Masks

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Don't buy it then. China have ramped up production of all equipment 20 fold as only they can to supply the world in this crisis. When you ramp up at that level you might get bad batches.

Spanish foreign minister is on record as saying this is a tiny amount and it was understandable in the current output demands expected in China. She said China is replacing instandly without cost.

I hear the batch in the Czech republic was because they went cheap and bought from unlicensed suppliers not on the offical China list. I think Spain and Holland the same kinda thing happened.

I think the journalist Lun Xin (not sure of the spelling) may have a point when she said on a viral video in China is that if you have nothing good to say "take it or leave it, make it yourself, China doesn't need your insults". We might be seeing a hardening of the Chinese opinion on this.

Can you imagine trying to get the fat masses of the likes of Rochdale to go from zero to hero and produce a meaningful amount of PPE and listen to their demands on pay.

Can the health board officials rock up to the factories and warehouses in China to check some batches?

Lady just on Newstalk also said that production was increased. She stressed that 3/5 of the equipment is suitable and that is good considering the lack of PPE over a week ago. The issue would be that every box would most likely need to be checked before sent out.

YFlyer wrote: »

Can the health board officials rock up to the factories and warehouses in China to check some batches?

Lady just on Newstalk also said that production was increased. She stressed that 3/5 of the equipment is suitable and that is good considering the lack of PPE over a week ago. The issue would be that every box would most likely need to be checked before sent out.

They have increased production of all these products by a factor of 20. I do have some sympathy and can understand why so many feel, fe%k it, make it yourselves and less of the constant insults.

There is other options for all the Chinese people bashing governments, they should be made to source there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pwI4E9tsk

cryptocurrency wrote: »

I think the journalist Lun Xin (not sure of the spelling) may have a point when she said on a viral video in China is that if you have nothing good to say "take it or leave it, make it yourself, China doesn't need your insults". We might be seeing a hardening of the Chinese opinion on this.

If it turns out the quality is under par from an official Chinese source and they do take this attitude - and if it's a Chinese journalist able to spread this on Chinese social media it's the government's position, or at least they don't disagree - fuck them from a height and have long memories about this.

Fleetwoodmac

cryptocurrency wrote: »

What is it then? Chinese medical staff look an awful lot better prepared on the hospital floors then the PPE the NHS/HSE are looking for.

NHS nurses are not impressed with the standard latex glove, surgical mask and a plastic disposable apron.

And PPE gear that stops at the elbow... Jesus if it wasn't so serious, it would be out of a father Ted script.

kravmaga

Wibbs wrote: »

Some pharmacies are being responsible and not price gouging, some are very much not.

My local pharmacy are charging €7.50 for 3 masks.

Wibbs wrote: »

If it turns out the quality is under par from an official Chinese source and they do take this attitude - and if it's a Chinese journalist able to spread this on Chinese social media it's the government's position, or at least they don't disagree - fuck them from a height and have long memories about this.

I think the constant wave of abuse on everything they do is bound to provoke a reaction.

We are moving to a deglobalised world after this anyway so like most nations, they will focus on their internal market.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

They have increased production of all these products by a factor of 20. I do have some sympathy and can understand why so many feel, fe%k it, make it yourselves and less of the constant insults.

There is other options for all the Chinese people bashing governments, they should be made to source there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--pwI4E9tsk

I be an advocate of been self sufficient as well. What insults?

Update on rte says that they prefer gowns then coveralls as coveralls need training as how you take it off important for safety and that is what was sent as part of chinese ppe. WHy? Did no one check whether it was coverall or gowns?

THe guy looked at masks and mentioned lack of familiarity and training needed. He keeps referring to lack of familiarity and this is an issue as people have to be brought up to speed. 65% of delivery meets specification but needs training.

THe pleated masks with ear loops not used in hospital but not for helathcare maybe for person waiting for assessments prefer other not, oops he nearly said not suitable but caught himself. SO they keep referring not preferred when he means not suitable. Very diplomatic

Product by donation not suitable and will not be issued to healthcare

Bob24

Wibbs wrote: »

Outside of a handful of prepper type folks it was anything but "obvious" and any premonitions were far more luck than judgement and only look like prescience in the rear view mirror. With a hint of a gloating I told you so.

Don't disagree that some predictions were not backed by strong arguments, but I think you are being unfair to a handful of people (granted, not many) who saw it pretty much for what it was as early as January based on the available facts and an actual good analysis of the situation.

I might have posted it before on another thread, but to give an exemple a late January interview with a guy called Chris Martenson (PhD in pathology) is what got me to realise it was serious and quite likely coming for us in Europe. It is the second half of this podcast episode: https://www.macrovoices.com/778-macrovoices-204-julian-brigden (written transcript here)

In the interview he was explaining the concept or R0 which we have now all became familiar with, and the different characteristics of the virus explaining why it was not like other ones before leading him to believe it was going to become a global pandemic with major health impacts. Everything he said then is still 100% relevant today and would just need minor updates to be considered an after the fact explanation of what happened.

