To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Seanergy

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I wear a mask. I support wearing masks.

Let's forget the people who wear it as chin guards or expose the nose. Ordinary people who seem to be trying to wear a mask.

Why cant people just wear masks properly?

There are many factors at play but one cannot ignore the neck wearing chin guard nose pokers and answer that question because all of our behaviours are forming the standards we play to.

Poor mask ettiquette in Ireland started even before masks became mandatory with Leo's mask photo shoot from May 2nd, FACT.

Some people tried to encourage the media to pull him up on it but it was deflected as people nit picking or being anti Leo but it was not. Weather people realise it or not this was the begining of the conversation of mask ettiquette/education.

Leo is a doctor, he choose to ignore all his health and safety training by pulling the mask into a resting position under his chin to show off at a media stunt. Also as a doctor he should have corrected the novice nose poking mask wearing 'buddy' as to proper procedure, not tolerate it and smile with him for a press photo that will get national attention.

People are watching people, it's forming our baseline.

saneman

Lex Luthor wrote: »

in the same way other information is being suppressed

the info about masks you find on google at the moment is completely contradictory to what was on it 12 months ago but you will be hard fought to find those articles now from 12 months ago

"Supressed" sounds a bit tinfoil hat-y. If you're surprised after a normal search that there's a lot of information from 2020 to go through, given the year we've had and the plethora of information that's been added online, then I don't know what to say. Maybe just learn to use Google (hint: use "Tools" under the search bar and add a date range).

Look, I don't think masks are some grand panacea in protecting against this virus, they're a risk reduction tool that's cumulative when included with all the other measures we've been asked to take. As a mitigating measure they're non-intrusive, no ones asking you to staple gun them to your face.

What irks me is when someone with knowledge in an area uses that disingenuously to back up certain claims. E.g the CO2 test you quoted relates to respirators (i.e N95/FFP2/FFP3), does it not? The specific type I think would be good to mention (please do). Because, and I'm sure you're aware of this, they differ from surgical masks/face coverings at least as much as they differ from half masks at the other end (which you also gave a figure for). More so in that they don't offer a seal and conform to the face to a greater extent (vs cup-type masks). Maybe I'm being cynical in my belief that you've not mentioned the specific type because this fact would be raised.

I've had to wear respirators for full shifts in the past (with breaks ofc), it's not the most comfortable but the protective reasons were there. There is science to say that CO2 levels would be somewhat raised if wearing a respirator but not in any way that would be detrimental, and no more than being in an non-ventilated room for a length of time (again I'm talking specifically about respirators). I think we've all been in those situations before and have lived to tell the tale. We can't say the same for those who became infected with c-19.

Lex Luthor

saneman wrote: »

"Supressed" sounds a bit tinfoil hat-y. If you're surprised after a normal search that there's a lot of information from 2020 to go through, given the year we've had and the plethora of information that's been added online, then I don't know what to say. Maybe just learn to use Google (hint: use "Tools" under the search bar and add a date range).

Look, I don't think masks are some grand panacea in protecting against this virus, they're a risk reduction tool that's cumulative when included with all the other measures we've been asked to take. As a mitigating measure they're non-intrusive, no ones asking you to staple gun them to your face.

What irks me is when someone with knowledge in an area uses that disingenuously to back up certain claims. E.g the CO2 test you quoted relates to respirators (i.e N95/FFP2/FFP3), does it not? The specific type I think would be good to mention (please do). Because, and I'm sure you're aware of this, they differ from surgical masks/face coverings at least as much as they differ from half masks at the other end (which you also gave a figure for). More so in that they don't offer a seal and conform to the face to a greater extent (vs cup-type masks). Maybe I'm being cynical in my belief that you've not mentioned the specific type because this fact would be raised.

I've had to wear respirators for full shifts in the past (with breaks ofc), it's not the most comfortable but the protective reasons were there. There is science to say that CO2 levels would be somewhat raised if wearing a respirator but not in any way that would be detrimental, and no more than being in an non-ventilated room for a length of time (again I'm talking specifically about respirators). I think we've all been in those situations before and have lived to tell the tale. We can't say the same for those who became infected with c-19.

