Face masks cut disease spread in the lab, but have less impact in the community. We need to know why
By: Paul Glasziou (The Conversation)
Science? Who needs stinkin' science when the evidence doesn't fit the hair-on-fire politics.
Yes, real-world trials on the effectiveness of masks have been performed. Of course those trials were for influenza which supposedly invalidates the results. But the guidelines and planning that have been implemented for the COVID pandemic were actually developed for an influenza pandemic. That inconvenient fact doesn't invalidate the guidelines and plans.
Masks are not magical. And controlled laboratory tests ain't the real world. The CDC has conducted surveys of mask usage that found 80 pct of the population in the United States are using masks. The scientific evidence really does indicate that mandating masks won't accomplish what people think.
Politicizing masks has distracted the public from the other critically important steps to mitigate spread of the virus. And the politics of mask mandates has lulled the public into a false sense of safety. Real-world evidence from controlled trials show that masks are not that effective, by themselves. Following all the steps in the guidelines are necessary to control spread of the virus.
Now that the election is over, we've been told that tests for COVID infection are not reliable indicators of safety. A negative test doesn't mean it's safe to travel and gather for the holidays. We've been warned that traveling and gathering for the holidays will cause a surge of infections; masks aren't going to prevent that. The present exponential surge in infections is happening everywhere; including areas with more stringent mandates.
Even now there are a lot of people who have placed great faith in masks, evidence be damned. But that false sense of security may damn us all.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In controlled laboratory situations, face masks appear to do a good job of reducing the spread of coronavirus (at least in hamsters) and other respiratory viruses. However, evidence shows mask-wearing policies seem to have had much less impact on the community spread of COVID-19.
Why this gap between the effectiveness in the lab and the effectiveness seen in the community? The real world is more complex than a controlled laboratory situation. The right people need to wear the right mask, in the right way, at the right times and places.
The real-world impact of face masks on the transmission of viruses depends not just on the behaviour of the virus but also on the behaviour of aerosol droplets in diverse settings, and on the behaviour of people themselves.
We carried out a comprehensive review of the evidence about how face masks and other physical interventions affect the spread of respiratory viruses. Based on the current evidence, we believe the community impact is modest and it may be better to focus on mask-wearing in high-risk situations.
The evidence
Simply comparing infection rates in people who wear masks with those who don't can be misleading. One problem is people who don't wear masks are more likely go to crowded spaces, and less likely to socially distance. People who are more concerned often adhere to several protective behaviours — they are likely to avoid crowds and socially distance as well as wearing masks.
That correlation between mask wearing and other protective behaviours might explain why studies comparing mask-wearers with non-mask-wearers (known as "observational studies") show larger effects than seen in trials. Part of the effect is due to those other behaviours.
The most rigorous, but difficult, way to evaluate the effectiveness of masks is to take a large group of people and ask some to wear masks and others not to, in a so-called controlled trial. We found nine such trials have been carried out for influenza-like illness. Surprisingly, when combined, these trials found only a 1% reduction in influenza-like illness among mask-wearers compared with non-mask-wearers, and a 9% reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza. These small reductions are not statistically significant, and are most likely due to chance.
None of these trials studied COVID-19, so we can't be sure how relevant they are to the pandemic. The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is a similar size to influenza, but has a different capacity to infect people, so it is possible masks might be more or less effective for COVID-19. A recently published trial in Denmark of 4,862 adults found infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants randomised to masks (1.8%) compared to 53 control participants (2.1%), a (non-significant) reduction of 18%.
The most comprehensive between-country study of masks for COVID-19 infection is a comparison of policy changes, such as social distancing, travel restrictions, and mask wearing, across 41 countries. It found introducing a mask-wearing policy had little impact, but mask policies were mostly introduced after social distancing and other measures were already in place.
What might diminish the effect of masks?
Why might masks not protect the person wearing them? There are several possibilities. Standard masks only protect your nose and mouth incompletely, for one thing. For another, masks don't protect your eyes.
The importance of eye protection is illustrated by a study of community health workers in India. Despite protection by three-layer surgical masks, alcohol hand rub, gloves, and shoe covers, 12 of 60 workers developed COVID-19. The workers were then supplied with face shields (which provide eye protection) — in addition to the personal protective equipment (PPE) described above — and none of the 50 workers became infected despite higher case load.