Just 2 quotes amongst other relevant things he says in the interview to show how he got this right (again, this looks obvious now but he said it late Jan actually augmenting it with scientific explanations):

So that just tells us – the R0 doesn’t tell us that 3.4 billion people would get infected. But it tells us how infective this is. And it begins to help us understand –
You know, when we were looking at China it was like, oh, there’s 1,000 cases, less than 50 deaths. And, next thing you know, they’re shutting down Beijing and Shanghai and really going quite serious in their efforts. This begins to explain why, because it’s a very, very infective disease.

That’s the kind of care that you end up getting when a system gets overwhelmed. You’re not in a private room with ventilators and 62 machines that go “bing.” It’s a different experience.
And so once, I think, the serious complication rate comes into play and it overwhelms your hospital system, the case fatality rate now is going to spike, simply because you can’t put enough care in for people.

And as a side note you know what Google's reaction was when Martenson started to warn about this becoming a global pandemic on his website with Youtube videos and telling people to buy masks to prepare for it (I think it was in late Jan or early Feb)?
You guessed it right, the dereferenced and demonetized his Youtube channel for scaremongering.

(btw MacroVoices is an excellent podcast for anyone interested in macroeconomics and has inadvertently become one of my best sources for coronavirus updates and analysis as the host has been on top of this very early and to date has given me what I think is a significant advance in my understanding of the situation vs what transpires in the general public; to go back strictly on topic, listening to it is part of the reason why I have FFP2/FFP3 masks at home)

Paul Reid is saying that it is a volitile market similar to wartime and that the pro.duct can only be examined on arrival.
On equipment not suitable for use 20% of order is 4 million euro value. THey arent returning it or expecting refund, next week they are looking for samples befoe ordering.

Will it cause a shortage? the focus on suitability in better position but market volitile difficult to look ahead to supplu all needs.

Keep blaming donations from people not ordered batch

Question on wearing masks in public asked. Matter under review guided by WHO who are also reviewing it. Evidence to support genereal use is at best weak in Corican's view. So his advice to irish public stay home clean hand keep distanceand keep hands away from face. small part of equation. Corican hasnt seen good evidence neither has his colleagues

I do think this is to do with the shotage of masks for healthcare workers

khalessi wrote: »

Update on rte says that they prefer gowns then coveralls as coveralls need training as how you take it off important for safety and that is what was sent as part of chinese ppe. WHy? Did no one check whether it was coverall or gowns?

THe guy looked at masks and mentioned lack of familiarity and training needed. He keeps referring to lack of familiarity and this is an issue as people have to be brought up to speed. 65% of delivery meets specification but needs training.

Sounds like a bit of WTF?? on all sides to me K. I mean how bloody long does it take someone who wasn't dropped on their head to learn how to put on a mask FFS? TBH if this is the level of their complaints I could see the Chinese wondering WTF.

Product by donation not suitable and will not be issued to healthcare

So keep our masks to ourselves I suppose is the takeaway there? I've dealt with the HSE in the past and the organisation is beyond wasteful and slow to take back stuff they themselves issued in the first place. I'd 100% give any PPE I had to a healthworker on a one to one personal basis, but not to the HSE. If they were even allowed wear it of course.

khalessi wrote: »

Update on rte says that they prefer gowns then coveralls as coveralls need training as how you take it off important for safety and that is what was sent as part of chinese ppe. WHy? Did no one check whether it was coverall or gowns?

THe guy looked at masks and mentioned lack of familiarity and training needed. He keeps referring to lack of familiarity and this is an issue as people have to be brought up to speed. 65% of delivery meets specification but needs training.

THe pleated masks with ear loops not used in hospital but not for helathcare maybe for person waiting for assessments prefer other not, oops he nearly said not suitable but caught himself. SO they keep referring not preferred when he means not suitable. Very diplomatic

Product by donation not suitable and will not be issued to healthcare

jeysus, training

Wibbs wrote: »

Sounds like a bit of WTF?? on all sides to me K. I mean how bloody long does it take someone who wasn't dropped on their head to learn how to put on a mask FFS? TBH if this is the level of their complaints I could see the Chinese wondering WTF.

So keep our masks to ourselves I suppose is the takeaway there? I've dealt with the HSE in the past and the organisation is beyond wasteful and slow to take back stuff they themselves issued in the first place. I'd 100% give any PPE I had to a healthworker on a one to one personal basis, but not to the HSE. If they were even allowed wear it of course.