I tested with both a typical surgical mask and a 2 or 3 ply re-usable mask that you find in any shop

I've got my hands on a few N95 masks today so plan to do a few tests tomorrow

I'll do it over 5 min for each mask and see what results I get and post them back here if anyone is interested

As far as showing a video, I'm reluctant to do that as it could get circulated and would my employer have something to say about it? Quite possibly

Skeptics here might then not trust my results, but not much I can do about that

Thats me

Lex Luthor wrote: »

I tested with both a typical surgical mask and a 2 or 3 ply re-usable mask that you find in any shop

I've got my hands on a few N95 masks today so plan to do a few tests tomorrow

I'll do it over 5 min for each mask and see what results I get and post them back here if anyone is interested

As far as showing a video, I'm reluctant to do that as it could get circulated and would my employer have something to say about it? Quite possibly

Skeptics here might then not trust my results, but not much I can do about that

This test does not worth of an effort.



Thanks to you we already have established that yes, effective concentration of CO2 inhaled while you are wearing mask is significantly higher than optimal.



We also established that this concentration depends on:

1. Concentration of CO2 exhaled by the person wearing the mask
2. Volume of the space under the mask
3. Tidal volume of the person

I understand you have access to super device which can meter level of CO2 very precisely within 70 sec time range. But this is quite useless given you cannot meter the concentration of CO2 even in your own exhaled air and we know average value which is 40K ppm. So we already have an answer on p.1.


Tidal volume of particular person does not make much sense as well. Average value per age does.



The very big question still is what is volume of exhaled air fit into space between the face and mask. This is probably also depends on the profile of particular face. May be some mask better fit to particular types of faces. This is the only variable which is under our control while we shopping for the mask. So it would be useful to find a methodology and/or advises on how to chose optimal face mask. This has no relation to your experiments whose are quite senseless, but if you found a way to calculate this volume and to chose mask appropriately - this would be useful to know.

Lex Luthor

Thats me wrote: »

This test does not worth of an effort.



Thanks to you we already have established that yes, effective concentration of CO2 inhaled while you are wearing mask is significantly higher than optimal.



We also established that this concentration depends on:

1. Concentration of CO2 exhaled by the person wearing the mask
2. Volume of the space under the mask
3. Tidal volume of the person

I understand you have access to super device which can meter level of CO2 very precisely within 70 sec time range. But this is quite useless given you cannot meter the concentration of CO2 even in your own exhaled air and we know average value which is 40K ppm. So we already have an answer on p.1.


Tidal volume of particular person does not make much sense as well. Average value per age does.



The very big question still is what is volume of exhaled air fit into space between the face and mask. This is probably also depends on the profile of particular face. May be some mask better fit to particular types of faces. This is the only variable which is under our control while we shopping for the mask. So it would be useful to find a methodology and/or advises on how to chose optimal face mask. This has no relation to your experiments whose are quite senseless, but if you found a way to calculate this volume and to chose mask appropriately - this would be useful to know.

in relation to point 1, I think it is well documented that exhaled air contains approx 40,000ppm of CO2

as the sensor in the device I use has a range of 20,000ppm, its not possible for me to measure this but dont think its necessary

I can however take a fairly accurate sample over a 5min period under a mask and try to seal it as best as possible

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

in relation to point 1, I think it is well documented that exhaled air contains approx 40,000ppm of CO2

as the sensor in the device I use has a range of 20,000ppm, its not possible for me to measure this but dont think its necessary

I can however take a fairly accurate sample over a 5min period under a mask and try to seal it as best as possible

So your device is measuring an average over a minute+, but it's not capable of measuring the numbers that you are expecting to be in the air flowing through that space so whatever number it's showing you doesn't really mean anything much.
You don't know what volume of air is hanging around in the mask. You don't know what volume of air is being taken in with each breath. You don't know what the breathing rate is. You don't know if there is any difference in the oxygen levels of your subject during the test.

Watching the blood oxygen levels in the test subject would be one of the easiest things to do, and has the fewest variables from other factors to try to deal with, and is actually all that you really need to know. The oxygen level in the blood is what matters. If you notice that changing then doing tests on masks to try to match up why the oxygen level is changing with different masks would possibly be useful to establish the cause of the change.

You are trying to test for something irrelevant to prove something that you've not shown is actually happening, or not yet. Does the mask affect oxygen taken in by the person wearing the mask? If it doesn't then who cares what CO2 levels are in a mask as it clearly doesn't matter.
If the oxygen level is affected then try to figure out why with your mask tests.

