Masks

pm1977x

MadYaker wrote: »

Mask wearing in public will be law here soon hopefully.

For it to be made law we'd need the supply levels to be much higher than they are now (and prices to be lower), can't see supply catching up any time soon considering the shortages seen in the NHS etc.

micks_address

pm1977x wrote: »

For it to be made law we'd need the supply levels to be much higher than they are now (and prices to be lower), can't see supply catching up any time soon considering the shortages seen in the NHS etc.

for it to be law woudnt it need to be government supplied masks?

pm1977x

micks_address wrote: »

for it to be law woudnt it need to be government supplied masks?

Not necessarily. But my point stands, where are they going to magic up 5 million masks from, and what type are they and how often do they need to be replaced? (I'm in favour of encouraging people to wear them on public transport, in shops etc but don't think it's feasible at the moment.)

Wibbs

Yes: other

dfx- wrote: »

It's a far less significant risk reducer than is being made out in this thread. It is far less significant than physical distancing, quarantining, testing and contact tracing.

Quite simply neither you, nor I can make such a strong claim either way. Never mind that quarantining, testing and contact tracing in Ireland has been either non-existent or a farce.

How is it spreading in a community well adjusted to wearing masks in public? The constant references to Austria and Czech Republic in this thread would have you believe that it is not possible.

Again, nope. 1) you nor I can make any predictions on how much worse or better the spread would be if they weren't wearing them. 2) Like I said they are one part of the risk reduction system.

It's the physical distancing that actually makes the mask effective, but it's physical distancing is the key part.

And again we're back to magic masks that are clinically proven to reduce risks in the home and hospitals with sick and well people in close contact, with no physical distancing possible, yet have no risk reduction outside those settings?

Wibbs

Yes: other

pm1977x wrote: »

Not necessarily. But my point stands, where are they going to magic up 5 million masks from, and what type are they and how often do they need to be replaced? (I'm in favour of encouraging people to wear them on public transport, in shops etc but don't think it's feasible at the moment.)

+1. I reckon the homemade route is the only option for most at the moment.

riffmongous

ek motor wrote: »

Looking at that graph it certainly does look like new cases were beginning to decrease prior to April 6th. What do you think has contributed towards Austria's lower incidence of Covid-19 ?

Personally my feeling from what I see (I actually live there too) and looking at the data is that a relatively early awareness of the need to take precautions (the first time I saw people wearing masks was the 27th Feb and I was already sanitising my hands by that stage too), followed by the fairly strict lockdown, especially in the worst hit areas stopped things from getting out of control.

The thing is I reckon the government screwed up at the start and let it take root in the ski resorts and it spread to other countries from there (notably Iceland).. and once they realised the region was in danger of going like Italy, and also having an international incident on their hands they came down very hard and fast.

Regarding masks..I think by the time the masks came into public use the number of infections was already so low that they've not really had any effect here in reducing the numbers... but they might be more important when it comes to stopping numbers from increasing again as the lockdown is lifted. At the very least they will keep the problem visible

dfx-

No: other

Wibbs wrote: »

Quite simply neither you, nor I can make such a strong claim either way. Never mind that quarantining, testing and contact tracing in Ireland has been either non-existent or a farce.

Ok, neither of us can make strong claims on the significance. There are certainly strong assertions made in the thread about the significance of masks and criticism of those who disagree. How are masks going to help if you still have those farcical or non-existent risk reduction measures? You have to have both as you say.

If the reality is somewhere in the middle with no strong claim, then it supports the difference of opinion and it being a far from settled subject.

And again we're back to magic masks that are clinically proven to reduce risks in the home and hospitals with sick and well people in close contact, with no physical distancing possible, yet have no risk reduction outside those settings?

By masks I am referring to surgical masks and cloth masks which are the only realistic large scale option. The full scale PPE including full, fitted face mask, visor, goggles and gowns such as in ICU will work, there is no question of that. That strong claim can be made.

And yet health workers are getting ill. Wearing insufficient, inadequate or incomplete PPE in hospitals and care homes in close contact is not good. They should be as close to ICU as possible. Not a plastic sheet, overalls, ski goggles, surgical masks, cloth masks or other temporary things they are being forced into.

Prolonged and sustained close contact seen in healthcare is also separate from the general public's use of masks in the community.

Wibbs

Yes: other

I'd still prefer an asymptomatic person wearing any sort of mask and by quite a margin. Plus you can guarantee people who have been tested positive will go out to shops and the like. Some may have no choice as they see it, if they're alone etc.

