What if Everyone Wore a Mask?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

And the use of masks by everyone.

Well, there’s science, and then there’s what just seems right.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by cal40john

But the specs given do not talk about the pore size, it says that it has tested to stop 95% of 0.3 micron size droplets. And yes it does stop smaller size particles, but not as efficiently.

I found this interesting bit from -
https://www.envirosafetyproducts.com...ifference.html

Are N95 Masks Really Effective against the flu?
A little online research will reveal that the flu virus is .17 microns in size. Clearly smaller than even N100 masks can filter out. However, it is critical to understand that the flu virus does not float in the air by itself. The flu virus is transported from patient to patient on droplets of excretions from sneezing and coughing. These particles are typically 5 microns or larger. When a sick patient wears a respirator, the respirator can be very effective at preventing infectious material from leaving the patients body, and when worn by healthy individuals, it prevents inhalation of said material. More importantly, wearing a mask is a excellent way of preventing the user from rubbing or touching their mouth or nose, which is a very high risk factor. At the end of the day will an N95 mask guarantee to protect you from the Flu? No. But it can substantially reduce your risk or receiving or transmitting the disease.

Exactly. Which is what I said.

The 3 stooges effect (lots of virus particles clumped together being larger than 3 microns not fitting through) is what you're discussing in your last paragraph. Like the 3 stooges trying to fit through an open door all at once.

However, you aren't understanding at all about how air filters work under .3 microns. They are MORE efficient at stoping particles under .3 microns.

Interestingly, there also is no pore size in an air filter. This isn't a water maker. It's a weave of fibers which is precisely why there are complex dynamics in effect that stop a whole range of particle sizes, despite .3 microns being the test size.

Here is a graph of percentage of particles stopped by a P/N100 mask which is actually a HEPA filter. Note .3 microns is the test size used because it is the least captured particle size.. Not because it's a size that matters. It's the test size because.3 microns is the hardest size to capture. If the filter does well on .3 microns, it does better on everything else.



Brownian motion is the reason air filters are able to capture smaller particles so well if people really need me to get into details and aren't willing to take me at my word from way earlier in this thread. I tried to explain without dragging the scientific details into it.

Brownian motion is the particle bouncing all over the place in zig zags due to its relative size in air. Because of the way it moves, it still impacts the fibers and is stopped very efficiently even if the gap between the fibers is larger than the particle

Otherwise, how would an n95 mask stop smog particulates that cause me to be unable to breathe? They're smaller than .3 microns.



Anyone who is thinking air filters work like a net or a spaghetti strainer at this point in the conversation needs to do some reading. It's not a spaghetti strainer. It's not a water maker. This isn't a political thing about someone's "belief” this is just how a HEPA filter works. Known since they were working on the atomic bombs in the Manhattan Project and needed good air filters to get tiny radioactive particles out of the air.

Straight from Wikipedia:

Filters meeting the HEPA standard must satisfy certain levels of efficiency. Common standards require that a HEPA air filter must remove—from the air that passes through—at least 99.95% (European Standard)[4] or 99.97% (ASME, U.S. DOE)[5][6] of particles whose diameter is equal to 0.3 μm; with the filtration efficiency increasing for particle diameters both less than and greater than 0.3 μm.

If readers still need extra help understanding how a an n95 or N/P100/HEPA filter works, here's a good read that's shorter than the Wikipedia.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/...why-important/


Are we really going to debate how air filters work with a person whose life depends on them? Ha ha ha. Lol

[slug]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's zero in that story (which I have heard about) to suggest that a mask anywhere would have made an appreciable difference. I myself would put it down to early failures to detect cases, leading to untracked and unsuspecting community spread.

You wanna wear a mask everywhere - knock yourself out. If you care about the healthcare provider who you've just just deprived of a scarce commodity, maybe you'd consider making your own? The internet currently abounds with plans for reusable cotton masks and how to use gauze as a disposable filter element. Some folks have started whipping these up at home for our healthcare providers.