Why masks might fail to clearly protect others is more complex. Good masks reduce the spread of droplets and aerosols, and so should protect others.
Things that might make masks less effective.Paul Glasziou, Author provided
However, in our systematic review we found three trials that assessed how well mask wearing protects others, but none of them found an obvious effect. The two trials in households where a person with influenza wore a mask to protect others in fact found a slight increase in flu infections; and the third trial, in college dormitories, found a non-significant 10% relative reduction.
We don't know if the failure was the masks or participants' adherence. In most studies adherence was poor. In the trials very few people wear them all day (an average of about four hours by self-report, and even less when directly observed). And this adherence declined with time.
But we also have little research on how long a single mask is effective. Most guidelines suggest around four hours, but studies on bacteria show masks provide good protection for the first hour and by two hours are doing little. Unfortunately, we could not identify similar research examining viruses.
Making masks mandatory only in crowded places, close-contact settings, and confined and enclosed spaces may be more effective.
Is it better to focus masks on the 3 Cs: covered, crowded and close contact?
In addition to the completed Danish trial, another ongoing trial in Guinea-Bissau with 66,000 participants randomised as whole villages may shed more light as it tests the idea of source control. But given the millions of cases and billions of potential masks and mask wearers, more such trials are warranted.
We know masks are effective in laboratory studies, and we know they are effective as part of personal protective equipment for health care workers. But that effect appears diminished in community usage. So in addition to the trials, new research is urgently needed to unravel each of the reasons why laboratory effectiveness does not seem to have translated into community effectiveness. We must also develop ways to overcome the discrepancy.
Until we have the needed research, we should be wary about relying on masks as the mainstay for preventing community transmission. And if we want people to wear masks regularly, we might do better to target higher-risk circumstances for shorter periods. These are generally places described by "the three Cs": crowded places, close-contact settings, and confined and enclosed spaces. These would include some workplaces and on public transport.
We are likely to be better off if we get high usage of fresh masks in the most risky settings, rather than moderate usage everywhere.
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
Believe the science you want to believe. COVID doesn't care.
If one has to "believe" science, then one doesn't understand science. Don't "believe" the science. Follow the scientific evidence to where it leads. Not to where one wants it to go. And the evidence shows masks are effective in preventing Covid spread.
And the evidence shows masks are somewhat effective in preventing Covid spread.
Efficacy depends on the mask. Proper wearing of it is necessary too. But it's quite effective when coupled with distancing and hygiene.
Animal tests provide inadequate evidence; human trials are necessary. We do not accept results from animal tests as adequate evidence for approval of therapies, pharmaceuticals, or vaccines.
So relying on animal tests means there isn't evidence to follow. Making recommendations based on animal tests requires believing that the animal derived evidence translates to humans.
There isn't any way to avoid the problem of induction. Inductive logic requires a belief that the evidence is applicable for conditions that have not been tested. Scientific inductive extrapolation is faith-based science.
I don't see scientists putting masks on animals. A mannequin with an air pump/bag will suffice. But animal tests are used in preliminary testing stages before they're considered for human trials.
Where are you getting this idea of animal testing?
Now you're just talking BS and trying to sound smart about it. Perhaps you should learn how pharmaceutical testing and research is done.
Hamster tests show masks reduce coronavirus spread: scientists
Interesting research from Hong Kong, of all places. I doubt doctors and scientists are going to exclusively use animals as a definitive conclusion in preventing Covid spread. Especially since rodents do not expectorate as powerfully as humans do. Let's look to other sources, like the AMA, NAS, NIH, and CDC, among others. But if anything, your own source only validates the idea of masks preventing the spread of Covid.
As long as the mannequin keeps reaching up with it's hands and readjusting the face mask after touching contaminated surfaces.
People in general aren't use to having an object like a face mask on and constantly fiddle with it.
The hamsters in the testing probably had a cone collar on which isn't real world either.
We do the best we can. After all, there are some 'zany' people among us and let's just face up to the statement that not everybody's idea of cleanliness (as a standard) is the same! I wipe down and 'wash' everything I buy. I even reheat the coffee coming out of the steaming pot (when I don't make it). I sanitize my drinking glasses and cups, and utensils. . . shall I go on? It is an amazing about of work and I won't be cute and pretend that I am not tired of all that. Because I am ready to let the 'new normal' fall back a bit!
