Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that airplane ventilation is only good *during flight* (or while engines are running). So boarding, deplaning, and while parked at the gate may be some of the most high-impact times to mask.
I believe this is correct and was widely discussed during the pandemic. I think due to the air being take from the terminal vs via on-board power systems.
This is an interesting take but before I would act on it, I'd want to do a better (or, really, any) estimation of the benefits.
Your intuition that airports are places where you're extra-likely to get sick may be true, but given that they're also relatively large and well-ventilated spaces where you don't spend a lot of time in close contact with others, I'm not sure that intuition is right. If you go out to dinner on your trip, the exposure risks may be as high or higher, and you *can't* mask there. And even if you get sick, is the disease you might pick up via a respiratory pathway *in the airport* (as opposed to fomites, which seem to be an easy way to get rhinoviruses, or something food-borne) likely to be of a severity and incubation period that it'll really ruin your trip?
At least subjectively, speaking as a frequent business traveler before and since the pandemic, I rarely get respiratory illnesses, and when I do they're usually mild (rather than something that would meaningfully impact a vacation if I pop a Sudafed). Even if you somehow assumed that the risk of illness on a trip goes to 0 if I mask up in an airport, it appears to be a pretty low baseline.
Weighed against that, of course, is what's at stake. I'm affluent enough that risking an ordinary vacation is not tantamount to risking missing a child's wedding or some other once-in-a-lifetime event.
On the other hand, I'd gladly take three hours of a cold—including on holiday—over three hours in a mask. Subjectively, I find wearing a mask to be roughly as bad, hour-for-hour, as any respiratory virus I've had. (I know I've been lucky, or my flu shots have worked.)
Bottom line, while masking can make sense as a way to try to stave off serious illness until you can get vaccinated in a pandemic, I don't think it's worthwhile in everyday settings outside one—including airports.
The more interesting point—which you rightly bring out—is that if you look at the broader picture of viral epidemiology, measures like masks are probably a whole lot more effective at keeping you from getting sick *now*—i.e., as a result of a specific exposure, on your dream holiday, or for a few months before you can get vaccinated—than at keeping you from getting a particular circulating virus *ever*. Looked at this way, taking special care to get sick on holiday could make a fair bit of sense.
Agree - I'd prefer to see some estimates of the chance of getting sick in an airport (then could multiply that by dollar value of not getting sick).
My sense is my chance of getting sick is a lot higher per hour (10x?) in bars / restaurants / clubs where people are crowded and speaking loudly, and ventilation is often bad. I can avoid crowds in airports except for a couple of queues.
Also, since air travel is the dominant mode of international travel and therefore international human-to-human disease spread, it makes future pandemics less likely to go global if this is established as a norm!
No, given the exponential spread of pathogens, a norm of masking in airports almost certainly would not have any effect on the likelihood that a pathogen emerging in one part of the world spreads to another.
We saw this in COVID—even things like near-bans on international travel and strict quarantines could barely do it.
No, given the exponential spread of pathogens, a norm of masking in airports almost certainly would not have any effect on the likelihood that a pathogen emerging in one part of the world spreads to another.
We saw this in COVID—even things like near-bans on international travel and strict quarantines could barely do it.
No, given the exponential spread of pathogens, a norm of masking in airports almost certainly would not have any effect on the likelihood that a pathogen emerging in one part of the world spreads to another.
We saw this in COVID—even things like near-bans on international travel and strict quarantines could barely do it.
This is probably pretty good to have as a social norm too, since most of the benefits of masking go to other people (who you don't get sick) instead of to you.
What about wearing mask on a plane? I got COVID once sitting in front of one coughing passenger on a 40min flight. Regretted not wearing a mask. Never thought of wearing a mask in the airport - but also never got sick after flying (I do a bunch of short and long haul flights per year).
imo the argument applies pretty well to just wearing masks in public everywhere. I got what I think was covid by sitting next to someone at a wedding a few months ago who turned out to be sick. Don't know how to generalize the rule because I wouldn't have wanted to spend the wedding masked!