You have merely discovered that you have access to a CO2 meter and are trying to find something to prove with it so you can play with the toy. Like you've just discovered that dogs will chase after tennis balls so therfore that lack of tennis balls is why there was no Wimbledon this year.

You haven't shown there is any problem to be investigated.

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

So your device is measuring an average over a minute+, but it's not capable of measuring the numbers that you are expecting to be in the air flowing through that space so whatever number it's showing you doesn't really mean anything much.

where did you get this information from?

In relation to what its actually monitoring, it monitors in the exact area that you place the end of the sample tube

if there is a reading of CO2 in that area which is in the breathing zone, then that is what its reading

Trust me its no toy

How did you get on with sleeping with a mask on for over 8hrs?

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

You are trying to test for something irrelevant to prove something that you've not shown is actually happening, or not yet. Does the mask affect oxygen taken in by the person wearing the mask? If it doesn't then who cares what CO2 levels are in a mask as it clearly doesn't matter.
If the oxygen level is affected then try to figure out why with your mask tests.

plus I have already stated that the oxygen levels are effected

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

where did you get this information from?

Erm, you in your previous post where you stated that it can only measure 20 thingys but exhaled air contains 40 thingys. So you are then making crazy calculations based on faulty data and throwing in a few other assumptions to try to make a case for something.

Yet that something you are trying to claim can be easily measured elsewhere by sticking an oxygen meter on your finger. Show there is actually a problem first before you try to prove that masks are the cause of the problem you've not shown exists.

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

plus I have already stated that the oxygen levels are effected

Sorry, must have missed that bit. Give us a link to that please.

Lex Luthor

robinph wrote: »

Erm, you in your previous post where you stated that it can only measure 20 thingys but exhaled air contains 40 thingys. So you are then making crazy calculations based on faulty data and throwing in a few other assumptions to try to make a case for something.

Yet that something you are trying to claim can be easily measured elsewhere by sticking an oxygen meter on your finger. Show there is actually a problem first before you try to prove that masks are the cause of the problem you've not shown exists.

it doesnt need to measure above 20,000ppm to verify that exhaled air contains 40,000ppm CO2
Thats a given
Its measuring the content of CO2 inside the mask which is a mixture of the air exhaled and air inhaled through the mask

robinph

Lex Luthor wrote: »

it doesnt need to measure above 20,000ppm to verify that exhaled air contains 40,000ppm CO2
Thats a given
Its measuring the content of CO2 inside the mask which is a mixture of the air exhaled and air inhaled through the mask

But it's not capable of measuring when the numbers reach 40,000 during exhaling so any assumptions you were making about what the 12,000 number means are wrong.

Anyway, what really matters is the oxygen levels in the body of the person wearing the mask. Anything else is irrelevant. If oxygen levels are effected then we need to find out why, if they are not then who cares what CO2 levels are measured in a mask as it clearly doesn't matter.

Show us evidence of there being a problem, oxygen levels dropping from wearing a mask, surgeons feinting in operating theatres before air systems were installed, children being taken to hospital from lack of oxygen in the classroom... Anything would be a start.

If you can show there is something to worry about then you can do some more playing with your works CO2 meter and sticking it up your nose, otherwise your just wasting everyone's time and playing silly buggers with your employers equipment.

robinph

Or to give you another analogy of what you are doing. You've just started work for the Met Office and discovered the have a device to measure rainfall on the roof and noticed that 3cm was recorded one day, then you remembered something about it being possible to drown in a couple of centimetres of water... So from that have come to the conclusion that people are drowning whenever it rains complety ignoring the fact that they don't.

Thats me

Lex Luthor wrote: »

in relation to point 1, I think it is well documented that exhaled air contains approx 40,000ppm of CO2

as the sensor in the device I use has a range of 20,000ppm, its not possible for me to measure this but dont think its necessary

I can however take a fairly accurate sample over a 5min period under a mask and try to seal it as best as possible

No need in it. We know that roughly half of time you have 40K ppm under the mask and air from outside during other half. Your device get saturated at 20K so you are getting very roughly (20K+X)/2=12K where X is concentration of CO2 in external air - 4K which is unlikely true because of too many variables (mainly duration of inhale phase to exhale ratio; point of saturation of the sensor - unlikely this is precisely 20K, this should be range in which parameters of device satisfy to documented).