Yeah they mentioned training with the masks and the coverall jumpsuits with blue stripes basically they werent given what they expectes is what I take from it.

In Africa post ebola getting out of the jumpsuits caused infection and illness in med staff

cryptocurrency wrote: »

jeysus, training

Yeah I think he is trying to be very diplomatic as once or twice he slipped and said not suitable and quickly changes to not preferred.

THey said they would find a use for it but not frontline healthcare and I think they are scapegoating public donations

khalessi wrote: »

Yeah I think he is trying to be very diplomatic as once or twice he slipped and said not suitable and quickly changes to not preferred.

THey said they would find a use for it but not frontline healthcare and I think they are scapegoating public donations

I bet the PPE is a far better job then what is used day to day. Do they have to wait for an italian style oubreak before the coveralls become useful?

HOpefully not

Those coveralls ideally need 2 people one getting into it and one ensuring secured properly and that it is properly removed the masks not so much. But nursing staff would be quick enough learning this if thought properly

Below are the standards required from the suppliers.

Personal Protective Equipment Standards
In response to the European Commission’s request and in association with CEN, the European Committee for Standardization, and CENELEC, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, BSI has made a series of European Standards (ENs) for medical devices and personal protective equipment (PPE) used in the context of the current COVID-19 outbreak available without charge on its website.

The standards, which cover face masks, medical gloves and protective clothing are listed below:

BS EN 149:2001+A1:2009 Respiratory protective devices. Filtering half masks to protect against particles. Requirements, testing, marking
BS EN 166:2002 Personal eye protection. Specifications
BS EN 14126:2003 Protective clothing. Performance requirements and tests methods for protective clothing against infective agents
BS EN 14605:2009+A1:2009 Protective clothing against liquid chemicals. Performance requirements for clothing with liquid-tight (Type 3) or spray-tight (Type 4) connections, including items providing protection to parts of the body only (Types PB [3] and PB [4])
BS EN 13795-1:2019 Surgical clothing and drapes. Requirements and test methods. Surgical drapes and gowns
BS EN 13795-2:2019 Surgical clothing and drapes. Requirements and test methods. Clean air suits
BS EN 455-1:2000 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for freedom from holes
BS EN 455-2:2015 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for physical properties
BS EN 455-3:2015 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for biological evaluation
BS EN 455-4:2009 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for shelf life determination
BS EN 14683:2019 Medical face masks. Requirements and test methods.
BS EN ISO 10993-1:2009 Biological evaluation of medical devices. Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
BS EN ISO 374-5:2016 Protective gloves against dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms. Terminology and performance requirements for micro-organisms risks
BS EN ISO 13688:2013 Protective clothing. General requirements
BS EN 13795-1:2019 Surgical clothing and drapes - Requirements and test methods - Part 1: Surgical drapes and gowns
BS EN 29073-3:1992 Methods of tests for Nonwovens - Part 3: Determination of tensile strength and elongation
BS EN ISO 139:2005 Textiles - Standard atmospheres for conditioning and testing
BS EN ISO 811:2018 Textiles - Determination of resistance to water penetration - Hydrostatic pressure test
BS EN ISO 9073-10:2004 Textiles - Test methods for nonwovens - Part 10: Lint and other particles generation in the dry state
BS EN ISO 10993-1:2009 Biological evaluation of medical devices Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
BS EN ISO 11737-1:2018 Sterilization of health care products - Microbiological methods - Part 1: Determination of a population of microorganisms on products
BS EN ISO 13938‑1:2019 Textiles - Bursting properties of fabrics - Part 1: Hydraulic method for determination of bursting strength and bursting distension
BS EN ISO 22612:2005 Clothing for protection against infectious agents — Test method for resistance to dry microbial penetration
ISO 22610:2018 Surgical drapes, gowns and clean air suits, used as medical devices, for patients, clinical staff and equipment - Test method to determine the resistance to wet bacterial penetration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmKfS2TkrSo

khalessi wrote: »

Question on wearing masks in public asked. Matter under review guided by WHO who are also reviewing it.

AKA we won't jump until the WHO say how high.

Evidence to support genereal use is at best weak in Corican's view. So his advice to irish public stay home clean hand keep distanceand keep hands away from face. small part of equation. Corican hasnt seen good evidence neither has his colleagues

Then either Cormican can't read, or has both his head up his arse and in the sand at the same time. It's still amazing to me that masks are strongly protective in clinical environments but have zero evidence of utility beyond them(there isn't). Watching him on Primetime was informative. When asked about masks he rattled out the usual mantra of imperfect use in the public, but even with perfect use he squirmed away from the matter. How many are perfect use washing our hands or observing social distancing? And yet they're promoted.

I mean here is this guy in March stating that asymptomatic virus shedding was likely to be a low risk. That the risks were so low that if you are living with a person who has had contact with a Covid source his advice was to live your life as normally as possible.

