if I am far enough the smell also is not strong enough to be of real disturbance, but I see their faces and I don't blame them, since I am the one doing something that is notoriously annoying and it costs me nothing, I don't smoke if there are non smokers around and I can't avoid them or am the only one smoking.
On the other hand I can't stand loud people and when I meet one, I ask them to lower their voices.
Wearing a mask it's the same thing: it costs nothing and wearing one prevents misunderstandings, while also adding a [nobody knows exactly how effective] additional layer of protection that does not hurt.
Best of luck pointing to the actual study. Are you going to print it out and carry it with you?
Please understand, I'm not criticizing you -- except to maybe point out that you place an awful lot of unfounded faith in your fellow human beings.
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
Here is an article from July about mask usage in Europe.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/08/face-off...
... which is why I simply wear a mask while hiking. :)
What does it cost you to wear a mask? It's uncomfortable and annoying - I agree! If we make mask-wearing complicated (over nose, under nose, under the chin!) people will just do the most comfortable thing and it'll wind up being completely ineffective.
The coronavirus doesn't care if you are republican or democrat.
Simple rule: wear a mask when there's other people around - your life may not depend on it, but your or someone else's grandmother's might. If a vaccine is truly around the corner, we can actually cause some people not to die by wearing masks. There's just no good reason to be this selfish, prolonging this nightmare in the process.
People walking solo in open spaces with masks on - which I see a couple times per week on my morning run - perpetuates a scientifically false narrative. I'm not going to object. If that makes them comfortable. But it's also a false sense of comfort. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
That's a big "if". When's the last time you were tested?
Because that's the actual reason to wear a mask. Preventing yourself from getting infected is less relevant than preventing yourself from infecting others.
> A passing squirrel or a bird is not going to infect anyone.
I don't know about those two animals specifically, but it is very much possible for COVID to spread via animals (that is, indeed, in all likelihood how the COVID pandemic started in the first place).
> People walking solo in open spaces with masks on - which I see a couple times per week on my morning run - perpetuates a scientifically false narrative.
No, it perpetuates a narrative of "it's better to be safe than sorry", which is about as scientific of a narrative as it gets when it comes to infectious diseases. I wear my mask when out walking or hiking specifically because I don't trust others to keep their distance, and because I care more about the possibility that I might inadvertently spread COVID to someone who'd die from it than I do about messing up my beard with a mask.
It's analogous to you feeling like you're a safe driver but having passengers asking you to slow down. If you're not judging the danger to others commensurately to them, it seems like the onus should be on you to adjust your behavior.
Also, as others pointed out, this study's idea of "crowded spaces" might not align with your idea of it. If someone with COVID-19 passed me on an average-sized trail path or sidewalk breathing heavily while running, I wouldn't feel safe and I doubt many other reasonable people would either. It's not an issue of outside air vs. inside air as it is whether you end up breathing the same air as others, and you might not be a great judge of when that is or how it applies to this study.
Also, if you're interested in backing up your actions with studies, you should note that "social distancing" meaning 6ft distance which I'm assuming you're referring to has been debunked by MIT and Oxford studies.
Figuring out exactly what's safe and not is not clear cut, which is why simple rules like "wear a mask outside" is so important, because we clearly can't all be trusted to make good judgment calls.
Basically, the researchers sampled 2 outdoor locations, and found low viral loads. Why is it reasonable to conclude that all outdoor non-crowded areas are safe?
I assume that not all outdoor environments are created equal. Variables like weather, wind, humidity, and population density probably all play a large factor in transmissibility. Certainly, more than 2 samples are required before making such a generalized conclusion?
> Considering a typical inhalation rate of about 1 m3/h, as average between rest and light exercise (Adams, 1993), the concentrations would be low to spread the contagion via airborne transmission even assuming the mentioned increase of a factor 2.
(1) HEPA filters have good filtration efficiency even at particle sizes smaller than MPPS https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/high-effici... and an adequately powered one can recirculate room air in 10-15 minuters
https://la.eater.com/platform/amp/2020/11/22/21590433/corona...
Deleted Comment
Some state governments such as Florida allow restaurants to remain open. We can debate whether that is a good policy from a pandemic control standpoint, but why should Floridians pay Federal taxes to support restaurants that were forcibly shut down by a California county?
Small businesses can't afford a lot of the overhead of shuttering their doors and still paying mortgages etc. The employees there can't afford it either. I'm not saying it's a bad/good call by leaders. I'm just saying if you are mandated to shut your business, you should be able to "turn off" the economic issues associated with that. Mortgage gets extended, taxes get deferred, etc.
This is definitely a weakness of pure capitalism in a regulation environment like today. We cant shut down a businesses income and expect their expenses to remain the same.
We also know it’s airborne, worse if you’re old, obese or diabetic (which effects the immune system so no surprise there).
There seems to be a huge amount of effort and attention being put into covid research to reprove things we already knew. Is science always like this?