That’s a sad story

Small Children , when infected , are very dangerous

They touch. Everything, Put everything in their mouth.... then You pick them up and hug them

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by slug

That’s a sad story
Small Children , when infected , are very dangerous
They touch. Everything, Put everything in their mouth.... then You pick them up and hug them

Indeed.
It’s no secret kids are little germ factories, essentially little Petri plates, full of different types of microbes.
Humans shed bugs a lot. The ones, that normally cause infection, are usually inside of us, but children have this amazing ability to spread the ones that are inside of us, through different routes. So it’s not the fact that the kids are “germier”, because they have the same amount of bacteria per cell as adults, it’s just that they don’t have the same ability, as adults, to prevent the spread, when they’re shedding.
➥ Kids truly are little germ factories, study proves - Health - Cold and flu | NBC News

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've done the whole hospital-borne-infection thing when visiting a relative with one or more of the fashionable superbugs. The masks are on visitors in a hospital to protect patients, not the wearer.

That is why it would be prudent for everyone to wear a mask. We all protect each other. Countries that have a much better handle on the spread of this disease have mandated that everyone wear a mask.

Ask yourself two questions; is what we are doing now working?, and can you see any way that everyone wearing masks could possibly make it worse?

I think that its time we started learning from the experience of others.

[GordMay]

Face masks are in short supply, despite the CDC specifically not recommending them for healthy people, trying to protect against COVID-19.
Wearing a mask might increase your risk of getting the virus. Folks, who don’t know how to wear them properly, tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus.
Seeing people around you, wearing masks when you’re not, can also heighten anxiety about coronavirus.
Like the CDC, the World Health Organization advises people to wear a mask, only if they are displaying symptoms of coronavirus, or “taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection.”
➥ https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...article_inline

“What To Know About Wearing A Mask Against The Coronavirus”
An interview with Dr. Ben Cowling, a professor of infectious disease epidemiology, at the University of Hong Kong.
“... His bottom line might be summed up this way: Face masks likely help somewhat, but if there's a choice between wearing a mask to a crowded space or staying home, definitely better to stay home ...
... There's an argument in hospital infection control, as I understand it, that sometimes if you have too much protective equipment — full body suit and gloves and goggles and face visor and different masks and and all sorts of other equipment — you might actually put yourself at risk, because if that complex equipment gets contaminated when you're taking it off, you might unfortunately increase your risk of getting infected. For face masks, I don't think the same kind of thing applies.
I know that if you wear the face mask wrong, it won't provide as much protection as if you wear it correctly ...”
More ➥ https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/20...k-what-to-know

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

That is why it would be prudent for everyone to wear a mask. We all protect each other. Countries that have a much better handle on the spread of this disease have mandated that everyone wear a mask.
...

I think that its time we started learning from the experience of others.

I appreciate your concern.

The information I've seen so far does not confirm that masks on everyone has been a significant benefit in their fight against the virus. If you've found some expert reports that indicate that there was a demonstrable benefit to this practice, please share some links.

Ask yourself two questions; is what we are doing now working?, and can you see any way that everyone wearing masks could possibly make it worse?

There's some preliminary indication that in Canada at least, the current isolation and distancing practices are beginning to show the desired effect. Not near enough info yet to be certain, but further confidence that we're doing things that are working. I believe other countries are starting to see some early confirming results as well.

Can I see any way that everyone wearing masks could possibly make it worse? Yes - giving a false sense that it's doing something useful. "Pandemic theater". The supply issue. And the expert opinions that unless mask practice is done carefully and consistently, it's potentially another vector of infection.

[DeepFrz]

“... His bottom line might be summed up this way: Face masks likely help somewhat, but if there's a choice between wearing a mask to a crowded space or staying home, definitely better to stay home ...

Yes, absolutely. This is not a one size fits all. We need testing for everyone, physical distancing, masks and isolation. But it is almost impossible, for extended time that we are looking at, to stay in physical isolation 100% of the time.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I appreciate your concern.

The information I've seen so far does not confirm that masks on everyone has been a significant benefit in their fight against the virus. If you've found some expert reports that indicate that there was a demonstrable benefit to this practice, please share some links.



There's some preliminary indication that in Canada at least, the current isolation and distancing practices are beginning to show the desired effect. Not near enough info yet to be certain, but further confidence that we're doing things that are working. I believe other countries are starting to see some early confirming results as well.

