Masks

millb

everlast75 wrote: »

Given the leaning towards the wearing of masks, have the contributors of this thread settled on the best masks to get, in terms of efficiency and value for money?

Any advice in that regard would be very much appreciated.

Make your own. Just google it . FYI it is amazing value.

barrymanilow

Yes: other

just wondering , what would you say is the percentage of people you have noticed wearing masks in supermarkets at this point ?

Also have you seen people wear eye protection too ?

My own logic is that I might wear a mask but I wont go with eye protection as unlike the nose and mouth the eyes are not constantly sucking in and exhaling the atmosphere around them. I'd say I would only ever wear protective eye-wear if I expected to be sneezed at directly or was someone directly caring for a sick person.

khalessi

Yes: surgical

barrymanilow wrote: »

just wondering , what would you say is the percentage of people you have noticed wearing masks in supermarkets at this point ?

Also have you seen people wear eye protection too ?

My own logic is that I might wear a mask but I wont go with eye protection as unlike the nose and mouth the eyes are not constantly sucking in and exhaling the atmosphere around them. I'd say I would only ever wear protective eye-wear if I expected to be sneezed at directly or was someone directly caring for a sick person.

I am seeing more and more with masks and a couple with plastic glasses that go over glasses. I have goggles havent worn them to shops but do wear wraparound sunglasses

riffmongous

McGiver wrote: »

Anywhere in public is what Czechia, Slovakia and Austria did. It's a bit extreme, but it's good. I would be OK with Irish gov recommending/mandating masks in closed spaces - shops, stores, public transport etc as a minimum.

Austria isn't anywhere in public yet, it's just shops and public transport

maninasia

Yes: homemade

Watch this video of aerosol experiments in Japan to understand why we need to wear masks.

You won't find better anywhere. It shows the behaviour of droplets of various sizes in different conditions .

https://vimeo.com/402609291

Arrival

barrymanilow wrote: »

just wondering , what would you say is the percentage of people you have noticed wearing masks in supermarkets at this point ?

Also have you seen people wear eye protection too ?

My own logic is that I might wear a mask but I wont go with eye protection as unlike the nose and mouth the eyes are not constantly sucking in and exhaling the atmosphere around them. I'd say I would only ever wear protective eye-wear if I expected to be sneezed at directly or was someone directly caring for a sick person.

Since aerosols can stay airborne for 30+ minutes, if an infected person coughed or sneezed anywhere near where you end up walking, even long after they've left, you could easily end up walking into and through those infected aerosols. So regardless of whether it's through your mouth, nose or eyes, they're likely to get into you

Bob24

Arrival wrote: »

Since aerosols can stay airborne for 30+ minutes, if an infected person coughed or sneezed anywhere near where you end up walking, even long after they've left, you could easily end up walking into and through those infected aerosols. So regardless of whether it's through your mouth, nose or eyes, they're likely to get into you

Agree with that, but on the other hand I still think masks are much more useful to the general public than protective glasses for 2 reasons:
- even in the situation you describe, the mouth and nose are much more likely to cause an infection than the eyes (again I am absolutely agreeing the eyes can cause it as well and thus protective glasses will reduce chances of infection, but comparatively to a mask this is a smaller effect in terms of reducing chances of infection)
- a masks is very efficient at preventing infected people from contaminating others, whereas glasses do have any benefit related to this

So based on this my view is that protective glasses are a bonus the member of the public who want extra protection* while masks should be mandatory.


* and of course glasses are a must-wear for people who are very exposed such as healthcare workers.

paddy19

No: I don't care enough

Arrival wrote: »

Since aerosols can stay airborne for 30+ minutes, if an infected person coughed or sneezed anywhere near where you end up walking, even long after they've left, you could easily end up walking into and through those infected aerosols. So regardless of whether it's through your mouth, nose or eyes, they're likely to get into you

Your are obviously entitled to you opinion but that's all it is no better than my opinion which is that wearing masks outdoors is far from proven.

Peer reviewed scientific evidence I will happy read but opinions are just that, opinions, even if they come from a supposed expert.

In a variation of that famous phrase, "show me the peer reviewed evidence".

Arrival

Bob24 wrote: »

Agree with that, but on the other hand I still think masks are much more useful to the general public than protective glasses for 2 reasons:
- even in the situation you describe, the mouth and nose are much more likely to cause an infection than the eyes (again I am absolutely agreeing the eyes can cause it as well and thus protective glasses will reduce chances of infection, but comparatively to a mask this is a smaller effect in terms of reducing chances of infection)
- a masks is very efficient at preventing infected people from contaminating others, whereas glasses do have any benefit related to this

So based on this my view is that protective glasses are a bonus for the member of the public who want extra protection* while masks should be mandatory.


