SKIP THE FACE MASKS! ....... Ummmm........ HANG ON! U-TURN?

[HonestJoe]

What niggled me back in February was that so many people were put off wearing masks by news reports, resulting in folks being embarrassed to wear them.

Alternatively, it might have reduced the panic buying of masks, making them unavailable to those who needed them to do their vital jobs and preventing those who failed to source any (which would be disproportionately the poor, old and vulnerable) unwilling to leave their home at all, even for important reasons like getting food or medical treatment. None of this is as simple as you'd like to imagine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thankyou for your post, Unveiled Artist.


Well, at the moment the World Health Organisation is reviewing its advice about face masks.
Common sense is great, but we do need all our experts to agree with each other as well.....


The advice is changing at this time.
President Trump is advising the use of a scarf, and many people around here (Kent UK) are usings scarves to cover their faces. But simple face masks are being seen more and more.
Maybe the Koreans have got it right? Maybe they have used more common sense than us?


Why? You shouldn't be anywhere outside your home isolation if you are doing either. But if you get caught out somewhere, to cover face until at home would be good.


I want to hear what new advice the WHO gives.
I would definitely wear a face mask if I has to take a journey opn a train, tube, bus etc......


My wife wants us to make some washable face masks this afternoon.......... at this time there don't seem to be too many real experts about.


This older WHO video is under review, and the WHO has just announced that it is reconsidering about how, when and where to use face masks.

I was reading more more details on
Interim Guidance for the Use of Masks to Control Seasonal Influenza Virus Transmission | CDC. It's for the flu, but I haven't heard yet whether there are other ways to catch the virus that doesn't mirror other similar virus protection protocol.

 

[Augustus]

Standard surgical masks are designed to provide a barrier to splashes and droplets contacting the nose, mouth and respiratory tract, they are not designed to prevent the inhalation of small airborne particles in aerosol generating situations; such as sneezing, coughing and secondary aerosolisation from sufaces (studies on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 show that the virus persists on surfaces)

The spread often comes from larger droplets, and the masks stop these leaving or entering nose/mouth or landing on surfaces.

They also offer some prevention from you from touching your face after touching contaminated surfaces.

If the masks were even 5% effective they would be more than worth it, they are likely much more effective than that though, even if imperfect.

Face masks to be effective must tightly fit the user’s face, such as the N95 which must be used with eye protection. Aerosol virus can also enter the eyes infecting patients and are transmitted by touching infected surfaces.

For optimum protection you are correct, it's a sliding scale though, and they likely offer significant protection if handled carefully.

A condom doesn't definitively prevent pregnancy, but it certainly lowers the odds significantly

To date there have not been any studies in the effectiveness standard surgical masks or home made masks in decreasing or preventing the transmission of coronaviruses in the general population.

Until there is evidence that they do not help in any way, the sensible assumption to make is that they are at least somewhat effective.

There is some evidence of slower spread in Asian countries where masks are commonplace, and most of these aren't N95 or equivalent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Asians often wear 'pollution masks', so masks are more common in general and there is less resistance to wearing them. If it helps with pollution then of course it helps with virus kind of thing.

Westerners have to get over the the fact that they feel like a bit of a wanker wearing one in public, and this is compounded by people saying 'you don't need to wear a mask unless you are ill'.

Obviously, however, a mask helps prevent spread and the 'no mask' brigade are, at best, criminally negligent.

I mean...'criminally negligent at best'??
Big call there.

I'll stand by the advice given to me on this by my wife, since she works in health.

 

[pearl]

But the 'skip the masks' speeches could have made a big difference to the resulting graphs now....... I think.

I think you are absolutely right. I bought 8 of them back in the beginning of Feb. They are firm and reusable, the outside can be wiped off with disinfectant after use. My daughter is a home health homemaker and does all the grocery shopping for her elder clients, she is in the grocery stores everyday. For anyone who worked in the health care field masks were common sense. I believe if everyone wore one we might not be in the position we are now. Massachusetts has had an impossible situation of being outbid by the federal government to by enough masks. Well they will be arriving today from China thanks to the NE Patriots who purchased them and flew their planes to bring them back. Go Pats!

