nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Masks

fr336

How many people on Boards have a mask and if so are you wearing them for essential trips? And this late in the day where can you get one that is going to be half decent and not from a suspect seller who could have done anything to it?

Find more posts tagged with

shop

mask

covering

covid

facemask

Comments

na1

stratowide wrote: »

Have the masks got one way valves fitted or what..?

yes! there is a one way valve called EYES.
eyes of infected people don't spread virus,
eyes of all people do accept viruses.

na1

GreeBo wrote: »

because they typically "penetrate" your mouth and nose, which a mask covers.

They are not nano-bots that are eating their way through your skin!

is there a study that supports your statement?

GreeBo

Gynoid wrote: »

About 4 weeks ago when we were hearing whisperings from Clare I was chatting with a friend of mine who had just the previous day returned from Asia. She said in the places she had been loads of people automatically wore masks, out shopping etc , because for one thing it is culturally considered to be the absolute height of ignorance to cough or sneeze in a public market place and thus possibly infect someone else with anything, never mind covid.
I had just before our chat come back from a local shop where someone had hacked wetly into their hand and then delved into their purse to get money for the check out lady. It is only over time that people become aware of their own unconscious ignorance. Hopefully things will change.

I thought that much of the mask wearing in Asia was due to their crappy air quality rather than politeness. Considering the amount of spitting that goes on in many cultures over there I really dont think its out of respect for others...

na1

Wibbs wrote: »

Why do some insist on doubling down on their ignorance of a subject? Never mind the contrary logic in that statement of yours. Think. If a mask on an infected person reduces the spread of viral particles getting out, how does the same mask on a non infected person magically become useless at reducing the spread of viral particles getting in? They're not a one way system for god's sake.

I never seen a person who can sneeze via eyes. Can you?

D3V!L

na1 wrote: »

is there a study that supports your statement?

There is no mucus membrane in your skin.

GreeBo

na1 wrote: »

is there a study that supports your statement?

Seriously?
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses

GreeBo

na1 wrote: »

I never seen a person who can sneeze via eyes. Can you?

I can get milk out of my eyes if thats any help?

na1

GreeBo wrote: »

Seriously?
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses

yes!

Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth.

na1

D3V!L wrote: »

There is no mucus membrane in your skin.

The conjunctiva? Never heard about it?

na1

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, sure they don't, people wear these just for the fun of it:

.

So you think people, who're invented this are idiots?
\

You can't inhale with eyes, buy you CAN get virus though you eyes!

D3V!L

na1 wrote: »

The conjunctiva? Never heard about it?

Yes, which is in your EYE :rolleyes:

dublin99

stratowide wrote: »

Have the masks got one way valves fitted or what..?

A quick reminder of the various specs, one way/two way protection :

https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp/

GreeBo

na1 wrote: »

yes!

Its hard to touch your nose or mouth with a mask over them.

no one is saying you cant get it through your eyes, but YOU are saying that a mask is pointless if it doesnt protect your eyes (or in fact your skin)

Pick an argument and stick to it please.

na1

D3V!L wrote: »

Yes, which is in your EYE :rolleyes:

Which is exactly what I'm talking about: no eye protection - no virus protection.

D3V!L

na1 wrote: »

Which is exactly what I'm talking about: no eye protection - no virus protection.

Yes while I agree you should read my post.

GreeBo

na1 wrote: »

Which is exactly what I'm talking about: no eye protection - no virus protection.

No eye protection = slightly limited virus protection.

Unless your argument is that everyone gets infected via the eye?

na1

GreeBo wrote: »

Its hard to touch your nose or mouth with a mask over them.

no one is saying you cant get it through your eyes, but YOU are saying that a mask is pointless if it doesnt protect your eyes (or in fact your skin)

Pick an argument and stick to it please.

So you're saying it is OK wearing mouth& nose mask if infected person sneeze on you face (including eyes)?

Pick you argument

na1

GreeBo wrote: »

No eye protection = slightly limited virus protection.

Unless your argument is that everyone gets infected via the eye?

Do you have the study that backs your statement?
The WHO only says that you CAN be infected via eyes.

Esel

I'm keeping my eyes shut and breathing through my ears.

na1

D3V!L wrote: »

Yes while I agree you should read my post.

Please quote my statement about skin protection?
Where did I say this?

jackofalltrades

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/coronavirus/la-mayor-eric-garcetti-daily-coronavirus-update-april/2339348/

The mayor of Los Angeles just urged Los Angelenos to wear masks or face coverings.
Hopefully this will lead to a change across the US and further afield.

na1

GreeBo wrote: »

Its hard to touch your nose or mouth with a mask over them.

BTW, if some infected person with no mask does sneeze on you, and you touch your clothes/hair after a while (for example after returning home) you can get infection.
Thats why masks on infected people are much more critical to prevent spreading infection

GreeBo

na1 wrote: »

Do you have the study that backs your statement?
The WHO only says that you CAN be infected via eyes.

Actually what they said was
" people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth."
And I'm sure you know this as you quoted as much yourself.

na1 wrote: »

So you're saying it is OK wearing mouth& nose mask if infected person sneeze on you face (including eyes)?

Pick you argument

No I'm saying that currently there are 3 known infection paths, eyes, mouth & nose.
A mask will protect 2 of them so its not "useless" as you have decreed.