Yeah, that's it! Whenever you are in a large event with strangers from everywhere is when the likelihood is the highest. Personally I accept the risk of getting sick, and wear a mask if I am sick (and need to be out).
I think the issue with this reasoning is that, while it is all sound, no one thinks it's a bad idea to avoid getting sick, or needs convincing that getting sick while travelling is both bad and likely. They just don't believe, for one reason or another, that masks will prevent that.
You’d have to pay me to wear a respirator like this. I don’t think there’s good evidence that anything short of this professional grade mask with proper fitting, which virtually no one knows how to do, does the work you’re alleging. But this is not a minor inconvenience. It’s an actual burden on top of an already miserable experience. People will pay for marginal improvements—preboarding, extra legroom. No wonder they’re not masking. I don’t unless I’m sick. Because it sucks and there’s no solid evidence it does much good.
A *well-fitted respirator* is more effective than vaccines at preventing infection and transmission but, unlike vaccines, won’t have any effect on illness conditional on infection. Most masks, which are what most people would wear if your advice were normalized in practice, hardly affect transmission and infection risks.
Half-remembered stats from the pandemic itself, could look into more current numbers. My general impression is that the vax protects me and others more than a mask
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection is much lower with recent SARS-COV-2 variants than at the time it was first deployed. It also varies in effectiveness depending on the time since your last dose (increasing over the first few weeks and then declining dramatically over 4-6 months). So, to me it's not obvious that you can make a rigorous straightforward comparison between them, because there are more variables involved with the vaccine than the N95 (assuming that it's well-fitted and worn correctly).
That data has been outdated since around 2021/2022. The vaccine generally provides fairly strong protection against infection for maybe 2-3 months, but wanes quickly by 3-4 months. It’s getting harder for the general population to get vaccinated, and very few people are getting a booster twice a year or more.
Most people will have basically no protection against infection for most of the year, even if they get the recommended booster.
I find it very hard to find reliable comparisons on this, but I just did a quick ChatGPT deep research prompt and this is what it says about it:
> The statement “the vaccine is equivalent to wearing an N95” is not supported by the data. Even the best vaccines (latest boosters) only halve infection risk, whereas N95 use (if worn properly) can cut risk by well over two-thirds. In plain terms, vaccination reduces infection risk but not to the same extent as continuous N95 use. Hence, a vaccinated person is still more likely to avoid infection if they also wear an N95, and vaccines alone cannot be equated with always wearing an N95.
I'd say that to me, at least, reducing odds by 2/3 is comparable to reducing them by 1/2 — but then I'm an order-of-magnitudes, "pi is three" sorta guy.
I think an important difference is that vaccine protection is hard to modify at the individual level, but if you find a mask that fits you well, do a cheap at home fit test with bitrex, and get to clean air before you remove your mask your protection is going to be much higher than any kind of average use scenario.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that airplane ventilation is only good *during flight* (or while engines are running). So boarding, deplaning, and while parked at the gate may be some of the most high-impact times to mask.
I believe this is correct and was widely discussed during the pandemic. I think due to the air being take from the terminal vs via on-board power systems.
This is an interesting take but before I would act on it, I'd want to do a better (or, really, any) estimation of the benefits.
Your intuition that airports are places where you're extra-likely to get sick may be true, but given that they're also relatively large and well-ventilated spaces where you don't spend a lot of time in close contact with others, I'm not sure that intuition is right. If you go out to dinner on your trip, the exposure risks may be as high or higher, and you *can't* mask there. And even if you get sick, is the disease you might pick up via a respiratory pathway *in the airport* (as opposed to fomites, which seem to be an easy way to get rhinoviruses, or something food-borne) likely to be of a severity and incubation period that it'll really ruin your trip?
