In this investigation, participants with and without COVID-19 reported generally similar community exposures, with the exception of going to locations with on-site eating and drinking options. Adults with confirmed COVID-19 (case-patients) were approximately twice as likely as were control-participants to have reported dining at a restaurant in the 14 days before becoming ill. In addition to dining at a restaurant, case-patients were more likely to report going to a bar/coffee shop, but only when the analysis was restricted to participants without close contact with persons with known COVID-19 before illness onset. Reports of exposures in restaurants have been linked to air circulation (7). Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance. Masks cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking, whereas shopping and numerous other indoor activities do not preclude mask use.
Among adults with COVID-19, 42% reported close contact with a person with COVID-19, similar to what has been reported previously (4). Most close contact exposures were to family members, consistent with household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (8). Fewer (14%) persons who received a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result reported close contact with a person with known COVID-19.
So basically it appears that the people who had the virus were far more likely to have been in an environment where masks cannot be used effectively and were far more likely to have had close (probably household) contact with a person who had the virus. Makes total sense and actually supports the value of mask wearing.
Tuckerâs apparent interpretation of the self-reported âalwaysâ response seems to woefully neglect the fact that these people almost certainly werenât indicating that they wore a face mask every minute they were at home or in a restaurant eating.
Also convenient that he didnât mention the hypothesis that wearing masks can reduce the viral load youâre exposed to, which might play a role in whether you get sick or how sick you get.
Just to add to what @RBE wrote, I can see a couple of things:
Thereâs this general, ridiculously often repeated, misunderstanding in the U.S. media, especially among those members of the media who have already decided that masks arenât necessary, that the primary function of a mask is to protect the wearer.
It isnât, and that was (or should have been) already debunked months ago (before the outbreak, I guess). The main function of the mask is obviously to protect others from the wearer, and therein, by the group effect of a majority of people wearing masks, afford the wearer themselves protection from others.
I donât know about their accuracy, but the figures Iâve seen seem to suggest that wearing a mask reduces oneâs likelihood of contracting the virus upon exposure by something on the order of 10-20%, whereas it reduces the likelihood of someone else contracting it from an infected wearer by something like 80%. (Masks also might have some effect relating to reduced viral load at exposure, but thatâs not the main thing here.)
The point of all that is that it isnât surprising that mask wearers get sick, in a population where many people arenât wearing masks, especially if the wearers are still going to restaurants and whatever. Surgical masks arenât supposed to be some magic shield protecting the wearer, because thatâs not how they work. This was already obvious months ago, and I donât know why the media keeps suggesting otherwise.
I donât have time to read the study at the moment, but there might also be some issue relating to the data collection/sampling method for the statement â70% of people reported that theyâd always worn a maskâ. Something along the lines of a correlation between the likelihood of someone to go get tested and the willingness of someone to wear a mask - that might have skewed the results.
Thatâs precisely the reason why Americans wonât wear masks.
The media has said a million times that wearing masks protects others from the wearer, and they know full well what it means.
The problem is Americans are by and large individualists. They do not believe they have any responsibility to the community at large other than not violate laws or âlive and let liveâ. The entire hippie movement is all about that. Be yourself, who cares about others.
So to most Americans, a small personal sacrifice for the community good is too much for them. They think itâs communist, socialist, or whatever. This is the reason why Bernie Sanders never got picked for Democrat nomination, why America doesnât have universal healthcare, or even effective public transport, adequately funded road maintenance department, etc⌠In a nutshell, the societyâs problem is none of by business and I donât feel like wearing a mask for whatever reason. This is why politicians there refuse to make masks mandatory, because they would piss off 80% of their constituents.
The difference is Taiwan, or China are far less individualist and so have no problems with sacrificing for the good of the community.
Are we talking about the same country that spent trillions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of dead and wounded Americans liberating Iraq because they âcaredâ so much?
The issue is they are talking about wearing cloth masks, cotton ones, probably one ply. It is a different animal from disposable, waterproof, triple ply ones like we use here. Hence, the difference.
I believe you on all thatâŚbut then Tucker Carlson etc. should really change their narrative from âmasks donât workâ to âmasks only directly protect othersâ if they want to do anything approaching honest journalism (Iâm skeptical of that too).
Yeah, I was thinking to mention that as well, since I think âmaskâ here might include the cotton bandana things Iâve seen a lot of Americans wearing in videos. (Although I suspect these might have non-zero value, i.e., be better than nothing.)
Iâd say they donât give a damn about the average Iraqi, but toppling Saddam Hussein who âthreatens Americaâ just sounds far more patriotic than wearing masks to protect themselves from a pandemic.
But the media could have used this angle. I mean they had lots of restrictions during WWII, like you couldnât buy as much sugar or steel as you wanted because of the war effort (gasp!). They could have made all kinds of propaganda posters saying âwear a mask, for freedomâ. And they could release red, white, blue masks⌠and call it âfreedom shieldâ or something. Worked so well during 9/11. Wonder what happened.
I think you or somebody else posted the surprising maths behind it before thru this video.
Anyway masks arenât the be all and end all but they sure have their part to play. It does seem that when marks arenât worn by many participants in a given gathering , super spreading can occur.
The cost of the rapid COVID-19 arrival test will be borne by Hawaiâi County via federal CARES Act funding. Testing will be managed by the Hawaiâi County Civil Defense Agency staff and administered by Premier Medical Group Hawaiâi.
This antigen test will provide results within 15-20 minutes. If a traveler tests negative for COVID-19, they will not be subject to self-quarantine. Those testing positive for COVID-19 will be required to take a subsequent PCR test immediately and will be required to self-quarantine per state Department of Health rules while awaiting the results of this test, which can be expected within 36 hours.
Without mentioning Trump, Gates said that unlike the U.S., many countries have âdone very, very wellâ using the behavioral tools available to help blunt the spread of the coronavirus. The founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which works to tackle complex global health challenges, said it has nothing to do with politics.
âThatâs a purely technical thing, not a political thing. Most governments take advantage of their scientists and listen to them. They donât undermine them and attack them,â he said. âMask compliance in the United States is quite poor. And yet the cost of the mask and the productivity lost from [not wearing] the mask, itâs quite an intervention.â
Not the media, the leadership. This is what I meant by mobilizing for the war effort is a great example of small sacrifices. Americans can be motivated to work for the common good but yes it does need a patriotic spin and has to come top down from the leadership.