GreeBo

na1 wrote: »

BTW, if some infected person with no mask does sneeze on you, and you touch your clothes/hair after a while (for example after returning home) you can get infection.
Thats why masks on infected people are much more critical to prevent spreading infection

You cant get infected from your hair alone.
The virus would need to get transferred from your hair to one of your "eyes, nose, mouth"

Please stop posting, for all our sakes.

stratowide

This is straight out of Yes prime minister.

Primeminister "We don't have enough masks for everyone.We have barely enough for frontline staff.What can we do..?"

Sir Humphrey "Tell them the masks are useless and will not work for ordinary citizens."

Primeminister "What are you saying,they wont believe such spin.?"

Sir Humphrey "Oh but they will Primeminister...and when we have enough masks for everyone we'll give them out for free and force everyone to wear them."

Primeminister "By jove Humphrey you're a genius."

Musefan

Definite increase in people wearing masks from last week compared to today during the weekly trip out.

I've been caught in an ethical dilemma, not wanting to wear a mask that would deprive a healthcare worker of one, and also wanting to minimise risk as much as possible, so I bought a reusable, washable one that I can fit a filter into.

august12

Musefan wrote: »

Definite increase in people wearing masks from last week compared to today during the weekly trip out.

I've been caught in an ethical dilemma, not wanting to wear a mask that would deprive a healthcare worker of one, and also wanting to minimise risk as much as possible, so I bought a reusable, washable one that I can fit a filter into.

Do you mind if I ask where you purchased or a link please?

djan

Having access to data from tests carried out in the Czech Republic, where it is now illegal to be outside without one it has been without doubt proven to reduce your ability to spread the virus.

The sole reason for WHO and the local Gov playing down their effectiveness is to stop mass madness akin to the toilet paper fiasco...

People are missing the point. While it still helps in stopping transfer of aerosols to you from others, the main reason to wear one is to not infect others. If everyone wears them, the virus will spread less. A vast number of people are asymptomatic and are going about spreading the virus without even realising it. That's what the masks are for.

A homemade cotton mask with 2-3 layers will do quite a good job. After use just place is in boiling water for a few minutes, then steam with an iron and it can be re-used quite a number of times.

Wibbs

na1 wrote: »

yes! there is a one way valve called EYES.
eyes of infected people don't spread virus,
eyes of all people do accept viruses.

The single most important route for Covid-19 to infect a person is through the mucus membrane of the airways. This is a fact, not conjecture, not theory. Infection via the eyes has been hypothesised but is in no way conclusive. One take on the topic.

How is the new coronavirus related to your eyes?

The relationship between the transmission of the coronavirus and your eyes is complicated.

Because it's a new illness, we do not know exactly how coronavirus spreads from person to person, the NHS says. Similar viruses are spread in respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby, or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.

It's very unlikely COVID-19 can be spread through things like packages or food, the NHS says.

At this time there is no strong evidence that the new coronavirus (COVID-19) is linked to conjunctivitis. As red eye (conjunctivitis) is not a coronavirus symptom, stay at home or use the 111 online coronavirus service to find out what to do.

Furthermore, the risk of coronavirus transmission through tears is low , according to a new study published in the Ophthalmology journal. Researchers tested tear samples collected from patients with COVID-19 in Singapore.
How might your eyes play a role in transmission?

Peking University respiratory specialist Wang Guangfa believes he may have contracted COVID-19 while not wearing eye protection when treating patients at health clinics in China.

Medical officials, though, say while this is possible, it may be unlikely.

Wang reported that his left eye became inflamed afterward, followed by a fever and a buildup of mucus in his nose and throat. He subsequently was diagnosed with new coronavirus.

According to the South China Morning Post , Wang thinks the virus entered his left eye because he wasn’t wearing protective eyewear.

Dr. Jan Evans Patterson, professor of medicine and pathology in the Long School of Medicine’s infectious diseases division at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, confirms that a scenario like Wang’s could potentially happen.

In Wang’s situation, she says, respiratory droplets from an infected person might have reached his eyes or other mucous membranes.

Generally, though, transmission of COVID-19 comes with so many unknowns that it’s “plausible but unlikely” to contract it through hand-to-eye contact, says Dr. Stephen Thomas , chief of infectious diseases at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York.

However not a single doctor or scientist anywhere will express any doubt whatsoever that the primary route of infection for this virus is through the mucus membranes of the airways. Not one.

There's also the matter of initial viral load. It's looking like those who are exposed to a larger initial dose, for example a medic in a hospital setting laden with virus, are more likely to suffer worse symptom progression and more need for medical intervention. If you did catch this through the eyes, it would be a smaller dose than by inhalation and would take longer to get into your airways and longer means more time for the immune system to catch up before it's overwhelmed..

And that's before the idiocy of your black and white not for changing no matter what position. Why bother washing your hands if you can get it through droplets getting into your eyes and apparently hair too. :rolleyes: Why bother with any precautions? Because each precautionary step you take removes more risk of catching and transmitting the virus. That's why and masks clearly work as one such precautionary step.

And if your eyes are so vulnerable why not wear protective glasses as well as masks? Nobody is stopping you.

ixoy

Anyone have a feeling for how useful dust masks are (the fairly disposable kind, like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Cone-88240_1920.jpg)? I've got a couple of these - I've been saving them for now, while the infection rates are relatively low but I can't find much online about their usefulness. Not as good as some others obviously as they've no real filter.