You Probably Should Be Wearing a Face Mask If You Can
kottke.org
kottke.org
And of course, you should wear a mask too -- to protect others.
Had we all worn masks right when this started (simple cloth masks would do) this virus would not have spread so much and so easily.
It includes a variety of evidence for masks, including for impromptu masks and their quality.
Some key points from my linked article:
* You should (like many doctors and care staff) re-use your good quality masks, and the article explains how. (e.g. put it in a breathable bag, like paper, date it, and wait four days)
* If you have a good mask, like an N95, wear a lower quality mask over it, to preserve re-use of the good quality mask.
* For good fit, the mask should not touch the lips.
One of the interesting side effects is that you can smell the ambient ozone when you take it off, since the respirator has been removing it. Don't be fooled, a typical suburban area reeks of ozone, but it's not perceptible because your nose ignores it as background.
Masks are most useful in stopping droplets from people who are actively shedding virus. This is probably the key driver for why in some mask wearing societies transmission is far lower.
Masks are clearly helpful in confined spaces and in the immediate radius of someone who coughed a few seconds ago. These conditions are what medical personnel face daily, hence they wear masks. Similarly people like Uber drivers or grocery clerks likely would benefit if well fitted and they don’t touch their face more.
Masks are maybe useful when around those who aren’t coughing (you make droplets when you breathe or talk) but generally that social distancing 6ft should cover that. Still, if you don’t touch your face more, it doesn’t hurt and might help a little.
Masks aren’t doing a whole lot walking around the street. As you and the article note if a mask makes you touch your face more, it could even be harmful.
In almost all of these cases, social distancing and hand washing is likely far more effective than masks. “Are masks useful?” is a complicated question, but as the article suggests, it’s probably, “a little, wash your hands, keep distant, that helps much more.”
At this point, articles that say that masks increase COVID transmission that do not cite legitimate scientific studies should be considered disinformation, and their authors should be considered potential threats to public health and shunned and/or ignored. We are dealing with a virus that does not respect lofty rhetoric and does not negotiate. It can only be defeated through clear thinking and science.
Anyone who's done any rural polypipe plumbing knows how hard it is to control water flow. Air is harder. None of the DY mask designs I've tried are worth a pinch of the proverbial.
Anyone here know of any better designs? I'm not fussed myself (live in the sticks, very easy to avoid people), but I'd like to make something useful for my elderly mother.
https://www.prusa3d.com/covid19/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2020/03/24/calling-all-...
https://onezero.medium.com/people-around-the-world-are-3d-pr...
https://www.dezeen.com/2020/03/29/creality-3d-printed-buckle...
https://3dprintingcenter.net/2020/03/19/scientists-from-the-...
(Ironically, the only friend I have with a 3d printer is over the nearby NSW/QLD border that has been closed due to the pandemic crisis. Not an insuperable problem however).
I just don't see anything wrong with the standard itself.
KN95 marks that are bought by the Dutch government are not resistant to oily particles (the N stands for Not resistant to oil)[0]; while the European FFP2 standard specifies the mask has to be able to block oil particles [1].
[0]: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/433598O/european-standard...
[1] “Last Saturday, the first shipment from a Chinese manufacturer was delivered in part. These are masks with a KN95 quality certificate.”: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3077428/ne...
Disclaimer: I'm a China national.
>KN95 marks that are bought by the Dutch government are not resistant to oily particles (the N stands for Not resistant to oil)[0]; while the European FFP2 standard specifies the mask has to be able to block oil particles
Both of these statements are contradicted by the scmp article you've linked:
>The problem with the Chinese masks was first discovered by hospitals that received them, with health workers finding the masks did not fit properly [...] Dutch broadcaster NOS cited a source saying that the Chinese face masks were “not FFP2 quality nor of the lesser safety level of FFP1 – some sort of FFP0.8 at best”, meaning they had less than half the filter efficiency required for the FFP2 designation.
Dutch government bought KN95 and tested it against FFP2 and claims it's defective.
Updated to have better sentence structure.
