Face Masks

[dann]

Who knows why? Or why they have different coloured masks, I suspect just to make the the picture more exciting. Do all NASA staff wear masks all the time at work?

It's pretty obvious why: It's expensive to send people into orbit, so they try to isolate them from the risk of getting infected in the weeks before ad launch. The color of the respirators is pretty irrelevant. The main thing is to wear one. I have no idea if all NASA staff wear masks all the time. I assume that all NASA staf dealing with the astronauts in person do.

What is the object of the mask? Is it to protect the medical staff from patients? If so the evidence doesn't show that this is a significant risk. The major risk to medical / clinical staff is from friends, family and colleagues in a non-work situation. Masking patients (with simple surgical type masks has been shown to be effective at reducing infection risk. The major risk to patients is not from staff but from other patients, family and friends.

The object of respirators at hospitals is to protect both patients and staff.
Why do you think that the major risk to medical/clinical staff is from friends, family and colleagues in a non-work situation? Is there a study you can refer to? If you were right, one would expect all professions to be exposed to approximately the same risk, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hospital staff (and teachers!) appear to be much more exposed than others. Do you think that's because their friends and acquaintances are more contagious than the friends and acquaintances of people in other professions?
And what makes you think that the major risk to patients is not from staff but from other patients, family and friends? Patients probably see more hospital staff than family and friends, and hospital staff tend to get infected more than others, so, one on one, that would make hospital staff more contagious to patients than others.
I suspect that you don't like the idea that hospital staff infect patients and thus prefer to assume that they don't.
Studies, please, or at least an argument.

You first have to define the problem, only then can you start looking for a solution. Yes FP95 masks do filter air more effectively than simple surgical masks, but there is no point in insisting on a more costly and complicated solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

You also need to go beyond the physics, to the behavioural, will people actually use these masks correctly if not the you lose the benefits.

What makes you think that the problem doesn't exist?
I no longer see anybody with face masks/respirators. If I saw anybody with surgical masks or wearing respirators incorrectly, I would give them credit for trying and tell them what they were doing wrong. As it is, it's hopeless to do more than what I'm doing here.

Kathryn on X, Jan 30, 2026

As has been said, engineering solutions (e.g. ventilation) that aren't dependant on human behaviour are probably better. UK (especially Scottish) readers will be familliar with the issue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mk7kl2rvlo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49235874

It's not a competition! Remember the Swiss cheese model. No single precaution eliminates the risk of contagion entirely. There should be better ventilation and air purification at schools, factories, offices, supermarkets etc. We know that it lowers the level of contagion, but so does masking up.

 

[dann]

That's the same position other posters have taken in other threads, and while it's true, it's irrelevant because it's so utterly impractical.
UK, like NZ, and pretty much every country on the planet, has health services that struggle to cope with existing budgets.
Adding several billion to health budgets for better quality air isn't an option.

Of course, it's an option!
That billionaires and the politicians they pay don't want money to be spent on children, students and workers doesn't make it a non-option.
It just stresses the necessity of doing away with those ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊!
(Unlike the covid conscious people I see on X all the time, I don't argue that there is money to be saved by making children, students and workers less sick. It's a stupid attempt to appeal to the calculations of billionaires and their bribed politicians.)

 

[The Atheist]

Of course, it's an option!
That billionaires and the politicians they pay don't want money to be spent on children, students and workers doesn't make it a non-option.
It just stresses the necessity of doing away with those ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊!
(Unlike the covid conscious people I see on X all the time, I don't argue that there is money to be saved by making children, students and workers less sick. It's a stupid attempt to appeal to the calculations of billionaires and their bribed politicians.)

Idiotic comment.

Nobody's going to take money off the rich to pay for it. Proposing impossible answers is delusional.

 

[zooterkin]

I think the name "surgical mask" gives us a hint that it's not trying to stop the spread of disease.

Does it? What do you think it's trying to stop the spread of, then?