This was known to be bollocks even then. Hell it was written about in a US medical outlet about a German case on the very day he was handing out that "advice".

I do think this is to do with the shotage of masks for healthcare workers

That's the guts of it K, add in the HSE not doing anything until the WHO tells them to and experts like your man wheeled out to back the WHO and HSE position.

I absolutley think masks should be used in public. It doesnt take all the much to figure how to use them.

YFlyer wrote: »

Below are the standards required from the suppliers.

Personal Protective Equipment Standards
In response to the European Commission’s request and in association with CEN, the European Committee for Standardization, and CENELEC, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, BSI has made a series of European Standards (ENs) for medical devices and personal protective equipment (PPE) used in the context of the current COVID-19 outbreak available without charge on its website.

The standards, which cover face masks, medical gloves and protective clothing are listed below:

BS EN 149:2001+A1:2009 Respiratory protective devices. Filtering half masks to protect against particles. Requirements, testing, marking
BS EN 166:2002 Personal eye protection. Specifications
BS EN 14126:2003 Protective clothing. Performance requirements and tests methods for protective clothing against infective agents
BS EN 14605:2009+A1:2009 Protective clothing against liquid chemicals. Performance requirements for clothing with liquid-tight (Type 3) or spray-tight (Type 4) connections, including items providing protection to parts of the body only (Types PB [3] and PB [4])
BS EN 13795-1:2019 Surgical clothing and drapes. Requirements and test methods. Surgical drapes and gowns
BS EN 13795-2:2019 Surgical clothing and drapes. Requirements and test methods. Clean air suits
BS EN 455-1:2000 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for freedom from holes
BS EN 455-2:2015 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for physical properties
BS EN 455-3:2015 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for biological evaluation
BS EN 455-4:2009 Medical gloves for single use. Requirements and testing for shelf life determination
BS EN 14683:2019 Medical face masks. Requirements and test methods.
BS EN ISO 10993-1:2009 Biological evaluation of medical devices. Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
BS EN ISO 374-5:2016 Protective gloves against dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms. Terminology and performance requirements for micro-organisms risks
BS EN ISO 13688:2013 Protective clothing. General requirements
BS EN 13795-1:2019 Surgical clothing and drapes - Requirements and test methods - Part 1: Surgical drapes and gowns
BS EN 29073-3:1992 Methods of tests for Nonwovens - Part 3: Determination of tensile strength and elongation
BS EN ISO 139:2005 Textiles - Standard atmospheres for conditioning and testing
BS EN ISO 811:2018 Textiles - Determination of resistance to water penetration - Hydrostatic pressure test
BS EN ISO 9073-10:2004 Textiles - Test methods for nonwovens - Part 10: Lint and other particles generation in the dry state
BS EN ISO 10993-1:2009 Biological evaluation of medical devices Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
BS EN ISO 11737-1:2018 Sterilization of health care products - Microbiological methods - Part 1: Determination of a population of microorganisms on products
BS EN ISO 13938‑1:2019 Textiles - Bursting properties of fabrics - Part 1: Hydraulic method for determination of bursting strength and bursting distension
BS EN ISO 22612:2005 Clothing for protection against infectious agents — Test method for resistance to dry microbial penetration
ISO 22610:2018 Surgical drapes, gowns and clean air suits, used as medical devices, for patients, clinical staff and equipment - Test method to determine the resistance to wet bacterial penetration

It's amazing, so many jurisdictions have different requirements and they all want it now...and it is all Chinas fault if they can't meet the demand 100%.

They would be wiser stepping away from this as it will get toxic.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

It's amazing, so many jurisdictions have different requirements and they all want it now...and it is all Chinas fault if they can't meet the demand 100%.

Whatever about demand and I can see obvious ramp up issues there for China and fair enough, but China has already been supplying to those different requirements for many many years, so they know how to.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

It's amazing, so many jurisdictions have different requirements and they all want it now...and it is all Chinas fault if they can't meet the demand 100%.

They would be wiser stepping away from this as it will get toxic.

The British Standards and ISO are the gold standards for contagious coronavirus.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

If it turns out the quality is under par from an official Chinese source and they do take this attitude - and if it's a Chinese journalist able to spread this on Chinese social media it's the government's position, or at least they don't disagree - fuck them from a height and have long memories about this.

It would be a disgrace if they did take that attitude.

China should remember they caused this, yet again too. Turned the world on its head either due to wet markets or through the virus being carelessly released from a virology lab in Wuhan. People can say what they want about the EU but at least we have standards here.

I think the world needs to disentangle themselves from China as best we can.

YFlyer wrote: »

The British Standards and ISO are the gold standards for contagious coronavirus.

sure, clearly.