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…

  • Tammo-Korsai@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lockdown has made me realise that people don’t crave freedom, they instead crave a lack of responsibility to a sociopathic level. They are unwilling to consider a greater good nor anything else beyond the immediate effect on themselves.

    • freeindv@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lockdowns were the single biggest attack on freedom we’ve seen in our lifetime. We can never let them happen again

    • spyd3r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lockdowns were economic warfare against the poor and working class, there was no greater good, only disaster.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The lock downs were always going to be a failure. Stay-at-home measures should have been last resort due to harmful effects (the economic harms, the educational harms, the harms to access to healthcare, the harms to societal wellbeing … just the way we all function … and especially mental health).

      We destroyed and entire generation with lockdowns. Gen Z will never recover from that.

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol. Meanwhile, in places with functional, proper lockdowns, you know what happened? No-one died of covid. (Well, 7 out of 2 million).

        And then you know what they did? Because there was no covid anywhere around, there were (almost) no restrictions. And no-one died of covid for all of 2021 (actually zero).

        People could walk around, free of worry, fear and disease. Because the lockdowns worked, and worked well - when they were actually done.

        Now, half-assing things… That was basically the worst of both worlds. And if there is one thing the USA excels at, it’s half-assing things.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wide spread lockdowns were an anti-science position that politicians went with to appear to be acting.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol. “Anti-science”

          The science is super simple.

          Virus is transmitted person to person.

          If person is not near other person, virus doesn’t get transmitted.

          What about that is “anti-science”?

          Or, is your complaint actually “my local government leaders did things badly but because I worship team red, I have to blame evil science”?

          • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The science for responding to something like covid wasn’t complete lockdown. It was isolating those at risk, quarantine the infected, do contact tracing, and limit large crowds of people.

            • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Think Mcfly, think.

              How do you quarantine the infected if you can’t identify the infected until they show symptoms?

              You can’t science good.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was the worst public safety decision I have witnessed in the United States. It made a bad situation worse.

          • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The issue is not with lock downs, the issue is a piss poor government handling of the situation. Leaving everything “open” for business would have quite literally collapsed sectors of services to the point of potentially snow balling into something worse.

            • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Everything should have remained open within countries, international borders should have closed for six months. International ports could operate with certain restrictions to prevent cross contamination.

              • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hospitals were on the verge of collapse WITH lock downs. Can you imagine how bad it would have been if everything remained open? How many people died because of covid WITH lock downs active? Hospitals fail because they are overwhelmed, and it spit balls from there. I believe your suggestion would have been catastrophic at the least.