The SCMP article says
>Dutch broadcaster NOS cited a source saying that the Chinese face masks were “not FFP2 quality nor of the lesser safety level of FFP1 – some sort of FFP0.8 at best”,
While I can understand that it can be taken to mean that the masks were subjected to to FFP2 testing (including oil penetration), that would be a very uncharitable/cynical interpretation. A more charitable interpretation of that would be that the FFP2/FFP1 standards are being referenced without oil penetration testing involved, since europe doesn't seem to have separate standards for oil/non-oil like with N95/P95 in north america. This theory is consistent with them comparing against a fictitious standard/rating of FFP0.8.
Also, I did some research myself and found the original statement by the health ministry[1]. It actually made no mention of FFP ratings, and only acknowledged that the masks carried a KN95 rating, and that the masks "did not meet the quality standard", which I've taken to mean KN95 rating, not FFP2 rating. I could not find any source that directly said the masks were tested against FFP2 (with oil penetration) and failed.
[1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2328673-honderdduizenden-chinese-mond...
Am I missing something?
That's a quote by the newspaper, not the government agency. Also like I mentioned earlier, it's understandable to call them "FFP2" masks since the average european reader might not have a point of reference for what (K)N95 is.
But it's all just speculation at this point without more information from the health minister.
* Granted it doesn't differ from the American standard by far.
- you don't know if you're infected
- if you are infected, even a terrible mask like a handkerchief reduces the risk that you'll spread to someone else
You should probably not try to obtain and wear a medical-grade mask if those are in short supply in your region.
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694
>There are 2 main types of masks used to prevent respiratory infection: surgical masks, sometimes referred to as face masks, and respirators. These masks differ by the type and size of infectious particles they are able to filter. Face masks are used more commonly for respiratory viruses that spread via droplets, which travel short distances and are transmitted by cough or sneeze. Face masks often fit loosely, and prevent the wearer from spreading large sprays and droplets, as well as preventing hand-to-face contact. N95 respirators block 95% of airborne particles. They are tight fitting and prevent inhalation of smaller infectious particles that can spread through the air over long distances after an infected person coughs or sneezes
The difference right now is that everyone might be carrying a lethal pathogen that we have no treatments for.
To be fair the article does suggest making your own and then helpfully links to this [1] dead website.
[1] https://www.consumer.org.hk/ws_en/news/specials/2020/mask-di...
Edit: fixed a typo
see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/czechs-get-to-...
I went out today in the second biggest city here in Czech Republic and you can see most people with self made cloth masks, a couple with simple single use disposable masks and just a single person with something looking like a respirator. And zero people without a mask.
https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1242894378441506816
It's been hugged to death.
Here is a cached copy:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oC-tOJ...
and here is a direct link to the embedded video:
And I don't mean this in an abstract way. There are numerous places accepting mask donations right now. If you have a mask, you should donate it. Stat.
Personally, given the vastly greater risk of exposure for them, I don't think it's a zero-sum game at all, which is precisely why all available supplies should go to them first.
So make 10 masks, donate 9, and keep the 10th for yourself.
Remember—your job is to stay six feet away from everyone else, on the off chance they might have the Coranavirus. Doctors and nurses are getting up close with people they know for sure have the Coronavirus, all day, every day.
But more importantly, the masks are disposable! It's not like you can keep one and use it indefinitely.
> if everyone does this, there's 10% fewer masks for doctors than there'd be otherwise
Right, but the point is to make as many as possible, hopefully with a better ratio.
If for some reason I had to spend a lot of time in close proximity to other people, that might merit a homemade mask, but otherwise I think I'd be doing a far better job protecting both of us and everyone else we interact with (in the process of obtaining food and essential supplies) by giving it to my wife before she heads out for her next shift at the hospital.
^[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-...
It's also possible—likely, even—that the severity of the disease in an individual is correlated with the magnitude of the initial infectious dose, and healthcare workers without effective PPE are going to be most at risk for high doses, which will act as a multiplier on the benefits of PPE usage for them. In the analogy, one might compare this to the chance that a stray, tumbling bullet fired in a high arc by the enemy will hit you while you're trying to buy groceries, vs. the chance that a soldier on the front lines will be lethally wounded by a deliberate shot. Who needs the vest more?
As noted here^[1], this is all very much up in the air, but the more I think about it, the more my brain rejects the marginal benefit argument as an illusion. Healthcare workers are on the front lines, and by most accounts it's their labors that'll cut the mortality rate from 10+% to ~1-5%. They need all the help they can get, and the rest of us need them to stay healthy and able to do their jobs.
