
Apparent absence of covid transmission at hair salon with face covering policy - AlphaWeaver
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm?s_cid=mm6928e2_w
======
nicoburns
I would not be at all surprised if mask use turns out to be a lot more
significant a factor than western governments seem to be assuming. It seems
obvious that pretty much any kind of face (mouth/nose) covering is going to be
significantly better than nothing at preventing the spread of disease that
spreads through droplets. Of course, we should do formal studies. But in the
absence of data, masks being effective seems like a sensible default position
to take.

~~~
raducu
I wonder why nobody did any studies on COVID patients asking very simple
questions such as "how often did you use a mask in public?".

A romanian doctor complained that about 70% of his COVID patients believed the
dissease was a hoax before being infected themselves.

Maybe he was just trying to scare others, and by no means do I try to blame
the sick, but maybe if people not wearing masks, not practicing social
distancing not washing their hands are more likely to get sick, we could show
this data and make the rest do it more -- if this is indeed the case and these
measures significantly decrease your chances of being infected.

~~~
rsynnott
Masks are believed to be more effective for stopping an infected person
transmitting than stopping an uninfected person being infected, so this
probably wouldn't be especially useful.

~~~
raducu
I agree to that,but masks are still useful even for preventing, and my main
reasoning was that wearing a mask is a proxy for how serious the person is for
all the rest -- social distaning, avoiding crowds, avoiding interaction with
people who don't wear mask themselves and so on.

But as someone else commented -- retrospective studies probably are not that
useful.

------
OldPenguin
Among 139 client exposed to the two infected stylists only 67 volunteered for
testing.

A) What if they were asymptomatic carriers? B) What about false-negatives? PCR
testing work only after symptoms starts developing? C) Isn't this a rather
small "sample" space to establish Universal Face Covering Policy? In this
regard it'd be nice to have a countrywide comparison of infections ie.
countries that required masking vs.that didn't.

~~~
snorrah
As I understand it, asymptomatic carriers can still be tested and found
positive just fine. It’s not the symptoms developing that lets you get a
positive result, it’s the virus being found in the samples.

~~~
Symmetry
Honestly viral load peaks most of a day before symptoms start so the people
who show up best in a PCR test are going to be asymptomatic.

------
Tepix
There's a report of 27 clients being infected at a nail salon:
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/kingston-ontatio-
salon...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/kingston-ontatio-salon-
covid19-outbreak-1.5631049)

" _Inspectors found that some customers at Binh 's were not wearing masks, the
space was not set up to properly distance and best hygiene practices were not
being followed._"

~~~
Markoff
I'd like to see someone making nails from 2m distance.

------
Tepix
From the article:

> _Overall, 67 (48.2%) clients volunteered to be tested, and 72 (51.8%)
> refused_

Why would anyone refuse a Sars-CoV-2 test after being exposed like that?

~~~
jjgreen
Because they stick a long cotton bud right up your nose, further than you
would expect, not very pleasant. I wouldn't have one.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Wouldn't you want to know whether you might be infecting others you're close
to?

~~~
jjgreen
I would assume that I could be positive and isolate myself.

------
FiReaNG3L
Where the control group of no one wearing masks had an infection rate of...?

~~~
snorrah
That sounds like an unethical control test and would therefore not be
considered.

~~~
LudwigNagasena
That’s basically why all studies on whether masks are useful (this is not a
first epidemic, not even a first coronavirus epidemic) are inconclusive.

~~~
irq11
Not really. Randomized controlled trials have been done.

The experiment isn’t unethical - it’s just that it hasn’t been done often
because all of the other, less-complicated experiments, also show very little
effect.

~~~
LudwigNagasena
>Randomized controlled trials have been done.

Do you have any examples?

------
disabled
Even if it is true, it is nothing to get excited over.

It is still a risky activity, almost anywhere in the US, given the infection
rates.