Coralcoras

Yes: valved

Sister works in a pharmacy where a covid19 positive client (in his 40s) walked into the shop and up to the counter without a mask! That’s what we are dealing with - never mind the asymptotic folks! IMO we all should be wearing them.

Have since thrown together cloth masks for her as stock is limited for her. Took a couple of tries to get it snug.

Used three layers (quilters cloth/non woven interface/quilters cloth). Just about breathable.

It take me about an hour to cut and sew them and insert an aluminium bar in a special pocket, so I’d be wary of any cheap ones being sold online.. must be just one layer of loosely woven polycotten ��

If buying fabrics, perhaps choose a nice friendly colourful fabric. My dark solid coloured ones are quite imposing. Also decided to have a light colour for inside layer against mouth, so there would be no mistaking the ‘not-to-be-touched’ side when handling it.

dfx-

No: other

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd still prefer an asymptomatic person wearing any sort of mask and by quite a margin. Plus you can guarantee people who have been tested positive will go out to shops and the like. Some may have no choice as they see it, if they're alone etc.

That is a preference though. The only risk-free way of dealing with this is for everyone not to go out until there is a vaccine and everyone gets it.

UK Government scientific advisor just on BBC News describing the value of masks for key workers but that it swings the other way for the general public.

2u2me

dfx- wrote: »

That is a preference though. The only risk-free way of dealing with this is for everyone not to go out until there is a vaccine and everyone gets it.

UK Government scientific advisor just on BBC News describing the value of masks for key workers but that it swings the other way for the general public.

I get the argument that social distancing is perhaps much better tool, but we must not discount how masks are also a tool in helping stop the spread. It is quite clear asymptomatic people can be highly infectious.

It's like tesco say "every little helps" especially when dealing with a highly infectious disease causing virus!

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

Coralcoras wrote: »

Sister works in a pharmacy where a covid19 positive client (in his 40s) walked into the shop and up to the counter without a mask! That’s what we are dealing with - never mind the asymptotic folks! IMO we all should be wearing them.

Have since thrown together cloth masks for her as stock is limited for her. Took a couple of tries to get it snug.

Used three layers (quilters cloth/non woven interface/quilters cloth). Just about breathable.

It take me about an hour to cut and sew them and insert an aluminium bar in a special pocket, so I’d be wary of any cheap ones being sold online.. must be just one layer of loosely woven polycotten ��

If buying fabrics, perhaps choose a nice friendly colourful fabric. My dark solid coloured ones are quite imposing. Also decided to have a light colour for inside layer against mouth, so there would be no mistaking the ‘not-to-be-touched’ side when handling it.

I hope they had a screen or some protection in that chemist. Hope he was fcuked out because I've seen signs on all pharmacy windows saying not to go in if you have symptoms. How are people that thick?

Wibbs

Yes: other

dfx- wrote: »

UK Government scientific advisor just on BBC News describing the value of masks for key workers but that it swings the other way for the general public.

Aye, the magical shrodinger masks again. I'd take little by way of of "advice" from any UK "expert" on this and many other things. They've been running out of PPE for the NHS for weeks and have made an utter hames of getting more.

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

How are people that thick?

A scarily percentage of people are functional idiots and/or stupendously self centred. Not a shock to me TBH.

fr336

Yes: surgical

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I hope they had a screen or some protection in that chemist. Hope he was fcuked out because I've seen signs on all pharmacy windows saying not to go in if you have symptoms. How are people that thick?

There needs to be more enforcement than just being jolly with the public. That's fine when you're breaking up a football match in the park, but for fellas like that they need to be arrested. Of course that presents its own health obstacles for the police.

Boggles

dfx- wrote: »

UK Government scientific advisor just on BBC News describing the value of masks for key workers but that it swings the other way for the general public.

Large pinch of salt required from any "scientific advisors" Boris has assembled.

The word omnishambles is not nearly enough.

dfx-

No: other

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, the magical shrodinger masks again. I'd take little by way of of "advice" from any UK "expert" on this and many other things. They've been running out of PPE for the NHS for weeks and have made an utter hames of getting more.

Come on Wibbs. That doesn't help.

It's not about being magical schrodinger masks. It's based on length of exposure for a key worker working all day with people at a checkout or bus driver and someone going to the shops for ten minutes.

There are virologists advising the government, actual experts. The Deputy CMO is a specialist in pandemics for 25 years. If you're not prepared to take the advice of virologists and experts in epidemiology in a pandemic, based on some cynicism towards "experts", then all relevance on your points are lost.

