
Ask HN: Stupid question: Why not just order people to wear masks in public? - rsp1984
... and give masks to people free of charge.<p>Wouldn&#x27;t that prevent most infections and allow us to keep the economy going?<p>And wouldn&#x27;t that be orders of magnitude cheaper than the &gt; $1T being spent globally on bailouts, stimulus and QE (which, of course, still doesn&#x27;t address the underlying pandemic problem).
======
mstolpm
At the beginning of the crisis I was under the same impression and hoped for
the government to provide masks here in Europe. Then, I learned some aspects I
can‘t fully verify, but that changed my thinking about everyone using masks:

Masks give a false sense of protection for ordinary people without education
about the correct usage. Most of the masks are used wrong and they do not
protect eyes (which are touched frequently) nor hands (you‘d need to wear
gloves as well, but putting them off without potential cross-infection is even
more complicate for untrained people). Masks need to be changed frequently
(else they even collect more potential infected material), used masks need to
be disposed safely. According to some experts, using a mask in the wrong way
and too long even makes it more likely to get infected. As others have pointed
out, masks can lead to touching your face more often if the mask feels
uncomfortable. And there are simply not enough masks available and the current
production is needed for medical staff. And have a look at videos from China
and SG: Most people do not use FFP3 / N95 rated masks but simpler ones not
really giving full protection for COVID-19.

All that changed my view as masks for everybody. Of course, you should
definitely use a mask during every human contact if you have symptoms or are
worried you could be infected yourself.

~~~
stubish
Having lived in areas that commonly use masks to control yearly influenza, I
have to disagree.

Even if the basic instruction of 'don't touch the front' is ignored, they
still reduce exposure. The contaminants stuck to the surface of the mask are
less dangerous on the mask (even if you touch it), than on your face or in
your lungs. Even if the mask is changed infrequently and reused. Viruses on
droplets stuck to the mask are dying remember, and hastened by just sunlight.
Or a washing machine for cloth masks or improvised masks like scarves. And
personally I found wearing masks to reduce face touching, as they serve as a
reminder and reduce tickles like hair brushing your face.

I'd much rather be surrounded by people reducing their chance of being
infected, even if 'ordinary people' incapable of following basic instruction
and completely lacking common sense. Reduced exposure means slower
transmission and fewer people infected at any one time.

------
TheAlchemist
That's not a stupid question at all. From what I've read and understand, the
'standard' masks (the cheap ones - surgical masks) are not a 100% protection,
however it's in the >50% range. Probably enough to greatly limit the R0 and
change the expontential curve to a linear one (I may be wrong - definitely not
an expert).

I'm too amazed by the magnitude of the measures that are being taken as
opposed to less invasive and technical solutions.

Adding other stupid questions: \- why we can't just decide to test everybody -
what's the bottleneck ? \- why we can't just produce the n95 respirators in
sufficient quantites and distribute free of charge to everybody - not even
making it mandatory to wear in public - if enough people wear it, the virus
won't spread

~~~
xhkkffbf
When I hear about the testing fiasco and the order not to use masks, I wonder
what outcome certain people really want.

------
sojournerc
I'm not sure of the source for this, I've been reading a lot this week...

Someone with more knowledge could expand on this, but I understand that
wearing a mask in south east Asia is a social signal that the wearer is aware
that they are contagious and are using the mask not for their own protection,
but for those around them. This makes sense with surgical masks that are
designed to keep things _in_ not out.

Culturally this is counterintuitive to the west where we typically value the
individual over the collective. (Probably an over-broad generalization)

------
wyldfire
> Wouldn't that prevent most infections

I don't think it would. People would intentionally or unintentionally take off
their mask, sneeze on their hands and then touch surfaces, shake hands,
prepare food, etc.

------
muzani
There's a limited amount of masks and they should be reserved for medical
personnel and the most vulnerable. It's not full protection - people can still
touch something tainted and rub their eyes. Or eat food served by someone
infected. Gloves? That just puts the germs on the gloves and not the hands.

As far as throwing money at the problem goes, the most cost effective might be
to test everyone periodically, and not fight blind. But that's impractical
too.

------
Cyberdog
I'm sure there's a couple companies that manufacture masks that are lobbying
for this sort of thing right now.

Assuming you're referring to the US federal government, them forcing its
entire population to wear an article of clothing or use a medical device
(whichever way you choose to view it) would be an unprecedented breach of
civil rights - not that breaches of civil rights with precedents are any more
legitimate.

~~~
lone-commenter
So... being forced to wear clothes _at all_ when in public is a breach of
civil rights, too?

~~~
Cyberdog
Well, technically, yes.

~~~
lone-commenter
This made me think of a joking short poem by Galileo Galilei, "Against the
Donning of the Gown".*

A passage:

    
    
        I now conclude, and turn to you, signior,
        And force you to confess, against your will,
        The Greatest Good will be all clothes to abhor.
    
        Think, if you please, of happy times gone by and
        Of times when malice and deceit were still unknown,
        And things under the stars went hand in hand;
    
        You will then see that, not only when alone,
        But all the time, in rain and weather fair
        Man went unclothed, both young and fully grown.
    
        Nothing at all, no knickers did they wear,
        So that, what good there was, but also what of bad,
        Was well exposed, out in the open air.
    

* The translation is by Giovanni Bignami

~~~
Cyberdog
I like it, but I suspect we weren't to take that poem literally. :P

------
pgodzin
Aside from the fact that it doesn't prevent most infections (maybe reduce),
manufacturing a billion of them in a short timeframe seems unlikely.

~~~
stubish
I could manufacture a mask right now using my dirty underpants. It might not
be N95 rated and suitable for use by health workers in an infection ward, but
it would certainly reduce my exposure when I need to go shopping.

Over here, existing manufactures are tripling production (3 shifts instead of
1). I've heard very high numbers, but useless since the delivery time frames
were not mentioned.

------
matt_the_bass
My understanding is that even cheap masks keep more of your own germs in (by
catching your exhaled liquids) That seems like a valid reason to wear them
even if they don’t keep other germs out.

I agree this seems like something that should be enacted to reduce the spread

------
Waterluvian
Most people you see wearing masks are wearing the wrong kind that don't
actually help too much. And there's likely a massive shortage of enough masks.
People probably reuse them a terrible amount too.

Don't give them a false shield that emboldens their actions. Keep them
indoors.

------
nitwit005
I'm not sure they could manage that "give masks" step. Most of the supply
still seems to be diverted to health and emergency services.

------
tpmx
That combined with hyper-aggressive tracing and testing is what has has
allowed e.g. SG/TW/SK to win [in the initial response].

It's too late for that in EU/US though. All of our governments screwed up the
initial response in January.

SG/TW/SK learned from SARS 17 years ago, we didn't.

~~~
Jefro118
No one has "won", certainly not at this point. SK especially has been
impressive in how efficient they've been but we don't actually know how
effective each strategy is yet and we likely won't for a year still unless
there's a vaccine or miracle drug before then.

~~~
tpmx
Yeah, I guess I should have qualified that: They won at how they handled the
the initial response. It will be a long journey.