And to be clear, I still find 'holes' in my cleaning protocol. Like my adorable clothing and caps. . . which I don't quite get out of or clean as readily as I might need to do for this one. My 'saving grace' may be that I am not in a constant threat situation or setting, nevertheless!
One last thing. Don't get me wrong. I know that not everyone is able or capable of doing all this stuff. While some surpass even my efforts.
If the mask is on properly, then it shouldn't need readjustment. But it's been demonstrated how a properly fitting mask is in preventing the spread of droplets.
It's just a mask. Wearing one is not rocket science. And now would be a good time to get used to wearing one.
Mask wearing and distancing didn't keep me from getting Covid, but I will continue to do both indefinitely till herd immunity seems to have occurred.
Do you conclude from this that people wearing masks is not significantly cutting down the spread of COVID-19 (not mitigating the mask wearer from infecting others)?
Masks have some effect in protecting the wearer, but there are so many ways for COVID-19 to infect a person (e.g. touching one's eyes) that one would need a helmet or equivalent to be really safe. So protecting oneself is not the key, but rather getting everyone to reduce the spread from themselves. Masks (conventional masks that we buy) have always been a means to mitigate an infected person from spreading the virus to others. If the infected person is wearing an improper mask (e.g. loose knit fabric) then it really is not a 'mask'. And if the person is wearing the mask improperly (e.g. exposing the nose, loose fitting, etc.) or violating the integrity of the mask (taking if off to talk, etc.) the efficacy of the mask will be reduced.
But clearly when social distancing is not possible (and this is common when grocery shopping, etc.) everyone should properly wear an effective mask to reduce the spread of the virus to others.
This is why I have proposed that Trump should have been focusing more on education than on down-playing the pandemic. People need to know what kind of masks to use, how to use them, etc. I still see people driving alone in cars wearing a mask (clueless), walking their dog with a mask and then, in contrast, others with loose-fitting and/or nose exposed masks. It is a safe bet to presume that the USA population will have in it a large percentage of ignorant people. Unfortunately, in a pandemic, one ignorant person can outweigh prudent precautions by dozens of aware people so the need for continual education is there.
And, finally, we have those irresponsible few who are determined to convince the public that precautions are unnecessary.
I've seen a few people in public wear a face shield or glasses. Since masks do not protect the eyes, one must be cognizant about touching their face. Masks do help prevent (or remind) people from touching their mouth or nose, major portals of entry.
That seems to be the most common mask error I see.
But he loves the "poorly educated."
I admit I do that too. Sometimes I forget I'm wearing a mask. Generally, I wear a mask as soon as I leave home until I return.
Unfortunately, the USA also seems to have a large percentage of ignorant people.
The epitome of ignorance.
A wee bit of self-awareness, combined with a healthy dose of give-a-shit-about-others, might help that issue to the betterment of everyone.
I agree.
I tend to do that too. So Gordy, I won't leave you hanging alone on that one. Largely, I wear my mask alone in the car, because I fix it up (two even depending on the situation) before I leave the house. Sometimes even I am driving to pickup someone else.
Besides, as TiG pointed out we have not been provided consistent messaging about this virus (it's been all over the spectrum confusing), so we have been inventing our own "trustworthies" to get us by.
Lastly, for the record, I wear a 3 ply mask in the house with family this winter (with the windows mostly shut)! Who knows what those 'rascals' have been near and up to outside and about town!
I put a mask on and leave it on until I return. I'm not going to fumble with it by repeatedly putting it on or taking it off.
The spread of Covid and how to prevent it has been quite consistent: masks, distance, hygiene. That's more common sense than anything.
That's a good idea. Wearing multiple masks can increase the barrier effect too.
I did not make that point.
We (the planet) have been learning about COVID-19 'on the job'. So naturally our initial information will be rough. But we clearly have learned substantial more about this virus and the pandemic it caused.
Given the Internet, there will be inconsistent messages on virtually every topic. But in the case of COVID-19, I have no complaints with the collective work of the scientific/medical professions (Trump is neither).
I am only talking about the 'combat' news on the airways! But no matter. We do the best we can to draw a straight line through all we hear.
That is what the evidence presented in the article suggests. According to the information presented in the article, human trials to test the effectiveness of masks did not provide evidence of a statistically significant benefit. Those human trials were performed to prepare for an influenza pandemic. Does that invalidate the evidence?
The first and most critical step in mitigating any pandemic is to isolate those who are sick. That was the first step taken for the Ebola outbreak a few years ago. That was why cruise ships were quarantined early in the COVID pandemic.