* and of course glasses are a must-wear for people who are very exposed such as healthcare workers.

And I literally didn't even imply otherwise, just explaining the logic of wearing goggles as well as a mask, didn't bring anything up about using one or the other exclusively

Arrival

paddy19 wrote: »

Your are obviously entitled to you opinion but that's all it is no better than my opinion which is that wearing masks outdoors is far from proven.

Peer reviewed scientific evidence I will happy read but opinions are just that, opinions, even if they come from a supposed expert.

In a variation of that famous phrase, "show me the peer reviewed evidence".

You should probably stop reading this thread then, since you making posts like this is redundant at this stage. Check back in in another couple of weeks or so, maybe there'll be one available then, who knows

Wibbs

Yes: other

paddy19 wrote: »

Your are obviously entitled to you opinion but that's all it is no better than my opinion which is that wearing masks outdoors is far from proven.

Peer reviewed scientific evidence I will happy read but opinions are just that, opinions, even if they come from a supposed expert.

In a variation of that famous phrase, "show me the peer reviewed evidence".

I've already done so in a reply to you, but you seem not to want to read or hear it. You have made your mind up. Read the AMA with the consultant doctor in our own HSE with far more evidence based knowledge on tap than you or I and you will note he is very much in favour of mask wearing and is pretty sure they're going to become mandatory in this country soon enough. I quote

I think masks are hugely useful ONLY IF WORN PROPERLY because I'm much more concerned about some random stranger having coughed in a shop or stairwell a few minutes before I walk through that space than I am about me touching my own mucous membranes with "dirty" hands or having poor doffing technique at home or at work.

With that said IF you can get a good mask with replaceable filters and have the means to sterilise said mask then I would do so. I think we are ALL going to be wearing masks when out and about a few months from now. In fact once sufficient supply becomes available I'd expect that to be a requirement to enter a lot of shops.

Over the next few days I'll be editing the mask/PPE post with some additional tips and links to cheap gear on Amazon which will help make masks much more effective

and

Masks
The other thing to note is that this is a marathon not a sprint. COVID-19 will be killing people in Ireland next April and May and will continue to do so, even if it doesn't mutate sufficiently to cause a new strain for which a vaccine is ineffective, until a safe vaccine is available next year. So, even if you are looking at a two month wait for a mask to be shipped from China go ahead and order it. You'll be glad to have it three months from now.

I would strongly urge everyone who has seen the videos of how to put a mask on and take a mask off and so will benefit from wearing one to go out and buy one - even if it'll take a month or two to get here. Yes, do gloves and hand sanitiser etc also if you wish when out but there's a reason why the only piece of PPE I think is essential when out is an airtight mask. All of the rest is nice but can be compensated for by awareness and good routine on entering and leaving your house/work. But without a mask you are at the mercy of whoever passed through space you are now passing through over the last hour or so. If they were sick and coughed you are defenceless without a mask.

With that said, if you don't fit it properly then it'll do more harm than good so look at the videos I posted about taking on and off. I'll post some tips about fitting them properly over the next couple of days.

And

I think that, as masks become available they will become mandatory in society. Whether that mandatory nature is through legislation or peer pressure I'm unsure of but I would, personally, be in favour of the following:
a) behavioural approach: Exempt people wearing masks from limits on numbers of people in shops. People who don't want to wait in queues to get in will get a mask and wear it in order to be allowed straight in.

b) behavioural: limit access to certain areas to people wearing masks - eg you can't go into a nursing home or hospital UNLESS you wear a mask. People will want to visit relatives so they'll buy and wear masks.

c) legislative: just make it a law that you need to wear a mask if you go into ANY establishment other than your own home.


I think that any masks is better than no mask. So a cotton mask with no filter is still better than no mask... and then a surgical mask is better yet and an N95 better again. I use an N99 respirator mask when out but they're contra-indicated for people with significant respiratory pathology and even then I find it significantly more difficult/tiring to move around much with it on.

So, yeah, if everyone wore a mask - even a cotton one - it would help reduce spread. Obviously the ideal would be everyone having a reusable N95 mask ( not even a respirator ) with replaceable filters and they're pretty cheap. I got two for like 30 Euro before this started and replacement filters are about 25 cents per day. So, a year's worth of protection with daily travel and filter replacement would come to about 120 Euro. At that level it'd be the sort of thing which would make economic sense for the government to provide ( a day in hospital costs about 1,000 Euros per day and an ICU bed about 5,000 a day ) so avoiding admissions ( and taxes lost due to those ill but not hospitalised ) very quickly pays for itself.