I suppose they should just shoot from the hip based on a unqualified hunch. Take advice from the downing street cat maybe.:rolleyes:

Boggles

I guarantee you, in the not too distant future you will have another of Boris's advisors explaining to the British public that if they are caught on the tube without a mask they will be issued a fine.

Feel free to bookmark this post.

The reason the UK are experiencing 1000+ deaths a day and have collapsed large swathes of their emergency medical care is because their "scientists" diluted science with politics.

It never ever works.

Seanergy

Yes: valved

pm1977x wrote: »

Not necessarily. But my point stands, where are they going to magic up 5 million masks from, and what type are they and how often do they need to be replaced? (I'm in favour of encouraging people to wear them on public transport, in shops etc but don't think it's feasible at the moment.)

The supply is not there and neither is the service, hence why the lack of instruction to mask up, looks like we are being left to rummage around for a t-shirt or a pair of tights to put over our face.

2u2me wrote: »

I get the argument that social distancing is perhaps much better tool, but we must not discount how masks are also a tool in helping stop the spread. It is quite clear asymptomatic people can be highly infectious.

All 3 are dependant and interlinked with each other. Social distancing(2meters) is most relevant in the close contact zone, hand washing and mask wearing are extremly relevant in both close contact and long range zones.

I look at it by breaking it up into close contact and long range zones.

The majority of source comes from the close contact zone when airborne droplets are either inhaled or taken up via touch, fomite route.

The larger minority of source comes when source touches saliva and then touches surfaces, contaminating fomite.

The smaller minority of source is any contamination in the long range zone (outside 2 meters).

It's all 3 or might aswell keep the head in the sand.

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I hope they had a screen or some protection in that chemist. Hope he was fcuked out because I've seen signs on all pharmacy windows saying not to go in if you have symptoms.

If that was my pharmacy I would have a pump action gallon spray gun loaded with disnefectent and blast the skin of heads like that!

fr336 wrote: »

There needs to be more enforcement than just being jolly with the public. Of course that presents its own health obstacles for the police.

The G's have 16,000 spit hood bags to protect their health should they want to use them

Wibbs

Yes: other

dfx- wrote: »

Come on Wibbs. That doesn't help.

It's not about being magical schrodinger masks. It's based on length of exposure for a key worker working all day with people at a checkout or bus driver and someone going to the shops for ten minutes.

Oh I know there's a difference D, but in order to reduce spread in the community we have to well, reduce spread in the community. Put it this way if checkout folks and bus drivers never wore a mask, but their customers did their risk would go down substantially from the reduction in droplets either inhaled directly or left on surfaces. That's why they advise positive result sick people to wear them at home if they're living with others.

There are virologists advising the government, actual experts. The Deputy CMO is a specialist in pandemics for 25 years. If you're not prepared to take the advice of virologists and experts in epidemiology in a pandemic, based on some cynicism towards "experts", then all relevance on your points are lost.

I suppose they should just shoot from the hip based on a unqualified hunch. Take advice from the downing street cat maybe.:rolleyes:

At times it seems they might be better off getting a meow from the cat. Remember D these are the same experts who were originally gunning for herd immunity in the UK. The UK is one of the sickest places in Europe after the ground zeros of Italy and Spain. In Sweden their government experts are running with herd immunity. Our expert in infectious diseases was publicly stating that living with a known covid contact was of very little risk and go about your day as normally as possible, a fortnight after medical journals were reporting asymptomatic infected and a month after the term superspreader made its way from the porn world* into the medical. And he described the symptoms to look out for as runny noses two months after it was established that them main symptoms to look out for were fever and cough.

My personal take? If something is a known entity then experts are very much the go to people. If it's not they're still your best bet, but they're likely to disagree wildly and they're still in the dark like the rest of us, only they have a torch, so can hopefully see a little better, but in the early days they're swinging the same torch wildly. Add in politics and all bets are off. Plus when any expert states one thing and then a contrary thing soon after, or states logic fails, or states wildly different potential outcomes I smell bullsh1te. It may be very nice sounding bullsh1te, but it still smells the same.



*should be a porn term.

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

dfx- wrote:

That is a preference though. The only risk-free way of dealing with this is for everyone not to go out until there is a vaccine and everyone gets it.

Irish government is unable to enforce this and infinite lockdown is a suicide. The government was unable to test quickly, unable to trace, unable to isolate clusters, unable to quarantine clusters, unable stop flights from hot-spots or properly test and quarantine people on those flights. Etc.

