> I don't know why you wouldn't wear a mask to stop aerosols.

Because the masks don't stop aerosols. They're too tiny for them. Then there's also the fact that being so light they accumulate in the air and last there for an hour or longer and can even infect people through the eyes.

▲

mindslight 4 days ago | parent [-]

That argument was always trotted out in the context of the hopium made out of t-shirts, or surgical masks with open flow paths around the filter. Everything I saw confirmed that P100's were quite effective at the relevant drop size (as you'd expect them to be, as they stop things like atomized and aerosolized paint spray). As far as the eyes, reducing viral load is worthy on its own. Or if you want the proper solution, that is a full face mask. But either way, not having a perfect solution certainly doesn't indicate going in the opposite direction and completely giving up on the idea.

▲

OCASMv2 4 days ago | parent [-]

> not having a perfect solution certainly doesn't indicate going in the opposite direction and completely giving up on the idea.

Having a so-so solution can in fact be worse than nothing since it makes people think they're safe, which leads to much greater exposure than if they thought they were in danger. Promoting ventilation and open-air interaction is a much more effective solutions but the latter was banned and even persecuted.

	▲	mindslight 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You didn't address my core point, and you're still pulling in this odd direction of pointing to the failings of the straightforward approach to justify contrarianism based around doing even less. Ventilation and open-air interaction were also both widely promoted, and widely used for things like social gatherings in parks and outside of homes. There were plenty of situations (eg grocery stores) where they were inapplicable from an individual perspective, hence the masks.