So paddy19 do you think he's not understanding peer reviewed science on the matter?

But again I ask you how are masks protective in clinical settings and for people with an infection and those living with them, but magically lose this protective ability in a shop, or work space? Can you answer that, or will you continue to ignore the evidence you claim you have to see to believe?

riffmongous wrote: »

Austria isn't anywhere in public yet, it's just shops and public transport

Which are public spaces. The latter even has the clue in the name. At this stage I'm quite genuinely scratching my head over how many hoops people seem to need to jump through to ignore the bloody obvious in their blanket resistance to masks.

CrankyHaus

khalessi wrote: »

I am seeing more and more with masks and a couple with plastic glasses that go over glasses. I have goggles havent worn them to shops but do wear wraparound sunglasses

You don't find sunglasses fog up almost immediately if you're wearing a mask?

Wibbs

Yes: other

CrankyHaus wrote: »

You don't find sunglasses fog up almost immediately if you're wearing a mask?

Not if the mask is fitted correctly anyway. IE the nose bar in a surgical mask is pressed around the nose. Or at least that's been my experience with ordinary glasses.

Arrival wrote: »

You should probably stop reading this thread then, since you making posts like this is redundant at this stage. Check back in in another couple of weeks or so, maybe there'll be one available then, who knows

I suspect that in a few weeks time(though our HSE high ups are lagging behind throughout, so maybe months) there will be a lot of egg on faces on top of the masks that will be mandatory in any shared enclosed spaces like shops and workspaces.

paddy19

No: I don't care enough

Spring Celebrator wrote: »

Study by TU Eindhoven and Leuven University shows that:
-2m is "safe" inside or outside while not moving and without air movement.
-While walking outside 4-5m can be considered safe
-Running and cycling in slow pace 10m
-Running and cyclng fast at least 20m would be considered safe.
Study
http://www.urbanphysics.net/Social%20Distancing%20v20_White_Paper.pdf

Visualisation
https://twitter.com/realBertBlocken/status/1247540735001251841?s=20

This is not a study
Quote from author:

“People should read and not misread my tweets and texts,” Bert Blocken of Eindhoven University of Technology, the lead researcher on the simulation, wrote in an email to Motherboard. “I have never and nowhere discouraged people from walking, running, or cycling. Rather the opposite. Maybe people should read more, and react less.”

Please, please, read the Vice article:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v74az9/the-viral-study-about-runners-spreading-coronavirus-is-not-actually-a-study

In a footnote on the white paper, Blocken admits “currently the subject of intensive debates between scientists world‐wide—is to what extent the residue of micro‐droplets with the virus, after evaporation, still carries an infection risk. Further virology research should shed more light on this issue.”

Last week, the Atlantic's Ed Yong spoke to many virologists about this, and there currently is no consensus about how dangerous it is to exercise or be outside, but there is much research suggesting that the mental health benefits of exercising outdoors are important and should be taken seriously.

Bob24

Arrival wrote: »

And I literally didn't even imply otherwise, just explaining the logic of wearing goggles as well as a mask, didn't bring anything up about using one or the other exclusively

Sure, didn’t mean to imply you said otherwise at all :-) I only meant to go further than what you said for the benefit of the discussion and the OP who was discussing the usefulness of glasses.

2u2me

paddy19 wrote: »

Your are obviously entitled to you opinion but that's all it is no better than my opinion which is that wearing masks outdoors is far from proven.

Peer reviewed scientific evidence I will happy read but opinions are just that, opinions, even if they come from a supposed expert.

In a variation of that famous phrase, "show me the peer reviewed evidence".

It seems you believe the science that masks have an effect indoors.

Then all you need to do is apply fluid dynamics its quite easy. But fluid dynamics itself is very difficult.
That's where all these estimates of 2 metres comes from etc.. The weather conditions will be different everytime. But if its a calm day with no wind and you're 1 foot away from someone can you not see the benefit of wearing a mask?

paddy19

No: I don't care enough

Arrival wrote: »

You should probably stop reading this thread then, since you making posts like this is redundant at this stage. Check back in in another couple of weeks or so, maybe there'll be one available then, who knows

I'm sorry if I'm going over old ground but all I'm asking for is for 5 peer reviewed studies that show that wearing masks outdoors is effective in limiting Covid or indeed any viral transmission.

Wearing masks is obviously common in many countries to try to limit the effects of pollution.

I want to emphasise, I have no problem with wearing masks in confined spaces, shops, offices etc.

I think we should be persuaded by data but not by opinions even from experts or by wind tunnel simulations from civil engineers.

Science is littered with expert opinions that proved way off the mark.

