Science: no good reason to wear a mask while running

Correct. But some people don't follow the science.

Also science: no good reason NOT to wear a mask when running.

That applies to every article of clothing that you wear while running. You may choose to wear a pink cotton t-shirt and I choose to to wear a white technical race shirt. You wear Brooks while I wear Nike. Since there is no science that says there is no good reason for you not to wear Nikes, are you going to start wearing them?

more science wrote:

Also science: no good reason NOT to wear a mask when running.

Is this honestly your argument? For one, it’s completely facile.

For two, there are plenty of good reasons not to wear a mask running, among them that it really sucks to wear a mask running, spreads baseless fear of being outdoors, pits superstitious outdoor-maskers against data-following outdoor-unmaskers, undermines pro-science-and-data messaging, and disincentivizes people from partaking in a safe and healthy activity.

In fact, the WHO recommends against mask wearing during intense exercise.

That doesn't mean that large maskless races or group workouts are safe, but when running alone, don't wear a mask.

real info wrote:

In fact, the WHO recommends against mask wearing during intense exercise.

That doesn't mean that large maskless races or group workouts are safe, but when running alone, don't wear a mask.

The CDC advises against masks during exercise as well, albeit in a mealy-mouthed sort of way and a lot more quietly than WHO does.

"Science"

"I think it stands to reason that..."

Notice the difference?

How about having one handy where you just raise if you pass someone or someone passes within an arm's length, is that still so cumbersome?

yes, it's dumb wrote:

"Science"

"I think it stands to reason that..."

Notice the difference?

There’s tons of large-scale research showing outdoor spread among pedestrians is of essentially zero risk. It hasn’t been shown to be happening on any nontrivial scale anywhere on earth. This new data is just the latest.

It’s just not the right science to fit the fear narrative, so it gets buried.

Cool, so maybe cite some of that research and help educate people, instead of including an almost entirely irrelevant link and then misrepresenting its contents?

I agree that, as far as I'm aware, there isn't good evidence that outdoor transmission has been a big problem. And I generally don't wear a mask when I run, given that I'm running in places where keeping distance from people isn't a big problem. I'm not aware of research showing "essentially zero risk," particularly in contexts where one infected runner might pass tens or hundreds of pedestrians/individual pedestrians might get passed by multiple infected runners. I'd be happy to learn of some if it exists.

this is dumb, right? wrote:

Science: no good reason to wear a mask running

So i think we have drilled down into this sufficient to say that this statement is faulty.

I've looked up CDC and WHO recommendation and they do note that exercise outdoors should be done so as to maintain safe distance from others.

And while they may recommend outdoor exercise without a mask could be done while maintaining safe distances, they wouldn't say there is no good reason. Even a one percent chance of transmission may be a good reason. Science doesn't deal with qualitative judgements like this. They deal with probabllities, and any probability of a transmission would be a reason.

But not to split hairs, i think the key take away is that social distancing is still a key component of prevention when exercising out doors.

And i should add, if an exerciseror runner cannot maintain proper social distancing outdoors, wearing the mask would most definitely be a very good reason for wearing it.

Do you carry a condom when you run and flash it at people to advertise that you have safe sex?

That's your best analogy? Try harder.

We don't need to try harder. The mask advocates need to try harder if you want to convince exercisers to wear them. We are not trying to convince you not to wear one. You don't seem to understand that.

College is better wrote:

We don't need to try harder. The mask advocates need to try harder if you want to convince exercisers to wear them. We are not trying to convince you not to wear one. You don't seem to understand that.

"We don't need to try harder. The no-arsenic-in-the-water advocates need to try harder if you want to convince us not to put arsenic in the water. We are not trying to convince you to put your arsenic in the water. You don't seem to understand that."

yes, it's dumb wrote:

Cool, so maybe cite some of that research and help educate people, instead of including an almost entirely irrelevant link and then misrepresenting its contents?

.

This large study found rare instances of transmission at outdoor events with long-duration crowding, but that’s it.

“There were virtually no cases (out of 25,000 studied) that we could identify that took place in sort of everyday life outdoors,” study author Mike Weed, a professor and researcher at Canterbury Christ Church University, said.

seattle prattle wrote:

this is dumb, right? wrote:

Science: no good reason to wear a mask running

So i think we have drilled down into this sufficient to say that this statement is faulty.

The only "good reason" to wear a mask is if your idea of a rigorous scientific rationale is "better safe than sorry."

If researchers could find 0 cases stemming from "everyday life outdoors" out of 25,000 cases, we know that case prevalence from these situations is somewhere between 0% and 0.004%.

At that extremely minimal level of risk, the negatives associated with outdoor mask wearing seem to clearly outweigh the practically non-existent benefits.

this is dumb, right wrote:

This large study found rare instances of transmission at outdoor events with long-duration crowding, but that’s it.

Yeah, that's a non-peer-reviewed study, literally funded by ParkRun, that consisted of the researchers googling "covid outdoor transmission" to see what came up and then typing it up into a paper.

But more importantly, they never mention how many of those 25,000 cases mentioned in your quote had their mode of transmission identified. If we know how all 25,000 got infected, and none of them were in outdoor everyday life, that's useful info. If we only know how 5,000 got infected, and if indoor transmissions are easier to identify than outdoor transmissions, then it's almost entirely meaningless.

Which would explain why all the independent experts quoted in your links keep saying basically, "Outdoors is probably a lot safer than indoors, but there's still a risk and we don't know how exactly how big it is."