Only volume of air preserved under the mask makes sense, but i have no idea how we could evaluate it with precision better than "looks like 50ml will probably fit into it".

Away With The Fairies

Lex Luthor wrote: »

I tested with both a typical surgical mask and a 2 or 3 ply re-usable mask that you find in any shop

I've got my hands on a few N95 masks today so plan to do a few tests tomorrow

I'll do it over 5 min for each mask and see what results I get and post them back here if anyone is interested

As far as showing a video, I'm reluctant to do that as it could get circulated and would my employer have something to say about it? Quite possibly

Skeptics here might then not trust my results, but not much I can do about that

So you're doing unofficial tests in your workplace on materials you're not meant to be testing?

Go on, post a video. I'm sure you're employer would love to know their workplace is being used for anti-mask tests.

Thats me

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

So you're doing unofficial tests in your workplace and materials you're not meant to be testing?

Go on, post a video. I'm sure you're employer would love to know their workplace is being used for anti-mask tests.

Normal employer would only encourage experiments leading to better understanding of tools used by their employees.

CalamariFritti

Tbh without getting into the measured technicalities of it all - masks suck.

Their contribution to hemming the spread can not be quantified. The believers will have you believe its huge. Empirical evidence suggests it is not.

So masks it is. And we're now all messing around with our hands permanently adjusting bits of fabric in our face. Something we weren't supposed to do at all.

We were also told to use masks as diligently as you may use a condom. Put them on just so. Dont go near it in action. Discard after use. Well only thats not happening. More like back pocket or glove compartment and re-use a hundred times and not been washed or replaced in weeks.

The believers will have you believe they are only one tool and they are essential. The believers will also tell you its 'science' although not 'rocket science'. And their science will contain many words like can or may. And fancy computer graphics where entirely hypothetical clouds of vapour are being shifted around in virtual spaces.

While our doctors and medical experts actually tell us they're rubbish. Ah no hold on they changed their mind. Their mind was bent but the 'not rocket science'.

Masks suck.

Caraibh

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Tbh without getting into the measured technicalities of it all - masks suck.

Their contribution to hemming the spread can not be quantified. The believers will have you believe its huge. Empirical evidence suggests it is not.

So masks it is. And we're now all messing around with our hands permanently adjusting bits of fabric in our face. Something we weren't supposed to do at all.

We were also told to use masks as diligently as you may use a condom. Put them on just so. Dont go near it in action. Discard after use. Well only thats not happening. More like back pocket or glove compartment and re-use a hundred times and not been washed or replaced in weeks.

The believers will have you believe they are only one tool and they are essential. The believers will also tell you its 'science' although not 'rocket science'. And their science will contain many words like can or may. And fancy computer graphics where entirely hypothetical clouds of vapour are being shifted around in virtual spaces.

While our doctors and medical experts actually tell us they're rubbish. Ah no hold on they changed their mind. Their mind was bent but the 'not rocket science'.

Masks suck.

Yep, but we'll probably be wearing them forever, so we'll just have to get used to never seeing a human face in public again. There's is no evidence that they will ever be got rid of.

robinph

Caraibh wrote: »

Yep, but we'll probably be wearing them forever, so we'll just have to get used to never seeing a human face in public again. There's is no evidence that they will ever be got rid of.

Where is the evidence that they won't ever be got rid of?

I'm sure you've seen plenty of photos of people wearing masks during the "Spanish" flu pandemic, were people still wearing masks for the last hundred years?

What reason do you have for thinking that we'll be made to wear masks forever more?

Graham

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Tbh without getting into the measured technicalities of it all - masks suck.

Ignore the science and masks suck.

Gotcha

Thats me

robinph wrote: »

were people still wearing masks for the last hundred years?

Your post implies Japanese are not people

robinph

Thats me wrote: »

Your post implies Japanese are not people

Your post implies that you don't know why they were choosing to wear masks for the last few years, entirely voluntarily, and nothing to do with any flu pandemic from 100 years ago.

Away With The Fairies

Thats me wrote: »

Your post implies Japanese are not people

Asians wear masks because of pollution. Thought this was already mentioned here already. But somehow anti-maskers like to bring them up because we'll be forever wearing masks and turning Japanese.