If you are sick, stay home. If you think you are sick, stay home. If you have been around someone who is sick, stay home. Masks won't prevent spreading the virus. Masks are not a substitute for 14 day isolation. Masks are not a 'get out quarantine' card.
We've politicized and hyped masks while completely ignoring the first rule of pandemics; quarantine and isolate the sick.
Influenza spreads in a similar manner to Covid. So when the pandemic began, the only information we had to go on was methods to prevent influenza spread. Since they spread in a similar fashion, it's reasonable to assume methods against influenza might be effective against Covid spread too.
That was the point of lockdowns and reduced capacity establishments. Even now, many places have erected barriers (like salad bars) to prevent spread.
This is true and good advice. Unfortunately, some people don't seem to care.
Not 100%. But they do help prevent the spread of the virus.
The problem with Covid is that someone can be infected and not know it or show symptoms, but remain contagious. Masks and distancing becomes another line of defense in that regard.
The point of the seeded article is the evidence that masks prevent spread of the virus is uncertain. Selecting evidence that supports a wish isn't very scientific.
We still do not know how many infected people are asymptomatic. The estimates range from 20 pct of infections are asymptomatic to a high of 40 pct (as suggested by Dr. Fauci). And we still do not know if asymptomatic infections are as contagious as symptomatic infections.
The available evidence is widely scattered.
Actually, it is certain. It's well established masks, when used properly (and of better quality), helps prevent the spread of Covid. The evidence supports that.
All the more reason to continue testing and use proper precautions.
The degree of symptoms has little bearing on infectiousness. If an asymptomatic person is infected, they have the virus and can still spread it.
You're kidding, right? Evidence and research is easily available. All one has to do is do a little research.
Why rely on a president or any other politician for advice and guidance, when you have experts all over the MSM?
Because they're in leadership positions and can have direct access to actual experts on certain matters. So some people do look to them for guidance. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do that though, as we've seen with this administration when it came to discussing scientific and medical matters.
I often wear a mask while driving alone. That's because the proper use of a mask is a PITA. The proper procedure is to sanitize the hands before removing the mask (because of the need to touch the face) and then sanitizing the hands after removing the mask. And then it is necessary to sanitize the hands before putting the mask on again.
Skipping the steps of sanitizing the hands means the person is only wearing a piece of jewelry. Bling won't provide any protection from the virus.
I carry a crash kit in a little shoulder bag: hand sanitizer, alcohol wipes, facial tissues, extra masks, and plastic bags. If I forget to grab my crash kit (which has happened) then I cannot remove my mask until I get home. Otherwise I risk infecting myself.
There aren't any shortcuts.
It's even more complicated than that, in my opinion. Since we wear masks presumably to protect from both infecting others or others infecting ourselves from airborne droplets, one may be infecting their hands simply by touching one's mask, even though they'd just sanitized their hands, as the mask is possibly contaminated.
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) training in the military does a pretty good job of instilling in military members just how difficult it is to remain uncontaminated in a contaminated environment. In a civil situation like Covid, it's practically impossible. It concerns a lot more than simply distancing, wearing masks and washing hands. Decontaminating one's clothing before entering one's own home, for instance. Decontaminating everything brought into the home, such as groceries. Decontaminating the home on a regular basis, along with vehicles.
Not that I don't wear a mask, but I think this is all a lot harder than simply distancing, washing hands and wearing masks.
Meh. Try taking off your mask without hands. Also, nobody is talking or complaining about mask perfection here. Or are we?
To take precaution to that level then you would need to sanitize your steering wheel and other parts of the vehicle you touch while entering, operating and exiting. That includes your key fob. Also, anything that you buy (including the bags you use to carry it) should then be sanitized unless it is pre-packaged (and even then one cannot be 100% certain).
The purpose of a mask is primarily to inhibit particulate matter from an infected person from becoming airborne and potentially infecting others. That is, to reduce the volume of the virus that is projected into the air by talking, breathing, sneezing and coughing. It is a secondary precaution when social distancing is not possible.
The difficulty of avoiding the virus is why, even with precautions, people are still getting sick. It is almost like swimming in a pool and avoiding coming into contact with urine from children and those who are inconsiderate.
