532

In an interview for 60 Minutes, CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook posed that question to Linsey Marr, a Virginia Tech University professor specializing in aerosol science.

"They are very helpful in reducing the chances that the person will get COVID because it's reducing the amount of virus that you would inhale from the air around you," Marr said about masks.

No mask is 100% effective. An N95, for example, is named as such because it is at least 95 percent efficient at blocking airborne particles when used properly. But even if a mask has an 80% efficiency, Marr said, it still offers meaningful protection.

"That greatly reduces the chance that I'm going to become infected," Marr said.

Marr said research shows that high-quality masks can block particles that are the same size as those carrying the coronavirus. Masks work, Marr explained, as a filter, not as a sieve. Virus particles must weave around the layers of fibers, and as they do so, they may crash into those fibers and become trapped.

Marr likened it to running through a forest of trees. Walk slowly, and the surrounding is easy to navigate. But being forced through a forest at a high speed increases the likelihood of running into a tree.

"Masks, even cloth masks, do something," she said.

Not that I expect most people to believe it at this point...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

The problem isn't that "most people" won't believe it. The problem is that there is very little conversion of people who didn't already believe it. The ones who most need to understand this will flat out refuse to believe any kind of science on the matter, because being right is what is most important to them. Admitting they were wrong just isn't going to happen.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That is part on Survival of the Fitist. Masks were a key component of that, as more intelligent humans wore masks during the peak of the infection. Within the human population with COVID-19, then, the “fittest” are individuals who mount a normal phase 1 and phase 2 immune response. This means a strong immune response in phase 1 to clear the primary coronavirus infection and inhibit its spread in the lungs. Those who have never had COVID-19 scientificly are the superior humans on a immunity scale. More likely to reproduce and pass those genes onto future generations. The less intelligent humans who refused to wear masks and didn't have strong immune responses died off, allowing more fit humans to reproduce thus saving humanity.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

This argument (if it is not sarcastic, it's hard to tell on the Internet) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and instead uses the language of social darwinism like "superior human".

Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Furthermore, it doesn't have a "goal," it is just a natural process. Also, there are numerous ways different immune responses could be either advantageous or detrimental when combined with other variables.

I'm also not convinced that intelligence correlates to refusal to mask; as a counterpoint, smart people are also very good at justifying whatever position they already hold.

You won't find most modern biologist using the phrase "survival of the fittest," because it's more confusing than illuminating. The preferred expression is "natural selection."

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's always about who is able to reproduce. Intelligence (not smart or dumb, just basic Intelligence) would lead you to take precautions during a pandemic. Washing hands, masks, vaccines. That is a level, fact is that those who didn't take precautions were far more likely to become sick. Then you had to hope your immune system was up to the task.

It actually broke the idiotcracy delimma with a chunk of the human population with poorer genes and lower intelligence were removed from selection.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's always about who is able to reproduce. Intelligence (not smart or dumb, just basic Intelligence) would lead you to take precautions during a pandemic.

I mean, I just gave a counterpoint to this. Smart people are good at justifying and sustaining their current beliefs. Surely you don't think intelligence is a measure of how correct one's beliefs are?

It actually broke the idiotcracy delimma with a chunk of the human population with poorer genes and lower intelligence were removed from selection.

This is just more social darwinist eugenicist pseudoscience.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You're talking smart and dumb. I'm talking basic Intelligence or ability to stay alive on a daily basis.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

By using debunked eugenicist arguments and supporting my point that smart people are good at justifying their false positions to themselves.

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
532 points (100.0% liked)

News

23284 readers
4216 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS