But risk isn't a 1/0 binary. Every moment you are wearing a mask changes your risk. Spending 1 hour in a restaurant vs 10 hours in a restaurant. It all adds up and it all matters.
So yeah, taking your mask off while you eat is definitely going to raise your risk. But not as much as simply not wearing a mask the entire time you're in a restaurant, moving around, getting closer to people and different areas of the restaurant, which probably all have variable particles in the air, etc.
> So yeah, taking your mask off while you eat is definitely going to raise your risk.
I don’t think that’s usually how it works. A regular mask is good at “curbing the fanout” so to speak, but not so great at filtering incoming air. Taking your mask off while you eat is going to raise the risk for everybody around you—unless you use an N95 mask or similar equipment (and use it properly), what your mask does is mostly in fact protecting bystanders from asymptomatic COVID that you may have acquired by restricting outgoing airflow and virions within.
Now consider real life, where not everyone wears masks, and my guess is depending on where you are easily less than 10% of mask-wearers wear masks properly. They don’t wear masks over their nose, leave huge gaps between the mask and their face, take off their mask to sneeze or cough (I kid you not). They try to make it easier to breathe, and by extension defeat the point of wearing a mask.
Unsurprisingly, masks is the easiest and cheapest measure to be taken, compared to e.g. auditing and upgrading air circulation infrastructure.
Unsurprisingly, in many cultures people who think that the mask protects them and don’t know about asymptomatic COVID choose not to wear a mask because they bravely don’t care if they get sick.
Unsurprisingly, for the rest of us there’s very little point in being the one-in-ten person wearing a mask in what is a fluid exchange fest anyway.
Unsurprisingly, as a result people tend to not wear masks if they can get away with it, and restaurant owners and other people in charge of enforcing the measure on their territory would instruct staff to let things slip rather than alienate their patrons over a seemingly useless measure.
Meanwhile, masks are not free. Both in terms of money, and in terms of wellbeing. A properly worn mask necessarily obstructs breathing. One risks becoming infected by their own mask which accumulates virions in circulation (and if you do rotate your mask, an argument could be made that reduced exposure to viruses long-term may weaken the immune system—though I’m not sure if there were studies to support or refute that).
Nevertheless, a measure has been taken, and local policymakers may now rest with a false sense of security.
> an argument could be made that reduced exposure to viruses long-term may weaken the immune system—though I’m not sure if there were studies to support or refute that).
My mental model of the immune system would say this isn't how it works but I am not an expert:
Immune response is very specific which means that if you have been exposed to 10 different 'sorts' of viruses then your immune system has likely learned a specific response to those specific viruses. If you now become affected with an 11th kind, then your immune system cannot reuse the specific response it has already learned but has to learn to fight a new enemy.
Thus there is very little benefit of becoming infected with a particular virus if you can avoid it.
The implications are that by wearing masks or isolating you are avoiding getting viruses which are currently in circulation and if you stop wearing masks or stop isolating then you will likely catch up with the viruses currently in circulation (so you are sick more often), but the individual infection isn't more severe because you haven't had to deal with a lot of viruses for some time.
“Weaken the immune system” not like with muscles from lack of physical exertion, but like with an antivirus database that stops receiving signatures from the ongoing evolution of viruses around.
My mental model (would not mind if it is wrong) suggests that the number of distinct viruses in our environments is surprisingly high (I do not think we have identified all of them yet), and it is thanks to continued repeat exposure (re-training immune system to mutations, etc.) throughout our daily life that we do not get constantly sick.
Not to say I think it would be disastrous for a person to stop wearing a mask after a while of wearing mask properly—one would just be ill for a bit, like you say. Although I would presume combining multiple infections at the same time could make it a little less pleasant.
>A regular mask is good at “curbing the fanout” so to speak, but not so great at filtering incoming air.
That applies for cloth masks and alike. N95/PFF2 is a protective gear and should filter ~95% of particles where N99/PFF3 is ~99% if given a perfect fit. Beards and other stuff can reduce the efficiency to ~30% though.
