> the fact that you thought this at all shows that we're well into "brainwashing" territory with this mask nonsense.
I don't agree with that. As noted, blood oxygen levels for most people are not changed by mask wearing (presumably, most of us just add the extra 20-30% effort to keep the airflow up and/or were nowhere near close to requiring the full breath).
> once you have tried it, there should be zero doubt in your mind that your breathing airflow is affected
As some comments in the main thread here have noted, masks like the 3M Aura+ (which I've been wearing for a few months now) really do not have much impact on breathing airflow. My actual experience of wearing KN95's and N95's even while running is that I do not feel that my airflow is impacted at all. My mistake was to combine that actual personal experience together with data on physiological state while wearing masks (not changed much in most people) and make the false claim that there was no impact on airflow.
Some of those comments noted that the construction and fit of the mask can make a huge difference - damp cloth masks, for example, do seem to have an outsize impact. I have never used cloth masks during the pandemic, and I live in an exceedingly dry climate, so people I know who have worn them have not commented much on the effects of them being damp.
So, no, I do not agree that what I said (even while actually false) was "obviously contradictory to reality".
when you put a thing over your nose and mouth, it negatively affects how well you can breathe. depending on the material and how much you're currently breathing (exerting yourself or not, healthy or not), it may be a little, it may be a lot. this is basic common sense intuition, and propaganda about the effectiveness and/or necessity of masks of any description should not preclude you from continuing to hold these basic observable truths in your mind.
> presumably, most of us just add the extra 20-30% effort to keep the airflow up and/or were nowhere near close to requiring the full breath
how can this be considered negligible under any circumstances? even if the observed difference in effort required seems negligible for you personally, why would it be the same for everyone? I can think of many, many reasons why 20–30% additional effort to breathe can be extremely impactful for many different people with different personal circumstances.
Put a tennis racket in front of your face. Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is clearly no.
Put a plastic bag over the your nose and mouth? Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is clear yes.
Put a food sieve over your mouth and nose. Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is probably no, but there's room for doubt.
Clearly, something placed over your mouth and nose does not necessarily impede airflow - it depends on the properties of the material it is made of. Some materials obviously have no impact, some have a lot, others are inbetween.
So the question is: why you conclude without careful measurement that a given mask would impede airflow? Presumably you have some intuition about the material and what you know about its properties ("It stops X percent of all particles above a certain size!") that lead you to conclude that it's somewhere between a food sieve and plastic bag, rather than a tennis racket and a food sieve. But there's no "common sense" here. How can Goretex fabric allow water vapor to pass freely, but not allow water in liquid phase to pass at all? You cannot explain that using common sense, but again, you have some intuition that you can use common sense to reason about the properties of masks.
I should also stress that the 20-30% number comes from a 2009 paper on the reduction in airflow. The increase in breathing effort could be less than that, unchanged or more than that, depending on a large number of factors. Example: sitting on a sofa in a comfortable temperature and being very relaxed ... you are already breathing fairly shallowly, and the increase required to overcome whatever effect the mask has will move you only to a condition you are in very regularly anyway, and so will likely be unnoticeable (there's also the "X percent of a small number is a small number" aspect). By contrast, if you are exercising near V02max levels and in excellent cardiovascular condition, you are likely already breathing almost as hard as you can, and so breathing harder due to reduced airflow is likely to challenging to impossible.
I don't agree with that. As noted, blood oxygen levels for most people are not changed by mask wearing (presumably, most of us just add the extra 20-30% effort to keep the airflow up and/or were nowhere near close to requiring the full breath).
> once you have tried it, there should be zero doubt in your mind that your breathing airflow is affected
As some comments in the main thread here have noted, masks like the 3M Aura+ (which I've been wearing for a few months now) really do not have much impact on breathing airflow. My actual experience of wearing KN95's and N95's even while running is that I do not feel that my airflow is impacted at all. My mistake was to combine that actual personal experience together with data on physiological state while wearing masks (not changed much in most people) and make the false claim that there was no impact on airflow.
Some of those comments noted that the construction and fit of the mask can make a huge difference - damp cloth masks, for example, do seem to have an outsize impact. I have never used cloth masks during the pandemic, and I live in an exceedingly dry climate, so people I know who have worn them have not commented much on the effects of them being damp.
So, no, I do not agree that what I said (even while actually false) was "obviously contradictory to reality".