 

[Mock Turtle]

What I can't help thinking is that fundamentalist muslim women must be thinking the joke's on the rest of us, now.

I'm surprised we haven't seen an article proclaiming the effectiveness of the burqa or niqab yet, but perhaps those most likely to use such haven't experienced enough of the crisis to propose such.

 

[Howard Is]

That's our project this afternoon! We'll be reading your links carefully.

No worries China

 

[pearl]

'Trump has blood on his hands'

Boston Globe editorial board says Donald Trump has "blood on his hands" for coronavirus pandemic in the U.S.

 

[Augustus]

Alternatively, it might have reduced the panic buying of masks, making them unavailable to those who needed them to do their vital jobs and preventing those who failed to source any (which would be disproportionately the poor, old and vulnerable) unwilling to leave their home at all, even for important reasons like getting food or medical treatment. None of this is as simple as you'd like to imagine.

You don't lie in order to achieve that otherwise you destroy your credibility.

When Trump lies about something he is rightly criticised, deliberately lying about this would be borderline criminal. Wearing a scarf over your face likely helps a fair deal, obviously far less than proper equipment, but better than nothing.

 

[Augustus]

I mean...'criminally negligent at best'??
Big call there.

If you withhold information that could lessen the spread of a pandemic, that is how I'd describe it.

I'll stand by the advice given to me on this by my wife, since she works in health.

I hope she is doing ok must be very difficult for her

We are rightly criticising politicians for not ensuring sufficient stock of protective equipment, to keep healthcare workers safe as this puts them at risk.

But it's hard to square this with the idea that using some of the same equipment does not in any way benefit members of the public.

Also if we are told 'only wear a mask if you are sick', then how can this not also benefit those who are unsure if they are sick or not (basically anyone not in isolation)?

 

[MNoBody]

good grief, "criminally negligent' being casually tossed around.... how far things have sunk
but no worry soon you will be able to rat out those who are the new criminals in your area....
it will be like the 1930's all over again.... or another great leap forward....
sheesh...maybe we will all die before things get that far...that would be a relief.

 

[HonestJoe]

You don't lie in order to achieve that otherwise you destroy your credibility.

Which health or science officials actually lied about masks? We're not talking political spin or media laziness, but official statement containing specific factual errors known as such at the time. I keep hearing the accusation but never see any evidence.

 

[Augustus]

good grief, "criminally negligent' being casually tossed around...

If masks do indeed prevent the public from Covid, and trusted officials have been specifically telling people not to wear mask thus worsening the pandemic, what would you suggest is the correct term?

Silly billies? Nincompoops? Mooncalfs?

how far things have sunk
but no worry soon you will be able to rat out those who are the new criminals in your area....
it will be like the 1930's all over again.... or another great leap forward....
sheesh...maybe we will all die before things get that far...that would be a relief.

'If masks help stop the spread it would be wise to wear them, and immoral to tell people not to wear them.'

"OMG!! The Nazis are here!!! The Nazis are here!!!

 

[MNoBody]

when people start bandying terms such as "criminal negligence" ...well historically that is deeply troubling
is that an unwelcome observation?
Historically, it is troubling.....and history repeats...apparently....perhaps....maybe we won't go the same path this time, but I am not that optimistic...given all the corollaries
Ordo ab chao still seems to be the orders of the day

 

[Augustus]

Which health or science officials actually lied about masks? We're not talking political spin or media laziness, but official statement containing specific factual errors known as such at the time. I keep hearing the accusation but never see any evidence.

I'm not attached to the word lie, mislead/withhold information/not give the full picture would have the same result of damaging credibility.