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

paddy19 wrote: »

We cant start making major policy decisions based on what other countries might do.

No, we should do exactly that. That's what pragmatic governance is all about. You look around, find best practice and adopt it.

paddy19 wrote: »

We need to stay with the proven science not anecdotes.

Yes, you were given research. You simply ignore it. The research on masks is there. Multiple studies.

paddy19 wrote: »

It is already accepted that you are at risk if you are in close proximity for more than 15 minutes with someone who is infected.

Accepted by whom? By HSE. No one else is telling this nonsense. Once again -you are at risk even if you spend 30 seconds near an infected person if they breathe, spit, sneeze, cough in your face or near you.

paddy19 wrote: »

That's the reason people are told not to be congregating in groups of more than 4.

No, that's not the reason.

paddy19 wrote: »

It is not a reason to make everyone wear masks outdoors.

And how about indoors? Public places.

podgeandrodge

Arrival wrote: »

Since aerosols can stay airborne for 30+ minutes, if an infected person coughed or sneezed anywhere near where you end up walking, even long after they've left, you could easily end up walking into and through those infected aerosols. So regardless of whether it's through your mouth, nose or eyes, they're likely to get into you

Most articles/studies on this have explicitly stated that, while the virus can be airborne, there is no proof that the smaller particles lying around in the air are sufficient to infect. Supermarket staff are not falling ill in their droves. They would be if all these coughs and sneezes were hovering about like this and were big enough droplets to infect.

And according to Govt, we have close to zero community growth. So what's happening with all the droplets that can so easily cause infection?

Tipperary animal lover

Yes: homemade

I can bring home medical and cloth masks if anybody needs them, I'm in vietnam atm be home in two weeks( flights confirmed as of now), if you are interested let me know as only have so much space in bags( bringing masks and sanitizer for family), hope this will help some one out ... take care.

riffmongous

Wibbs wrote: »

Which are public spaces. The latter even has the clue in the name. At this stage I'm quite genuinely scratching my head over how many hoops people seem to need to jump through to ignore the bloody obvious in their blanket resistance to masks.

Anywhere in public I would take to mean anywhere you are in public, this is not the case. Look at the post I'm quoting, that's the context.

podgeandrodge

Wibbs wrote: »

I suspect that in a few weeks time(though our HSE high ups are lagging behind throughout, so maybe months) there will be a lot of egg on faces on top of the masks that will be mandatory in any shared enclosed spaces like shops and workspaces.

But if we have close to zero community transfer of the virus, which is confirmed by the CMO, why do we need masks in shops? Genuine question, no-one has provided much responses when I ask this.

Wibbs

Yes: other

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Most articles/studies on this have explicitly stated that, while the virus can be airborne, there is no proof that the smaller particles lying around in the air are sufficient to infect. Supermarket staff are not falling ill in their droves. They would be if all these coughs and sneezes were hovering about like this and were big enough droplets to infect.

And according to Govt, we have close to zero community growth. So what's happening with all the droplets that can so easily cause infection?

I'd largely agree with that tbh. I personally don't feel that microdroplets are enough to bugger you up. If anything and going by viral load theory they may at worst cause a low or non symptomatic infection, because they infect you in such small quantities that your body learns more quickly and the gets medieval on their arses.

A jogger going by me at two metres(and to be fair the vast majority I've encountered out go by at way beyond that) is of eff all risk. I wouldn't be too happy a couple of metres behind one who cleared his throat mind you, but I've not come close to experiencing anything like that. It's the bigger particles flying around even in ordinary speech that can move beyond the two metre mark and coughs and sneezes that can move way beyond it that would be my personal main concern and why protective masks should be another weapon in the armoury along with hand hygiene and distancing(I'd also add in quarantines and more border controls, but that ship has long sailed because of our authorities half arsed approach).

Wibbs

Yes: other

podgeandrodge wrote: »

But if we have close to zero community transfer of the virus, which is confirmed by the CMO, why do we need masks in shops? Genuine question, no-one has provided much responses when I ask this.

To stop community transfer from kicking off again P as people who can already be pretty lackadaisical, get even more so as the months go on. Never mind that the CMO simply can't be that definitive about community spread. About the only thing the CMO can be definitive about are the number of deaths. All other numbers are guesswork at best. Our testing has until lately been a farce with two and more weeks lag times. Our contact tracing is minimal to non existent and even with our major advantage of having one of the lowest population densities in the western world our death per million number is not as low as it should be. Never mind that if it were so low would they have extended the restrictions by more weeks?

