Masks, Myths, and the Spread of Misinformation
By Kristin Levine
Before I started working at the Dynamic Online Networks Lab, an interdisciplinary group at George Washington University that studies the spread of contentious topics on the internet, I felt pretty good about my ability to identify online misinformation. I assumed it would look like a web page created in someone’s basement in 1996. There would be spelling errors and hand-drawn graphs; it would be obvious that site was not to be believed. However, it turns out I was wrong.
Recently I was online, conducting research on COVID-19, and stumbled onto a page with nine boxes, arranged Brady Brunch style. Eight of the boxes filled with smiling faces — white, black, old, young, long hair, and short. My first thought was that I had somehow linked to a diversity education website, promoting harmony in the school or workplace. Below the pictures were the words, “We want to see the smiles of our fellow citizens again.” Aww, I thought, how sweet.
However, in the ninth box, in the lower left-hand corner, was a simple drawing of a facemask — with a line drawn through it. “Wearing facemasks is pointless in the fight against COVID-19,” I read further on. Oh, I suddenly realized, this is an anti-mask website. But it looked so official with vibrant colors and carefully edited text.
When I scrolled down, I saw a crisp graphic, a large blue circle, which was labeled “pore size in an N95 mask.” Next to it was a much smaller red circle labeled “Corona-Virus SARS-CoV2.” A caption pointed out that the pores in the mask are much larger than the virus. “Wearing a mask,” the site argued, “is like using a chain link fence to try to stop a fly.”
At first glance, it seemed pretty convincing. The pictures were so professional, the graphs so clearly labeled. Was the coronavirus actually smaller than the pores in a mask? Still, something felt wrong. The site also listed an upcoming event with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — who I knew was a prominent anti-vaccine activist. I didn’t trust his scientific advice on vaccines, so I decided to investigate further. I googled “cdc masks.”
The page that came up was entitled, “How to Select, Wear, and Clean Your Mask.” It also had a diverse set of people in little square photos, but they were masked this time. The CDC also had a logo: “Wear a mask, protect others.” I scanned the page, but there was nothing on the CDC site about pore sizes. Maybe I hadn’t been specific enough in my search.
Next, I googled, “cdc masks pore sizes.” The first result was a 14 page pdf entitled “Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection” complete with math equations. Sigh. Now personally, I think math is pretty cool, but most people won’t voluntarily read an article with math equations. In fact, the first 4 sites listed were quite technical and did not provide a fast and easy answer to my pore question. The fifth result was actually another an anti-mask article. Should I stop researching and just believe what I read on the first site?
I went back to check it out again and this time, noticed their “Shop,” which selling cute T-shirts and mugs with ant-masks saying printed on them. Now, most scientists I know don’t spend too much time creating swag (though maybe they should) so that made me a little suspicious. I got more specific, googling: “are pores in n95 mask bigger than covid-19.”
This time, the first result was a fact checking article from USA Today. And it actually answered my question! It IS true that the corona virus is around .1 microns, as stated on the dubious website. It is also true that the N95 mask pores are around .3 microns. However, groups who then state that wearing a mask is like, “trying to stop a fly with a chain link fence” aren’t understanding the whole story.
The COVID-19 virus is always bonded to something larger, like water droplets or aerosols, which are larger than 1 micron. So they won’t fit through the pores in a mask. A virus particle does not float around in the air by itself. Second, the pores in an N95 mask are least effective around 0.3 microns — they actually do a better job of trapping both larger and small particles. There’s something called “Brownian motion” — which basically mean the really tiny particles move around in a zig-zag type of motion, making it more likely that the mask fibers will catch them.
I finally found an explanation of why masks work that made sense to me. But why had it been so hard to find?
The CDC’s website is actually really detailed and extensive. The “Mask Section” has pages on selecting, wearing, washing, and making them. There’s even a page called “Considerations for Wearing Masks,” where it addresses the question of masks with exhalation values or vents (don’t wear them!) It would be easy to rebrand the page — to call it “Myths about mask” or “Questions about mask”, making it a catchall place for dealing with common misconceptions.
In fact, researchers I work with at George Washington University recently published a study suggesting that when mainstream public health officials only focus on a limited number of topics, they may might actually be having the unintended effect of helping to spread misinformation. Taking the time to directly address falsehoods, making the effort to come up with the nuanced and sometimes complicated explanation science requires isn’t easy; but it’s not impossible. And the scientific community has a responsibility to try, because addressing misinformation directly, rather than ignoring it, may actually be the best way to prevent its spread.