At least subjectively, speaking as a frequent business traveler before and since the pandemic, I rarely get respiratory illnesses, and when I do they're usually mild (rather than something that would meaningfully impact a vacation if I pop a Sudafed). Even if you somehow assumed that the risk of illness on a trip goes to 0 if I mask up in an airport, it appears to be a pretty low baseline.
Weighed against that, of course, is what's at stake. I'm affluent enough that risking an ordinary vacation is not tantamount to risking missing a child's wedding or some other once-in-a-lifetime event.
On the other hand, I'd gladly take three hours of a cold—including on holiday—over three hours in a mask. Subjectively, I find wearing a mask to be roughly as bad, hour-for-hour, as any respiratory virus I've had. (I know I've been lucky, or my flu shots have worked.)
Bottom line, while masking can make sense as a way to try to stave off serious illness until you can get vaccinated in a pandemic, I don't think it's worthwhile in everyday settings outside one—including airports.
This is interesting, I don’t like masking but I very much prefer it to being sick
The tradeoff isn't 1:1 anyway.
The more interesting point—which you rightly bring out—is that if you look at the broader picture of viral epidemiology, measures like masks are probably a whole lot more effective at keeping you from getting sick *now*—i.e., as a result of a specific exposure, on your dream holiday, or for a few months before you can get vaccinated—than at keeping you from getting a particular circulating virus *ever*. Looked at this way, taking special care to get sick on holiday could make a fair bit of sense.
Agree - I'd prefer to see some estimates of the chance of getting sick in an airport (then could multiply that by dollar value of not getting sick).
My sense is my chance of getting sick is a lot higher per hour (10x?) in bars / restaurants / clubs where people are crowded and speaking loudly, and ventilation is often bad. I can avoid crowds in airports except for a couple of queues.
I think you're over thinking.
Your intuition about airports definitely should depend on the airport. I fly between SEA and SFO all the time, and I think a mask is probably unneccessary in SFO's B gates, given the wide and high-ceilinged spaces (https://www.hksinc.com/our-news/articles/first-nine-gates-of-hks-designed-boarding-area-b-at-sfos-harvey-milk-terminal-1-open/), but a mask would be much more useful in a small and crowded area like SEA's D gates (https://youtu.be/uGUOGX0gd9c?si=Q7ddyYO9vIBKUVmV).
Also, since air travel is the dominant mode of international travel and therefore international human-to-human disease spread, it makes future pandemics less likely to go global if this is established as a norm!
No, given the exponential spread of pathogens, a norm of masking in airports almost certainly would not have any effect on the likelihood that a pathogen emerging in one part of the world spreads to another.
We saw this in COVID—even things like near-bans on international travel and strict quarantines could barely do it.
No, given the exponential spread of pathogens, a norm of masking in airports almost certainly would not have any effect on the likelihood that a pathogen emerging in one part of the world spreads to another.
We saw this in COVID—even things like near-bans on international travel and strict quarantines could barely do it.
No, given the exponential spread of pathogens, a norm of masking in airports almost certainly would not have any effect on the likelihood that a pathogen emerging in one part of the world spreads to another.
We saw this in COVID—even things like near-bans on international travel and strict quarantines could barely do it.
> see almost no one doing
I do this!
This is probably pretty good to have as a social norm too, since most of the benefits of masking go to other people (who you don't get sick) instead of to you.
What about wearing mask on a plane? I got COVID once sitting in front of one coughing passenger on a 40min flight. Regretted not wearing a mask. Never thought of wearing a mask in the airport - but also never got sick after flying (I do a bunch of short and long haul flights per year).
imo the argument applies pretty well to just wearing masks in public everywhere. I got what I think was covid by sitting next to someone at a wedding a few months ago who turned out to be sick. Don't know how to generalize the rule because I wouldn't have wanted to spend the wedding masked!
