Skip Navigation

Face mask effectiveness: What science knows now

www.cbsnews.com

Face mask effectiveness: What science knows now

In an interview for 60 Minutes, CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook posed that question to Linsey Marr, a Virginia Tech University professor specializing in aerosol science.

"They are very helpful in reducing the chances that the person will get COVID because it's reducing the amount of virus that you would inhale from the air around you," Marr said about masks.

No mask is 100% effective. An N95, for example, is named as such because it is at least 95 percent efficient at blocking airborne particles when used properly. But even if a mask has an 80% efficiency, Marr said, it still offers meaningful protection.

"That greatly reduces the chance that I'm going to become infected," Marr said.

Marr said research shows that high-quality masks can block particles that are the same size as those carrying the coronavirus. Masks work, Marr explained, as a filter, not as a sieve. Virus particles must weave around the layers of fibers, and as they do so, they may crash into those fibers and become trapped.

Marr likened it to running through a forest of trees. Walk slowly, and the surrounding is easy to navigate. But being forced through a forest at a high speed increases the likelihood of running into a tree.

"Masks, even cloth masks, do something," she said.

Not that I expect most people to believe it at this point...

137 comments
  • Assuming a mask blocks 50% of particles or droplets in either direction (preventing yours from escaping if you're sick, preventing outside particles from getting to you), when 2 people wear masks that reduces the chances of transmission in a given retail encounter by 75%.

    Reducing those odds by that much, when (from an epidemiological POV) the biggest math factor is to drive the r number down below 1, it's a huge deal. If you do that consistently, the virus becomes rarer and rarer and has fewer opportunities to mutate and more importantly, you're feeding fewer and fewer human beings to it.

  • The problem isn't that "most people" won't believe it. The problem is that there is very little conversion of people who didn't already believe it. The ones who most need to understand this will flat out refuse to believe any kind of science on the matter, because being right is what is most important to them. Admitting they were wrong just isn't going to happen.

    • That is part on Survival of the Fitist. Masks were a key component of that, as more intelligent humans wore masks during the peak of the infection. Within the human population with COVID-19, then, the “fittest” are individuals who mount a normal phase 1 and phase 2 immune response. This means a strong immune response in phase 1 to clear the primary coronavirus infection and inhibit its spread in the lungs. Those who have never had COVID-19 scientificly are the superior humans on a immunity scale. More likely to reproduce and pass those genes onto future generations. The less intelligent humans who refused to wear masks and didn't have strong immune responses died off, allowing more fit humans to reproduce thus saving humanity.

      • This argument (if it is not sarcastic, it's hard to tell on the Internet) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and instead uses the language of social darwinism like "superior human".

        Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Furthermore, it doesn't have a "goal," it is just a natural process. Also, there are numerous ways different immune responses could be either advantageous or detrimental when combined with other variables.

        I'm also not convinced that intelligence correlates to refusal to mask; as a counterpoint, smart people are also very good at justifying whatever position they already hold.

        You won't find most modern biologist using the phrase "survival of the fittest," because it's more confusing than illuminating. The preferred expression is "natural selection."

  • This means nothing. I'd be willing to bet that anyone unwilling to wear a mask is also unwilling to listen to science/medical experts.

    • Yeah... you've either got people who absolutely refuse to believe masks are effective, or you've got people that are so done with the whole thing that they just don't care anymore. Hearing an expert say they work isn't going to convince either of these groups to wear them.

137 comments