> Meanwhile, masks are not free.
But they are not expensive and can be rotated.
> A properly worn mask necessarily obstructs breathing.
Only if you already have difficulty breathing. Studies show no impact on blood oxygenation whatsoever due to the usage of masks in normal situations. What they cause is discomfort due to retention of breath humidity and heat. It sucks to wear a PFF3 while doing intensive exercise,
> One risks becoming infected by their own mask which accumulates virions in circulation.
Any viruses that accumulate on a mask you would be breathing otherwise.
> ...reduced exposure to viruses long-term may weaken the immune system—though.
That makes sense. The nose epithelial cells are the 1st line of defense against airborne pathogens. By reducing our exposure we are reducing the efficiency of those cells.
> Now consider real life, where not everyone wears masks, and my guess is depending on where you are easily less than 10% of mask-wearers wear masks properly. They don’t wear masks over their nose, leave huge gaps between the mask and their face, take off their mask to sneeze or cough (I kid you not). They try to make it easier to breathe, and by extension defeat the point of wearing a mask.
True. Where I live masks are not enforced, we are in the summer and >90% of those I see are not using it. But the few that are still using it are doing it properly.
> Nevertheless, a measure has been taken, and local policymakers may now rest with a false sense of security.
I agree with you but not because I don't think masks work. It's just that people think that now that they have took the jab and put the mask they can do whatever they want including staying for hours in a fully occupied and closed room where a guy is coughing non-stop. It's just that people are stupid and irresponsible.
When I studied workplace safety and health we learned that protective gear is the last measure you adopt. If you have place where exists a risk of people falling you first should attempt to eliminate the risk and improve the ergonomics of the place, like installing guardrails. If that isn't possible you enact administrative policies like forbidding from transiting in the dangerous place unless they have authorization and a reason to be there. And only then you provide protective gear for those.
Yes. Yet (I know that the article is about N95 specifically, but in general) that is the majority of masks worn. I haven’t been to a country where N95 masks were freely distributed, are there any?
> But they are not expensive and can be rotated.
In my experience, depending on where you are in the world, N95 masks can be quite expensive and/or very difficult to come by. Rotating them is definitely infeasible for many people.
> Any viruses that accumulate on a mask you would be breathing otherwise
I disagree on this, because the potentially virion-containing matter is 1) accumulating, and doing so 2) next to the entrance to your breathing pathways (given the mask is worn properly). It’s not a binary thing where you inhale a single virus and get sick, repeat exposure and concentration play a role in how large will your dose be and whether you become infected.
> I agree with you but not because I don't think masks work.
Don’t get me wrong, I think masks can work, I just think making them work the way they work in theory is much more effort than anyone would be willing to invest (the amount of effort also depending on social norms in a given country), and policymakers should be acutely aware that requiring masks will not in practice yield the benefit they may expect based on how masks are shown to perform in lab tests, and plan accordingly.
> When I studied workplace safety and health we learned that protective gear is the last measure you adopt.
If wearing a mask doesn’t make it noticeably more difficult to breathe, most likely you have air bypassing the mask—look for gaps and try to get a better fit.
My KN95s put visible lines on my face the day after and make my ears hurt like hell. They're sealed, and I can tell I'm breathing through one. But "difficult", nah.
Then we’re on the same page. It’s necessarily comparatively more difficult to breathe with than without, that’s how you can tell you’re breathing through a filter. (The absolute degree of difficulty depends on the individual and preexisting conditions.)
Risk isn't binary. But constantly taking your mask on and off has risks of its own from touching and rubbing. Similar to not touching your face with your hands to avoid germs, you should not be touching your mask frequently.
So yeah, taking your mask off while you eat is definitely going to raise your risk. But not as much as simply not wearing a mask the entire time you're in a restaurant, moving around, getting closer to people and different areas of the restaurant, which probably all have variable particles in the air, etc.