Irish government reacted late, then chose a severe lockdown which is extremely economically damaging. It can't go on for long and it didn't have to happen that way both in length and severity. And the results are mediocre at best. If masks were mandated hundreds of people could have been saved, the curve could have been flattened faster and billions could have been saved too. Note that Czech lockdown was shorter and not so restrictive, because masks were part of the game, people were allowed to and from work, the economy didn't go to meltdown.

Results:
Czechia - 0.020 deaths per 1000
Ireland - 0.160 deaths per 1000
That's 8 times more.

In terms of effect on the GDP the results will be similar.

Ireland had an advantage being an island on the periphery, with lower population density and Irish government blew it completely.

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

fr336 wrote:

There needs to be more enforcement than just being jolly with the public. That's fine when you're breaking up a football match in the park, but for fellas like that they need to be arrested. Of course that presents its own health obstacles for the police.

Yes but I'd recommend fines. Works better than arrested.

2u2me

I've struggled to find news reports of people wearing/using masks incorrectly in Czech and Asia(Where it does more harm then good).
Surely if that British Deputy CMO was right there would be something in a country that has adopted masks on a large scale.

The argument to authority being bandied about is pretty weak, it may work for some subjects but there are many authorities advocating different things.
The WHO were advising

"In short, members of the public are advised not to wear one unless they are sick with coronavirus or caring for someone who is"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/coronavirus-q-a-should-we-all-be-wearing-face-masks-1.4220086
Yet now we know people that are sick with the virus can be asymptomatic and not know they have it and they haven't updated their guidelines. Strange.

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

Multipass wrote:

Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Bogus study. It cites two papers on cloth masks, one from 1919! And another one from 1975. Wonder why the author didn't reference recent research. Like the one from, Cambridge 2013.

Also this is very suspicious:
Competing interests CRM has held an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 3M as the industry partner, foe investigator-driven research. 3M has also contributed masks and respirators for investigator-driven clinical trials.

3M manufacturers N95, do they have interest showing that cloth mask work?

MadYaker

Yes: surgical

dfx- wrote: »

Come on Wibbs. That doesn't help.

It's not about being magical schrodinger masks. It's based on length of exposure for a key worker working all day with people at a checkout or bus driver and someone going to the shops for ten minutes.

There are virologists advising the government, actual experts. The Deputy CMO is a specialist in pandemics for 25 years. If you're not prepared to take the advice of virologists and experts in epidemiology in a pandemic, based on some cynicism towards "experts", then all relevance on your points are lost.

I suppose they should just shoot from the hip based on a unqualified hunch. Take advice from the downing street cat maybe.:rolleyes:

Not sure what your problem with masks is. The only reason the government aren't telling us all to wear one is because there isn't enough.

Rjd2

Right some advise here,,,I have 2 boxes of masks, the cheap disposable ones I bought months ago and the KN95 masks which I bought a few boxes of.

The disposable ones you use once and bin, the KN95 masks are a little more expensive though so not keen on that strategy ,,,was thinking wear once then put away for maybe a week or so before reusing? Ideally I'd probably only use each a few times .

That is where I got them.

https://www.pigsback.com/en-ie/offer/438728/dm-logistics

Rjd2

MadYaker wrote: »

Not sure what your problem with masks is. The only reason the government aren't telling us all to wear one is because there isn't enough.

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1252638079904595974

Rjd2

Rjd2 wrote: »

Right some advise here,,,I have 2 boxes of masks, the cheap disposable ones I bought months ago and the KN95 masks which I bought a few boxes of.

The disposable ones you use once and bin, the KN95 masks are a little more expensive though so not keen on that strategy ,,,was thinking wear once then put away for maybe a week or so before reusing? Ideally I'd probably only use each a few times .

That is where I got them.

https://www.pigsback.com/en-ie/offer/438728/dm-logistics

Why would you only use them a few times, or said a week between reusing?

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

Plenty to read about masks here : https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/mobilebasic#heading=h.9yzpxufkt5ow

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

I think this article sums it up nicely:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/610336/

Garlinge

No: other

A small independant chemist near me has those 95 masks same as Pigsback. They are 6 95 euro and reusable but not washable. I think if worried I would leave in sunny window for day or two or maybe steam from kettle for a bit. I am making cloth cotton masks that can be upgraded with a filter insert of some better material = they suggest non woven fabric, even a basic surgical mask would cut down to make a couple of filters. Pretty cotton masks would be option for some to avoid the clinical look of a regular mask. They can be worn over same and extend life of disposable item.