When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so, the masks won’t go in the trash. In the meantime, I’d you have the masks to spare, you -should- be using them safely. Masks are pointless if you use them in a way that will get you sick.
It seems to me that pretty much every society has struggled to deal with this. Perhaps because it isn't something that has many reasonable direct analogues in our collective experience?
It is very easy to spot deficiencies after the fact. Much harder to spot them before.
There's the data and very clear recommendations by the CDC on when and how to do it. Whats' the confusing part? I don't think anyone is suggesting this approach during non-crisis times.
There are multiple sterilizing procedures, and multiple material compositions for masks. Which ones were you referring to?
The TLDR is 70°C heat for 30 mins. Avoid alcohol, it kills the static charge in the mask fibres.
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fstanfordmedicine...
There’s no plausible mechanism of action for masks under which this is true. A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of particles which is less than the kind of hazmat spacesuit with face shield and positive air pressure you’d ideally be wearing if working with someone with Ebola or similar. Maybe it really is impossible to get proper fit on a reused mask. Perhaps it’s only as good as a normal surgical mask which blocks just under 90% of virus sized particles.
Every reduction in the amount of virus that gets into your lungs makes it less likely that you’ll get infected and if infected gives your immune system more time to ramp up. That’s why people care about viral load. Running through someone’s cough is less likely to kill you than being in a small poorly ventilated room with someone coughing uncontrollably for minutes at a time.
[0] https://www.battelle.org/inb/battelle-critical-care-decontam...
[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/02/metro/boston-hospital...