Can I see any way that everyone wearing masks could possibly make it worse? Yes - giving a false sense that it's doing something useful. "Pandemic theater". The supply issue. And the expert opinions that unless mask practice is done carefully and consistently, it's potentially another vector of infection.

Well, we are getting the message from politicians that maybe physical distancing is helping and yet Canada has one of the highest growth rates in the world. How does that compute?

On my walk yesterday, I picked a time near dinner hour because I thought that would be a time with very few people out. I was sadly mistaken and ended up walking on the road much of the time. Also traffic on the main road was quite heavy. Not as heavy as normal but still much higher than I would have anticipated.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Yes, absolutely. This is not a one size fits all. We need testing for everyone, physical distancing, masks and isolation. But it is almost impossible, for extended time that we are looking at, to stay in physical isolation.

My own guess at this point is that the main isolation measures must persist to sometime in May, when the peak has been forecast.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Well, we are getting the message from politicians that maybe physical distancing is helping and yet Canada has one of the highest growth rates in the world. How does that compute?

Link?

The initial spread in Canada started later than many countries, so maybe we're more in the steep rise part of the curve. As per my link, it seems we're doing things that have resulted in a curve that's less than feared.

[Breaking Waves]

NY Time today - more americans should wear masks.

Study of SARS experience washing hands more than 10 times daily was 55 percent effective in stopping virus transmission, while wearing a mask was actually more effective — at about 68 percent. Wearing gloves offered about the same amount of protection as frequent hand-washing, and combining all measures — hand-washing, masks, gloves and a protective gown — increased the intervention effectiveness to 91 percent.

The available studies are all a bit weak, basically because it is difficult to conduct properly designed studies during emergencies. But I really think it is indisputable that (a) there is a surprisingly high population of corona cases with no symptoms (like somewhere between 30-50% of those infected) and that (b) universal mask usage would probably reduce those people's transmission rate. How much protection various masks provide from getting the virus is not at all clear, but properly used (and proper use is not rocket science) they really simply have to provide some protection.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

NY Time today - more americans should wear masks.

Study of SARS experience washing hands more than 10 times daily was 55 percent effective in stopping virus transmission, while wearing a mask was actually more effective — at about 68 percent. Wearing gloves offered about the same amount of protection as frequent hand-washing, and combining all measures — hand-washing, masks, gloves and a protective gown — increased the intervention effectiveness to 91 percent.

The available studies are all a bit weak, basically because it is difficult to conduct properly designed studies during emergencies. But I really think it is indisputable that (a) there is a surprisingly high population of corona cases with no symptoms (like somewhere between 30-50% of those infected) and that (b) universal mask usage would probably reduce those people's transmission rate. How much protection various masks provide from getting the virus is not at all clear, but properly used (and proper use is not rocket science) they really simply have to provide some protection.

SARS is a different beast. The majority of SARS cases were transmitted by close proximity, especially patient to HCP. The mask argument would be more compelling if it could be shown that mask-wearing significantly reduces the chance of catching the flu, which is a bug more like COVID-19.

To be more clear to everybody, I don't disagree that everyone in masks would offer some additional protection. What I object to is the inference that everyone in masks is an acceptable, equally-protective substitute for the current self-isolation and social distancing. It is not.

[DeepFrz]

This virus is SARS-COV-2. COVID-19 is the disease caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus. This virus has now killed more people than the SARS-COV-1 virus more commonly referred to as SARS.

CTV is tracking the cases in Canada and have numbers and charts. They are usually the most up to date but you have to scan down the list of provinces to see which ones have reported on the current date. Or you can go later to https://www.worldometers.info/corona...ountry/canada/

Johns Hopkins is also a good site although they usually lag the CTV site by quite a bit.

By the way Ontario is now sitting at 1,144 cases as of this afternoons report.

[mickt243]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

SARS is a different beast. The majority of SARS cases were transmitted by close proximity, especially patient to HCP. The mask argument would be more compelling if it could be shown that mask-wearing significantly reduces the chance of catching the flu, which is a bug more like COVID-19.

wrong.


SARS-CoV-2/COVID19 is a direct relative of the disease you refer to as SARS, they are not at all related to the disease commonly known as the flu. they are closely related to "the common cold".