lake_wrangler wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:35 pm
But really, it's a logical question, no? If they tell us to wear masks if we can't be two meters apart, then if follows that if we have our masks on, we are not obligated to be two meters apart, since that's why we are wearing the masks to begin with (to protect us and the others) But if you tell us that in spite of having masks on, we still need to remain two meters apart, then why are we even wearing the masks? Either they protect us (or the others), and it's safe to be less than two meters apart, or they don't do bugall, and there's no reason to wear them!
And there, sir, you have committed one of the classic logical fallacies... "the fallacy of the excluded middle." Basically, you're claiming that it must be one thing (e.g. perfect) or its exact opposite (e.g. useless), with nothing else in the middle being possible. This is the sort of thing they warn about in debate and philosophy and logic classes.
It's an easy and common mistake, and lots of people make it (and lots of politicians use this fallacy deliberately, as a rhetorical technique) but it's still a mistake.
"It's all this, or all the opposite of this" is usually not the case - not in most situations, and certainly not for masks, and not for the COVID virus. The world doesn't consist of strict either/or situations.
The actual situation (as I understand it from reading and research) is more complex than that:
- Masks of the sort you're referring to are not perfect. They are not 100% effective at protecting the wearer from virus particles exhaled by other people. Nor are they 100% effective at preventing an infected person from exhaling infectious particles.
- They are, however, partially effective at both of these jobs. Worn properly, they're actually quite good at blocking exhaled droplets carrying infectious viruses - these droplets are relatively large (as such things go) and the masks trap 'em pretty well. That's the most important reason (for society as a whole) to wear masks - to protect other people.
- They seem to be at least somewhat effective in protecting the wearer against other peoples' exhalations - they'll trap some droplets (from recent exhalations) and may block some smaller aerosol particles as well (aerosols drifting around in the air, mostly indoors).
- So, they're not useless - not at all. Inperfect, yes (like all tools in this world) but definitely better than nothing.
- The "stay six feet away" rule of thumb is just that - it's a rule of thumb. Virus droplets don't flow straight out for six feet and then suddenly (like Wile E Coyote stepping off of a cliff) plunge to the ground and die. The closer you are to someone who is infected, the more droplets you'll be exposed to; the further away you stay, the less. This is another situation in which the "excluded middle" argument doesn't work.
So, wearing a mask has a benefit for you (partial protection from other peoples' infections) and a benefit for everybody else (partial, but greater infection from yours, if you're sick and don't realize it yet). Both of these protections
add to the protections you get by keeping a safe distance, having a flow of fresh air, and so forth.
It's all a matter of probabilities, and those probabilities are almost never either 0% or 100%.
It's just like wearing a seat belt. Doing so doeesn't guarantee that you'll survive a crash, but it raises the odds quite a lot... and wearing a seat belt doesn't mean that it's safe to drive straight into a brick wall at 90 MPH. It's all a matter of probabilities.
By wearing a mask, you're improving the odds on the bet you make when you walk out the door in the morning... the bet that you'll survive. Keeping-your-distance improves the odds. Washing your hands regularly improves the odds. The improvements add up,
There's another reason (related to the above) to wear a mask to protect yourself. Getting sick with COVID-19 isn't a 0%-or-100% thing, either... the degree of sickness varies quite a lot, as we know. And, there's apparently significant evidence to suggest that how sick you get
depends partially on how much virus you're exposed to at the time you're initially infected. The more virus particles you inhale, the sicker you're likely to become and the higher your risk of dying. A large initial virus dose lets the virus attack multiple sites in the lungs simultaneously, getting ahead of your immune system's reaction. If you only inhale a minimal dose, your immune system may have a better chance to react and start creating effective antibodies, before the infection becomes too severe.
Wearing a mask could make the difference between a "puts you in intensive care for a month" case, and a "sick at home with a fever for a week" case. I'd rather have the latter, thank you very much, if I had to have one or the other.
It's not an absolute thing, and it's only one factor - but it appears that it
is a factor. This may be why doctors and nurses have been hit so hard by COVID-19 - they're working around multiple sick patients who have high viral loads, and so they're at greater risk of being heavily exposed.
So, let's say that by keeping a safe social distance from other people, you're cutting your risk of being infected (at all) by 50%, and cutting your risk of becoming seriously ill and dying by a bit more than that (say, 60% or 70%).
Then, by wearing a mask, you're cutting your risk of getting sick by 30% more, and your risk of dying by 50% more.
Is that not worth doing? Yeah, masks are bothersome and uncomfortable. I doubt I like wearing them any more than you do.
I do it because I know that doing so has real benefits, for me and for everybody else, above and beyond the benefits of social distancing. The benefits add up.
Your supervisor was not giving you contradictory advice. Your supervisor was giving you
good rational advice (based on the realities of how this triple-damned virus actually spreads) and is trying to help you protect your life.
I encourage you to take your supervisor's advice, in this case.