A question for you too P. Why are you against masks? Genuine question. If the supply for medical types was fine, would you still be against them? They clearly offer a way of reducing risk in the community, just like hand washing and the like, so what's the resistance? Not from you P, but I am getting a serious vibe of "I'm not wearing a mask, they're stupid things" kinda thing from many.

Bob24

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

I can bring home medical and cloth masks if anybody needs them, I'm in vietnam atm be home in two weeks( flights confirmed as of now), if you are interested let me know as only have so much space in bags( bringing masks and sanitizer for family), hope this will help some one out ... take care.

Out of curiosity, is it easy to find proper FFP2/N95/KN95 masks there and are they priced reasonably? (and if yes are they Chinese made or local production?)

podgeandrodge

Wibbs wrote: »

To stop community transfer from kicking off again P as people who can already be pretty lackadaisical, get even more so as the months go on. Never mind that the CMO simply can't be that definitive about community spread. About the only thing the CMO can be definitive about are the number of deaths. All other numbers are guesswork at best. Our testing has until lately been a farce with two and more weeks lag times. Our contact tracing is minimal to non existent and even with our major advantage of having one of the lowest population densities in the western world our death per million number is not as low as it should be. Never mind that if it were so low would they have extended the restrictions by more weeks?

A question for you too P. Why are you against masks? Genuine question. If the supply for medical types was fine, would you still be against them? They clearly offer a way of reducing risk in the community, just like hand washing and the like, so what's the resistance? Not from you P, but I am getting a serious vibe of "I'm not wearing a mask, they're stupid things" kinda thing from many.

Hi wibbs. I wouldn't have any issue with wearing masks if the authorities made it clear that they were going to help with the spread of the virus. Now I fully accept that Sth Korea etc. have made it very clear that the masks do have that effect. But, and it is a big but, if community transmission is now nearly zero, and if one chooses to believe the CMO as many do, I would find myself conflicted between the advice given to us by our own authorities and those authorities in other States. I would likely trust other States more, but I do remain slightly dubious about the risks of my going to get a couple of items in a shop. If (or when) it becomes clear that supermarket staff are getting infected, in the same way as it is abundantly clear that healthworkers are, my attitude would change very quickly.

I should add by the way that in my case, it is just me and my wife, and other than a quick shop from time to time, our only other public activity is going for a brisk walk every evening, and even that we do separately. And I detour right out onto the street when anyone is oncoming, especially joggers

holyhin

Yes: homemade

Total Cases : Hong Kong:1022 Singapore:5050 Ireland: We knew
Death: Hong Kong: 4 Singapore: 11 Ireland: We knew
Population : 8M 5.6M 5M
Urban Density per square km: 27,209 8358 Ireland: not sure
BTW Hong Kong is still open to China.
Get any types of masks you can folks, wearing any masks still better than wearing nothing.
God Bless Ireland

paddy19

No: I don't care enough

"Yes, you were given research. You simply ignore it. The research on masks is there. Multiple studies."

Anybody can produce research/studies.

Still waiting for the links to 5 peer reviewed studies that show that wearing masks outdoors works.

If we going to mandate that every man, women and child wear a mask outside their home it doesn't seem too much to ask!

Wibbs

Yes: other

paddy19 wrote: »

"Yes, you were given research. You simply ignore it. The research on masks is there. Multiple studies."

Anybody can produce research/studies.

Still waiting for the links to 5 peer reviewed studies that show that wearing masks outdoors works.

If we going to mandate that every man, women and child wear a mask outside their home it doesn't seem too much to ask!

At this stage I think you're either just being wilfully obtuse, taking the piss, or utterly resistant to any argument and have just made up your mind and the lady's not for turning.

This thread is chock full of links to peer reviewed studies. A couple of pages back I gave you links, I also quoted the opinion of a HSE consultant doctor based on his knowledge on this matter which I can 100% guarantee is so far above yours you'd require the services of the Hubble telescope to view them. But you've avoided them all and came back with at best confused at cross purposes replies and nonsense about 15 minutes is "safe" and no more than four people or somesuch. I do note that you're ever narrowing your definitions. from masks in general now to specifically "outdoors", which is actually non specific, but handy get out clause when it turns out your dogged opinion is woefully incorrect.

And yet again, for what must be the third time now, I ask you how are masks protective in clinical settings and for people with an infection and those living with them, but the same masks magically lose this protective ability in a shop, or work space? Can you answer that, or do you believe they're not protective in clinical settings(though that would require insanity to believe that), or will you continue to ignore the evidence you claim you have to see to believe?

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

riffmongous wrote:

Austria isn't anywhere in public yet, it's just shops and public transport

I stand corrected but I knew they mandated masks. Even this would be a victory if implemented here.