Bob24 wrote: » If the only point to argue against my post is that “unlikely to be of any benefit” is significantly different advice from saying “useless”, I think it is a fairly weak point (I never said I was quoting the exact wording of the HSE website btw, I was just summarising in a word the general message sent by Irish authorities). If we leave the linguistic argument aside and stick to the wording of the HSE, “unlikely to be of any benefit” is a fallacious statement in the exact same way as I explained in my post.
peasant wrote: » Here's some research into what is the best material for your home-made masks:https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/
Manion wrote: » OK so they didn't say they were useless, that comes from you.
twirlagig wrote: » I have a handheld steamer thing in the back of some press that I bought maybe 2 years ago but never really used... I am going to try get a few masks tomorrow if I can... Would something like this be effective on masks? They must reach higher temperatures than washing machines?
Fleetwoodmac wrote: » 30 mins in oven at 70° has been directive given to hse staff ... may be easier than steamer
Professor Moriarty wrote: » If you have a few masks and you are going to reuse them, keep them in the shed and use them every three days. No need to sanitise.
twirlagig wrote: » I only know that one time I used it I stupidly thought ‘it can’t be that hot’... had a burn blister on my finger after for days. The few masks that seem available are to me kinda paper like / slash cardboard-ish. I’m not putting anything into the oven now apart from food.
paleoperson wrote: » Remember the virus is far smaller than the mask. Even a perfectly fitted mask probably will not stop many or maybe most particles from getting through, but they certainly stop some percentage.
paleoperson wrote: » Remember the virus is far smaller than the mask filter.
2u2me wrote: » I believe they do stop most of the transmission of viral load by stopping the biggest of particles especially in interactions with others. You need a larger quantity of the aerosolized particles that can get through masks to get infected. Viral load matters apparently. Your eyes though are still pretty exposed, so getting the best super duper mask going is pretty pointless unless you also opt for the protective eye wear.
Bob24 wrote: » This is correct, but from what I have read it isn’t really a concern because the virus itself doesn’t tend to flow freely in the air but is almost always attach to particles which are easily blocked by the mask (tiny saliva/water droplets, tiny dust particles, etc). Now I haven’t studied this in details ... but I think this is a convincing explanation of why correctly fitted FFP2/FFP3 masks can be considered very efficient at preventing contamination through the nose and mouth (of course our eyes are another path which is not covered by a mask).
dublin99 wrote: » Most important is the way you put on/take off mask. Sanitise hands BEFORE putting on mask and press down on wire strip around nose. Adjust. Stretch over nose and pull over chin to get good seal. Do not touch mask/face while out. Sanitise hands before removing mask. Use the straps/ties. Do not touch the outside (can be contaminated). Dispose of or store mask (I put the ffp2 respirator in a clean ziplock after a quick 30 minutes use in shop. In Asia people put surgicals masks in clean A4 envelope or ziplock say during meals.) Sanitise hands again AFTER removing mask.
paleoperson wrote: » Bob24 I disagree about "near 100%" though, only a hazmat suit with proper spraying off after use could be considered as 100%.
iamwhoiam wrote: » How long would you need to leave in the zip lock before using again ? Would you wipe the mask down with a anti bac wipe before putting in the bag ?
Fleetwoodmac wrote: » You seem to playing with semantics here... surely people have the critical thinking skills to see the continuous shifting of goalposts throughout the directives given by those supposedly in the know. It's either the masks offer no benefit or they are necessary but required by the frontline staff... which is it.. The onus at this stage should be that we make our own informed decision instead of waiting for directives that seem to be at this stage misguided and bordering on negligence. Sending front line staff out without the proper equipment is akin to using them as cannon fodder and the indefensible cannot be defended.
Manion wrote: » youre taking one statement, flipping it, increasing intensity and extrapolating. Furthermore presenting a binary spectrum of positions and a clear "if this than that" logical which isn't very critical.
Manion wrote: » There is some good advice on this thread, there is all so a lot of conjecture, racism, and conspiracy theories. Anyway at this stage it doesn't matter, I can see the mask topic is one of those us or them things now.
Bob24 wrote: » Ideally 3 days, but at the very least one day. I wouldn't wipe the mask at the risk of damaging it, as anyway if it has virus on it the idea is that the "quarantine" period in the bag will kill it. And this is just my view but I wouldn’t fully seal the ziplock immediately after pitting the mask inside. It will be slightly humid from your breathing through it and IMO you kind want it dry up a bit rather than let the humidity ferment in a seal bag for days.
Manion wrote: » Very condescending. Good case in point of people jumping to conclusions and hearing what they want. I wrote one thing but you read a lot into it that wasn't there. Not sure the government ever stated they where useless. Pretty certain the advise was that you don't need to use them to use them if not sick. I also think people are in general not capably of understanding complex messaging and that things are changing and the advise is evolving with. Much rather attribute maliciousness or incompetently as thats easy. I won't think any less of them if the advise is updated to recommend and later make mandatory the wearing of masks. I'd assume we've reached a point where thats the best guidance. Remember in the first weeks of this when the advise was everyone with any symptom get tested and we had 96% of those tested coming back negative while frontline medical staff were waiting over a week for an appointment. The advise changed on testing so it was more targeted. It was the right decision even with obvious shortcomings.
Bob24 wrote: » Just saying, but isn't it rather what you are doing below in the way you describe the thread? I admittedly haven't read every single post in the thread but at least on the last few pages I don't really see "a lot" (if any) of what you are describing. In particular, if there is genuine racism I am have full faith in the mods to address it, but which specific posts are you referring to?
Manion wrote: » I can only conclude you've read the posts and decided they were not problematic.
cnocbui wrote: » I may well be wrong, but my understanding is that the virus' molecular key targets a match with ACE-2 receptors, which are mostly found in the back of the nose - hence the unpleasant swab - and in the aveoli deep in the lungs. Keying with this receptor is what tricks the cell wall into lowering it's guard and allows the virus to inject it's RNA for replication. Unless eyes have ACE-2 receptors, I suspect the virus might not have a great prospect for entering the body via that route and making it's way to the lungs before some element of the immune system asks it for it's credentials.
Bob24 wrote: » I am not a doctor either and we are all trying to figure this out as we go, but it says here: "once contaminated, hands can transfer the virus to your eyes, nose or mouth. From there, the virus can enter your body and can make you sick.". What I understand is that you can get contaminated through your eyes but the nose and mouth are definitely the largest contamination vector (as per your explanation).
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 UT Health 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.