This is why a vaccine is so critical. Without agents operating at the molecular level (immunity) we are trying to stop micro particles that could be in our environment but cannot be detected with extremely blunt physical measures and actions. It is better to use them than not, but they alone simply cannot keep us safe (isolation, however, would keep us safe). In terms of actions, for example, we cannot realistically wash our hands every time we touch something (and this is true if we are wearing gloves too).
That's why I carry alcohol wipes.
UV light is a disinfectant; I use sunlight to disinfect my vehicle. That's going to become problematic during winter. And I don't bring groceries inside right away unless the products need refrigeration. I typically maintain a small surplus of items in separate storage so that everything can sit for at least a week before I need them. Surface contamination isn't that big a problem as long as the hands are sanitized before touching the face.
So why aren't patients hospitalized with COVID symptoms required to wear masks? They are infected and are spreading the virus.
We can sanitize our hands before touching our face. Every time. Yep, it's a royal PITA. But there aren't any shortcuts.
Hopefully a vaccine will bring the pandemic to an end. There is still a risk that the virus will mutate in a way that diminishes the effectiveness of the vaccines. The longer we have to wait the greater the risk. The coronavirus isn't waiting.
Which brings us to the area of mask 'built' immunity. The scientific thinking goes we are slowly building immunity to any potential virus in our surroundings over time by not simply getting a full "wallop" of it. I read this in a medical news article put up for consideration.
Nerm, if they are hospitalized that usually means they are experiencing severe respiratory problems. Hospitals isolate the patients as best they can and that does include patients wearing masks. But certainly you understand why a doctor would not want to inhibit breathing on a serious COVID-19 patient whose respiratory system is compromised. For patients whose conditions are not worsened (per medical opinion) by wearing a mask, I would suspect they are indeed wearing a mask. The most severe cases, of course, are on respirators.
My point is that few people will have the discipline to take that level of precaution. And that even with that level of precaution, we are still vulnerable. As I noted, this is why the vaccine is so critical. We need to evolve herd immunity.
That makes sense.
I already do that, every time I enter my car, especially, when I have gone somewhere where other people may have touched things in the area. I also disinfect my door handles inside and out, both before and after getting out, then sanitize my door knob to my home before entering.
Then also sanitize the handle of my cane as well as sanitize my hands when I enter my home first thing I do.
That crap is so vicious that not taking good precautions can lead to my being one more new case, and that I do not want nor need.
Good idea. I also carry a small bottle of hand sanitizer. Many stores also offer a sanitizer or wipes for a cart at the entrance.
They are! Many hospitals also do not allow visitors except in special circumstances or if one has an appointment. Even then, visitors are screened and need to wear masks themselves. Patients with Covid are placed under droplet precautions and isolated.
Not really. It's more of a mild inconvenience at worst. I'm practically OCD when it comes to sanitizers. Everytime I see a dispenser, I use it. It's practically second nature to me now.
I suppose we'll find out within the next year.
That seems reasonable. But it's also a gamble. Namely, one hopes their immune system will develop an immunity to the virus with resulting in host death. As we've seen, over 250k people lost that bet.
A New Theory Asks: Could a Mask Be a Crude ‘Vaccine’?
Scientists float a provocative — and unproven — idea: that masks expose the wearer to just enough of the virus to spark a protective immune response .
By Katherine J. Wu
As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come forward with a provocative new theory: that masks might help to crudely immunize some people against the virus.
The unproven idea, described in a commentary published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is inspired by the age-old concept of variolation, the deliberate exposure to a pathogen to generate a protective immune response. First tried against smallpox, the risky practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the rise of modern vaccines.
Masked exposures are no substitute for a bona fide vaccine. But data from animals infected with the coronavirus, as well as insights gleaned from other diseases, suggest that masks, by cutting down on the number of viruses that encounter a person’s airway, might reduce the wearer’s chances of getting sick. And if a small number of pathogens still slip through, the researchers argue, these might prompt the body to produce immune cells that can remember the virus and stick around to fight it off again.
“You can have this virus but be asymptomatic,” said Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the commentary’s authors. “So if you can drive up rates of asymptomatic infection with masks, maybe that becomes a way to variolate the population.”
That does not mean people should don a mask to intentionally inoculate themselves with the virus. “This is not the recommendation at all , ” Dr. Gandhi said. “Neither are pox parties,” she added, referring to social gatherings that mingle the healthy and the sick.