You said "Alternatively, it might have reduced the panic buying of masks, making them unavailable to those who needed them to do their vital jobs". If that is the reason, then say it.

When you say "there is no evidence masks protect people who are not sick", yet tell people who are caring for sick people to wear masks, doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

When and how to use masks

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The physical laws of the universe support the idea that lightly porous, dry-material face-masks WOULD, indeed work. The virus survives any trek through the air within small particles of fluid. If you are wearing a face-mask and upon inhalation these particles come in contact with the dry material of the face-mask, they are absorbed and "stuck" away from your mouth/nose, and ultimately away from your lungs. And as others have stated, upon breathing out the same shielding principle applies to help keep any infection you may already have from hitting the air.

Anyone who denies that this simple principle could increase your chances of avoiding infection are not thinking.

 

[Augustus]

when people start bandying terms such as "criminal negligence" ...well historically that is deeply troubling
is that an unwelcome observation?

More illogical than unwelcome.

Why is it 'historically deeply troubling"? The term carries no Nazi connotations.

2 possibilities:

a) Masks offer no benefit to the public - in which case I am wrong, owe the WHO an apology and people can laugh at me for my stupidity and arrogance.

b) Masks offer some benefit to the public, in which case the WHO has worsened the pandemic and caused great economic harm and loss of life by making an incredibly basic error: they didn't understand that protective equipment is actually protective (or knew this and chose to mislead the public). What form of negligence/misconduct would you prefer that be described as?

Do you believe it is likely that wearing a mask offers some degree of protection btw?

 

[exchemist]

The physical laws of the universe support the idea that lightly porous, dry-material face-masks WOULD, indeed work. The virus survives any trek through the air within small particles of fluid. If you are wearing a face-mask and upon inhalation these particles come in contact with the dry material of the face-mask, they are absorbed and "stuck" away from your mouth/nose, and ultimately away from your lungs. And as others have stated, upon breathing out the same shielding principle applies to help keep any infection you may already have from hitting the air.

Anyone who denies that this simple principle could increase your chances of avoiding infection are not thinking.

So why, then, have so many medical people been sceptical of their value, do you think?

From what I have read, the problem with most masks is they confer a false sense of security, while actually admitting plenty of viruses. This seems to be for two reasons: (1) they are a poor fit round the face, so leak badly at the edges and (2) they do nothing to prevent entry via the eyes. So as a means of protection against infection, they may be worse than useless, if people wrongly feel protected by them and starting using the Underground again, for example.

Where I agree you may have a point is that they may work better to stop an infected person passing it on, since most of that seems to happen via aerosols from the mouth, much of which might indeed be trapped by even a fairly poor fitting mask.

Perhaps, then, the calculus is shifting, now that a significant proportion of the population is already infected but may not have realised it yet.

 

[MNoBody]

More illogical than unwelcome.

Why is it 'historically deeply troubling"? The term carries no Nazi connotations.

2 possibilities:

a) Masks offer no benefit to the public - in which case I am wrong, owe the WHO an apology and people can laugh at me for my stupidity and arrogance.

b) Masks offer some benefit to the public, in which case the WHO has worsened the pandemic and caused great economic harm and loss of life by making an incredibly basic error: they didn't understand that protective equipment is actually protective (or knew this and chose to mislead the public). What form of negligence/misconduct would you prefer that be described as?

Do you believe it is likely that wearing a mask offers some degree of protection btw?

In my experience, and from training, masks of various kinds are very useful and prophylactic, when used according to manufacturer specifications.....considering their limitations and intended applications.
I have used a wide variety of such "safety equipment" over decades, with efficacious and positive results....
that last question then, isn't on point .... and how is it possible to not recognize troubling correlative data points?
I provided an observation..... take it or leave it, it isn't necessary to debate it.

 

[Augustus]

In my experience, and from training, masks of various kinds are very useful and prophylactic, when used according to manufacturer specifications.....considering their limitations and intended applications.

And therein lies the rub...