Yeah, that's it! Whenever you are in a large event with strangers from everywhere is when the likelihood is the highest. Personally I accept the risk of getting sick, and wear a mask if I am sick (and need to be out).
I think the issue with this reasoning is that, while it is all sound, no one thinks it's a bad idea to avoid getting sick, or needs convincing that getting sick while travelling is both bad and likely. They just don't believe, for one reason or another, that masks will prevent that.
Great take, but what if you work at an airport 😬
Scary Halloween masking makes sense too. No Trump masks though. They'll make you sick.
Thanks for this, Andy.
I don't mind masking - it is way better than being sick.
Anne, though, can't really mask all the time when working with her special-needs students. (And that's how I've gotten sick...)
My first few years of teaching were a constant wave of new exciting maladies
You’d have to pay me to wear a respirator like this. I don’t think there’s good evidence that anything short of this professional grade mask with proper fitting, which virtually no one knows how to do, does the work you’re alleging. But this is not a minor inconvenience. It’s an actual burden on top of an already miserable experience. People will pay for marginal improvements—preboarding, extra legroom. No wonder they’re not masking. I don’t unless I’m sick. Because it sucks and there’s no solid evidence it does much good.
Pretty interesting gulf in the comments between people saying masks are more effective than vaccines and masks mostly don't work
A *well-fitted respirator* is more effective than vaccines at preventing infection and transmission but, unlike vaccines, won’t have any effect on illness conditional on infection. Most masks, which are what most people would wear if your advice were normalized in practice, hardly affect transmission and infection risks.
"I see the vaccine as equivalent to wearing an N95 all the time anyway" Could you elaborate on this?
If the N95 reduces my risk by 80% and the mask does too, the two are effectively identical.
I assume you mean "the vaccine does too" but where did you get those numbers from?
Half-remembered stats from the pandemic itself, could look into more current numbers. My general impression is that the vax protects me and others more than a mask
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection is much lower with recent SARS-COV-2 variants than at the time it was first deployed. It also varies in effectiveness depending on the time since your last dose (increasing over the first few weeks and then declining dramatically over 4-6 months). So, to me it's not obvious that you can make a rigorous straightforward comparison between them, because there are more variables involved with the vaccine than the N95 (assuming that it's well-fitted and worn correctly).
That data has been outdated since around 2021/2022. The vaccine generally provides fairly strong protection against infection for maybe 2-3 months, but wanes quickly by 3-4 months. It’s getting harder for the general population to get vaccinated, and very few people are getting a booster twice a year or more.
Most people will have basically no protection against infection for most of the year, even if they get the recommended booster.
I find it very hard to find reliable comparisons on this, but I just did a quick ChatGPT deep research prompt and this is what it says about it:
> The statement “the vaccine is equivalent to wearing an N95” is not supported by the data. Even the best vaccines (latest boosters) only halve infection risk, whereas N95 use (if worn properly) can cut risk by well over two-thirds. In plain terms, vaccination reduces infection risk but not to the same extent as continuous N95 use. Hence, a vaccinated person is still more likely to avoid infection if they also wear an N95, and vaccines alone cannot be equated with always wearing an N95.
Here's the full response with references https://chatgpt.com/s/dr_69053af66ab881918f68ff080a546e47
I'd say that to me, at least, reducing odds by 2/3 is comparable to reducing them by 1/2 — but then I'm an order-of-magnitudes, "pi is three" sorta guy.
I think an important difference is that vaccine protection is hard to modify at the individual level, but if you find a mask that fits you well, do a cheap at home fit test with bitrex, and get to clean air before you remove your mask your protection is going to be much higher than any kind of average use scenario.
is this opinion or based on some research evidence? thanks
Opinion
Can I ask why you like that mask in particular?
Especially comfy and reusable. It's kind of the go-to long lasting mask among some friends. Others are just as good.
Blast, their large size is out of stock! (Though perhaps that was CAUSED by this post...)