I wear mine from the second I leave the house, to the instant I return. Rigorous immunotherapy treatment makes it mandatory for many people, even when driving alone in a car. Other people's funk doesn't just jump off your shoes or your clothes or your pet or your groceries at the car door. So clueless...sometimes not so much maybe?
Same here. The virus is airborne and can enter your car when you open a door. I always have sanitizer in my car, as well as sanitizer wipes for areas I can't or shouldn't use spray in my car. All the knobs and dials are also cleaned.
Being too lazy or too stupid to realize the degree of danger of this virus can lead to unexpected infection. Then it seems to be a "Why me" whine of the one infected, and likely other members fo their family or co-workers, etc.
The virus enters your car through its ventilation system too. You can have the doors and windows closed and you are still bringing in outside air. There is no isolating yourself from the open air.
Nonetheless, I applaud your efforts to take as many precautions as you can. The best precaution is, in effect, a quarantine.
I wonder if Autozone carries an N95 equivalent of a car air filter?
Absolutely right, TiG. Even when quarantining oneself at home or wherever chosen, unless the environment is air-tight, which most aren't, there is no way to escape the chance of exposure. And not everyone can stay in quarantine forever, there are times when one needs to go somewhere. The Doctor's office is one of the worst for exposure, but, there are times that even tele-visits just won't work.
The only thing one can do is to do their best to protect themselves and their family in every way possible. Innocent children should not suffer due to the stupidity or stubbornness of their parents.
You can change your car internal cabin filter. I am changing mine this week. Time to 'git 'er done.' It is the best we can do!
Another thing people should consider if one has the means is a whole home air purifier integrated with your HVAC technology. I am having a system installed that includes ActivePure technology. Not just for COVID-19 but for general health.
ActivePure - PBS special from Aerus Holdings on Vimeo .
This is clever, cool technology. It is not a filter; it is like an immune system.
That's deep. Kills coronavirus (SARS 2) and leaves waking and sleeping bodies alone too? Interestingly deep!
Here is the key. The airborne crap is not only in the air, but it settles on all surfaces that are exposed to the air. That is everything in your home (and even behind your walls).
If you want to clean, this is a pretty powerful tool in the arsenal.
Yes, I know. I was being tongue in cheek about it.
I'd bet its good. I looked at it on the web; how is the cost? Or, is it a sales visit to the home? I am partially joking about a devise that is so thorough in cleaning the air that it shares my next breath with me! (Chuckles.)
For me it is about $1,100 per unit installed. The honeycomb internal mechanism needs to be replaced every 2 years at about $350. So it is a pricey system but, then again, the cost of prevention is usually a fraction of the cost of curing an illness. My system which uses the ActivePure technology is called AirScrubber Plus.
You should be very happy with it, I'd imagine. The relief of knowing that your in-house air is relatively better and cleaner of harm. Stellar, TiG! Great relief! I applaud you. It's not to costly—installed under the circumstances! Two years on the filter is okay too! The reduction in mental and physical stress alone is worth the expense! I will keep it in mind. (Smile.)
Plus my 92 (very soon to be 93) year old father-in-law lives with us so we cannot be too careful.
Great looking out for your elderly loved one(s). They really need us in these situations. It's a lot to ward against for us, atknown those more 'fragile.' (Smile.) That stuff in the walls, mostly settles and over time becomes inert, so that's a good thing!
Well, I often find that I have my mask on while driving alone because I forgot to take it off. Really, if one is in a situation that brings them into the safe-zone of people with any frequency, just put the mask on and wear it. The only problem I have is that I work outside, and the mask causes my glasses to fog. I wore them on top of my mask and as far forward as practical, so the nose piece formed a clamp of sorts, but as the weather gets colder it gets more and more difficult.
Wait ... I think I know why.
I'll bet this is how a lot of people are catching it.
Personally speaking, this face is way too pretty to hide from the general public. If there is a better way for people to keep their funk to themselves, I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, please just wear a mask and stop nagging about it.
This pretty face agrees!
Once again, you compare a controlled sterile environment to one that isn't.
Excellent observation!
That has to be the worst advertising for a restaurant I have ever seen. Also just plain stupid!
It is satire...
Sometimes I wonder.
It began as a series of clever tweets by a gal named Libby Jones, and meant as a bitch-slap to anti-maskers. Here is a link to the tweets and a little more of the story. There are a few responses to Libby's tweets included in the article, and they are a hoot!
Ok, that's a good one.