I am female, so I just put a cover/wrap over my hair, in addition to wearing a
mask, if I ever need to leave the house. (I have a beautiful natural
strawberry blonde hair color—-but my hair has not been cut in ages!) It also
keeps micro droplets (or aerosolated germs) from getting in my hair and
infecting me, including when showering. I also wear long sleeved clothing too,
even in the heat. Also, I don’t wear jewelry anymore and this helps me get
cleaner. I often wear gloves, but not always. Sometimes it can be less safe.

When I arrive home, I slip off my shoes and I use a plastic bag to open the
back door. (The shades are drawn in my house prior to leaving/entering the
house) As soon as I get in the house, I strip completely, and throw my clothes
in a garbage bag. I leave my phone on the counter, which I thoroughly clean
later. I then wash my hands/arms, scrubbing away with a ton of soap. I then
put on my robe/slippers and go to the shower, putting my robe and (washable!)
slippers in a trash bag. Then I get in the shower and scrub away. I then get
dressed in another room and put on my house slippers.

I then, using gloves and by cleaning knobs frequently and repeatedly, almost
algorithmically, deal with the garbage bags and do laundry. Then I wash my
phone with soap and water several times, using multiple pairs of gloves. I
later wash the floors where I dumped off my clothes.

~~~
abduhl
This routine is insane.

~~~
CydeWeys
You'll get 99+% of the possible wins in reducing your chance of being infected
simply by avoiding being indoors with others as much as possible, wearing
masks when you are unable to do so (e.g. when grocery shopping), and by
staying away from large crowds outdoors except when wearing masks.

So agreed, this routine is excessive. Instead of going to all of this hassle,
just source N99 masks and wear them when in unavoidable close proximity to
other people. Boom, you're practically guaranteed not to get it.

~~~
keldaris
> Boom, you're practically guaranteed not to get it.

Not without eye protection you're not. You're also practically guaranteed to
wear the respirator incorrectly. Wearing them correctly requires training,
absence of facial hair and enduring a very significant degree of discomfort.

~~~
CydeWeys
You're completely ignoring the part about not being indoors with others unless
necessary. You're practically talking about dressing up in a biohazard bunny
suit like you're going into a COVID ward, but that's just flat-out not
necessary if you aren't remotely putting yourself into those kinds of hotspot
situations to begin with. I assure you, someone taking these kinds of
sanitizing precautions is _already_ not putting themselves into close contact
with other people, and is thus already getting most of the gains even being
considering masks at all. Then add on wearing a good mask when necessary and
you reach the 99+%.

~~~
keldaris
I deliberately made no comment on the necessity of wearing the respirator in
the first place - that's a separate question. I'm simply saying that if you're
going to the trouble of actually wearing a respirator, do it properly.

As for the need for them - anything at or above the N95 respirator level
(including eye protection) is only useful in environments with a high
probability of contamination. That's mostly healthcare facilities with known
C19 patients (particularly in proximity to aerosol-generating procedures),
patient rooms, etc.

EDIT: I think I may have misunderstood the intent of your original post. You
said "N99", so I assumed you were actually talking about respirators. If you
just meant surgical masks, we're mostly in agreement.

------
AlphaWeaver
This article had an incredibly long title, so I had to take some liberties in
shortening it. Open to suggestions for a more accurate title if anyone has
one.

~~~
foota
The site is comical on mobile, you have to scroll past the styled edge of the
page several screens to read the whole title lol.

------
zgiber
Made me think what else besides masks.. e.g. does operating hairdryers affect
virus survival on suspended airborne particles? Or the chemicals they use?
(Hair spray etc..) I want to believe that masks are that effective.

------
jamespetercook
Does anyone have a good solution to stopping ones glasses from steaming up
while wearing a mask? I enjoy being able to see when I’m walking in public

------
markkat
Is it any wonder? This same experiment is being run every day at hospitals and
clinics across the country. Face masks diminish the risk dramatically.

------
raducu
Maybe masks make you shut up and with less talk there is less likelyhood you
spread the virus?

We know super spreaders are the shouting-singing-outgoing types.

------
Markoff
need comparison against infected stylist without mask, otherwise the results
are meaningless not really proving anything