^[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-...
History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes
There are professionals willing to jump into the water to try and patch the hull so it sinks more slowly, giving everyone time to get airlifted off by helicopter. Unfortunately, they're drowning while attempting the repairs because they're not wearing proper scuba diving gear. Meanwhile, normals are keeping the gear for themselves in the hope it might be easier to swim to safety once the ship goes under.
This isn't a very good analogy—but I hope my point comes through. It's not every person for themselves. We need to help the people trying to help everyone.
I bought in 2014 100 chirurgical masks => they're now expired (and I have ~15 left after giving all others to friends and colleagues after warning them about this) but from what I read the statements were that they can still be effective (not anymore 100% but at least more than 0%, which is more than not wearing anything).
AFAIK locally (Czech Republic) hospitals have accepted donations of respirators and even hand made cloth masks. Maybe something similar is possible with hospitals in your are as well ?
I apologize if you’ve already explored this but I figure it could help others.
First, when testing their masks for their effectiveness, the manufacturers of these masks were certainly not testing them against SARS-CoV-2, as it didn't exist five years ago. Even now, it's very unlikely any manufacturers are testing their masks against SARS-Cov-2. What they were probably testing them against is various toxic fumes and smoke -- the things they're actually rated to be effective against, not viruses.
Second, some filters used in respirator-style masks have charcoal in them, and that charcoal will absorb fumes from the environment while in storage, so depending on what environment a filter is stored in and for how long the charcoal may not be as effective at absorbing various toxic fumes and smoke that these filters were tested for, but for all we know they may still be quite effective against filtering out SARS-CoV-2 viruses.
Third, it's well known that some manufacturers put bogus expiration dates on their products, and the products are good well past the expiry date. This is a phenomenon well known in the food industry. I'm not sure how widespread it is among mask manufacturers, but I wouldn't put it past them to also have unreliable expiry dates.
The CDC has some guidelines regarding the use of expired masks: [1][2] and they approve of the use of some such expired masks. However, it's not clear what tests they actually used to decide on the suitability of such masks, and if these masks were actually tested against SARS-CoV-2. It is pretty unlikely that they had randomized, double-blind trials of hundreds of people wearing masks and hundreds not and exposing them all to SARS-CoV-2 to see which got infected. Their tests were probably much more imperfect, and so their results less reliable.
All in all, there's just too little information to know how effective expired masks are against infection by SARS-CoV-2, but they're probably better than nothing.. especially the ones the CDC has blessed in their research.
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/release-stockpiled...
[2] - https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/FAQ-N95.aspx
We've been donating some of our N95 masks to the local hospital, but I'm not donating all of them. My family is important too.
As for age, I have noticed that the older ones had crumbly rubber foam and the straps are more delicate, but the melt-blown fabric itself seems perfectly fine. We've re-strapped some with new elastic and replaced the foam with closed-cell foam.
There are no masks available to the public now. Realistically if you don't already have a mask your only option is to make one, which is not hard. Go to YouTube and find a video. A couple layers of cotton can work and is much better than nothing, at stopping your droplets from spreading if you sneeze or cough.
If you already have a mask wear it when you go out. No health care worker wants your mask. Wear goggles too.
And yes masks help prevent respiratory infection which is why health care workers wear them.
Stop with the "you shouldn't be wearing one" nonsense. It is false and dangerous.
Many of them are wearing surgical masks. Not N95 masks, true, but not home-made masks either. I don't know where they're getting the masks, but clearly they have some.
Every time I see this, I honestly kind of want to scream at them.
If you want to wrap a piece of fabric around your nose and mouth, by all means, it certainly can't hurt. But if you have a supply of real masks somewhere, you should donate them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/business/coronavirus-mask...
tldr: There is reason to believe that large droplets, not the tiny droplets that N95s are designed to filter, are the primary threat, and any sort of physical barrier between those and your mouth/nose will help.
I see a lot of people saying that we shouldn't wear masks in order to preserve the supply for healthcare workers, but I think this is ridiculous. You need a mask when you go out both to protect yourself and to protect others. A better message is, to preserve the supply for healthcare workers, make your own mask, or use a simple dust mask or a rave mask.
[0]: https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all...
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
Also this blog is Monday morning arm chair medical advice from a blogger, a respectable blogger, but a blogger nonetheless.