Caraibh

robinph wrote: »

Where is the evidence that they won't ever be got rid of?

I'm sure you've seen plenty of photos of people wearing masks during the "Spanish" flu pandemic, were people still wearing masks for the last hundred years?

What reason do you have for thinking that we'll be made to wear masks forever more?

Not a single country in the world, including those where this thing is no longer significant, has got rid of them completely, or even promised that they'll go post vaccine. In fact, the opposite is true. The French Minister for Health said the other day that he couldn't say whether the masks and distancing would stay post vaccine or not.

Different world and context. This is the social media age. Social media determines social policy to a large degree. Get enough people to scream 'murderer' and 'shame' on social media if it is suggested that masks be got rid of and masks stay. That's how it works.

And then there's the problem of Anthony. He appears to love controlling people.

robinph

Caraibh wrote: »

Not a single country in the world, including those where this thing is no longer significant, has got rid of them completely, or even promised that they'll go post vaccine. In fact, the opposite is true. The French Minister for Health said the other day that he couldn't say whether the masks and distancing would stay post vaccine or not.

A minister saying that they don't know what the situation will be next year and what restrictions will be in place is hardly proof of a conspiracy to force the worlds population to wear masks for ever more.

That just means that they don't know, that is all, nothing more.

And what do you mean by "no country has got rid of them completely"? Are you looking for a country to ban face masks to counter your argument?

Away With The Fairies

Caraibh wrote: »

Not a single country in the world, including those where this thing is no longer significant, has got rid of them completely, or even promised that they'll go post vaccine. In fact, the opposite is true. The French Minister for Health said the other day that he couldn't say whether the masks and distancing would stay post vaccine or not.

Different world and context. This is the social media age. Social media determines social policy to a large degree. Get enough people to scream 'murderer' and 'shame' on social media if it is suggested that masks be got rid of and masks stay. That's how it works.

And then there's the problem of Anthony. He appears to love controlling people.

The biggest health crisis of our lifetime and before a vaccine, you want countries to come out and say to fcuk with masks?

Caraibh

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

The biggest health crisis of our lifetime and before a vaccine, you want countries to come out and say to fcuk with masks?

Biggest health crisis? You mean the one and two case a day raging pandemic Ireland just about survived in the summer?

I want a country to come out and say that masks will be a thing of the past post vaccine. The only Health Minister to have said that masks will soon be no more is the Turkish Minister of Health.

Caraibh

robinph wrote: »

A minister saying that they don't know what the situation will be next year and what restrictions will be in place is hardly proof of a conspiracy to force the worlds population to wear masks for ever more.

That just means that they don't know, that is all, nothing more.

And what do you mean by "no country has got rid of them completely"? Are you looking for a country to ban face masks to counter your argument?

The alleged pandemic is over in several Asian countries and yet masks are still required everywhere. Now, there are of course cultural differences to consider, but there'll still there as a constant reminder of the Orwell boot in the face prediction.

So the guy in France doesn't know, which means they could be permanent. I don't particularly care about France, or even like the country, but since they all seem to be copying each other if they stay there then they'll stay everywhere in the West.

Thats me

Caraibh wrote: »

Biggest health crisis? You mean the one and two case a day raging pandemic Ireland just about survived in the summer?

I want a country to come out and say that masks will be a thing of the past post vaccine. The only Health Minister to have said that masks will soon be no more is the Turkish Minister of Health.

I have no doubts if somebody would enforce wearing masks with no reason many people would raise. But while this is not the case i see no reason to be worried in advance.

robinph

Caraibh wrote: »

The alleged pandemic is over in several Asian countries and yet masks are still required everywhere. Now, there are of course cultural differences to consider, but there'll still there as a constant reminder of the Orwell boot in the face prediction.

So the guy in France doesn't know, which means they could be permanent. I don't particularly care about France, or even like the country, but since they all seem to be copying each other if they stay there then they'll stay everywhere in the West.

"Required everywhere"

You sure about that?

New Zealand has lifted most restrictions, but brought some back in for Auckland recently by the looks of it. Almost like they are changing the rules to fit with what is required at the time, and when they are not required they are no longer a requirement to be worn.

Wonder if anywhere else might do the same thing?

https://covid19.govt.nz/health-and-wellbeing/protect-yourself-and-others/wear-a-face-covering/