Quote:

---

Someone please do share a link to a mask that is in stock on amazon right now. Not some perverted looking crap, just a plain mask.

---

Does this work?

They're not just saying that, they're also actively promoting that the masks don't help.

I wear a mask when I go out, because I don't want to infect others if I'm an asymptomatic carrier.

There are a ton of videos out there about it. If you're so keen on this, why don't you make one and promote it? No one is saying we need government approval - you need to be able to convince people that the CDC, surgeon general, etc, are wrong. I wish you all the luck, because that's a tough task.

In a few weeks I suspect the CDC will change the tune. But we'll see.

telling 330,000,000 americans "go start wearing masks" will be the end of available medical supplies for those who most critically need them when there's already a terrible shortage of proper PPE.

No.

It's coming. Maybe not until the next round in the Fall, but, if wearing masks is the price we pay for not shutting down business, I'm all for it.

We can only do this mass lockdown once. When the virus comes back in the Fall, the government is going to have to take a different approach. That means telling the vulnerable to isolate, and having lots more tests, masks, ventilators, ICU rooms, and treatment drugs (whether that's hydroxychloronique or something else) so that hospitals don't get overburdened. It will still be uncomfortable (wearing masks for the masses, and isolation for the vulnerable), but we have to find a way to get back to business while managing the health risk.

People that can easily work from home don't really realize what is happening to the economy right now. When everyone sees the damage, like survivors coming out of their shelter after a tornado, they will realize the tremendous price that has been paid in order to minimize the toll from coronavirus. It will be awful.

twk said:

---

It's coming. Maybe not until the next round in the Fall, but, if wearing masks is the price we pay for not shutting down business, I'm all for it.

We can only do this mass lockdown once. When the virus comes back in the Fall, the government is going to have to take a different approach. That means telling the vulnerable to isolate, and having lots more tests, masks, ventilators, ICU rooms, and treatment drugs (whether that's hydroxychloronique or something else) so that hospitals don't get overburdened. It will still be uncomfortable (wearing masks for the masses, and isolation for the vulnerable), but we have to find a way to get back to business while managing the health risk.

People that can easily work from home don't really realize what is happening to the economy right now. When everyone sees the damage, like survivors coming out of their shelter after a tornado, they will realize the tremendous price that has been paid in order to minimize the toll from coronavirus. It will be awful.

---

Yep

Based on this chart alone asking many guys to wear a mask properly will be quite an effort.



https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2017/11/02/noshave/

I have been clean shaven maybe 5 times in the last decade. Shaving daily is no longer as common as it was even 10 years ago.

That's for a respirator, designed to protect the person wearing the respirator.

I think the OP is talking about surgical masks, which are really designed to prevent the person wearing them from infecting people they come into contact with. I don't think an airtight fit is required for this--just something that will keep your sneezing or coughing from spreading out to everyone in your vicinity.

twk said:

---

That's for a respirator, designed to protect the person wearing the respirator.

I think the OP is talking about surgical masks, which are really designed to prevent the person wearing them from infecting people they come into contact with. I don't think an airtight fit is required for this--just something that will keep your sneezing or coughing from spreading out to everyone in your vicinity.

---

Yes but surgical masks don't protect either the wearer or others from this virus, correct? So what is ultimately the point outside of a hospital/healthcare setting? Instead we should be washing hands diligently, socially distancing and not touching our face. Surgical masks, at least for this virus, seem like a kind of medical theater; like the TSA of healthcare.

I have a WWII era gas mask I found in an underground bunker in the 70's whilst living in Pearl Harbor.

I wonder if it still works?

My Van Dyke is a no-go...

tysker said:

---

twk said:

---

That's for a respirator, designed to protect the person wearing the respirator.

I think the OP is talking about surgical masks, which are really designed to prevent the person wearing them from infecting people they come into contact with. I don't think an airtight fit is required for this--just something that will keep your sneezing or coughing from spreading out to everyone in your vicinity.

---

Yes but surgical masks don't protect either the wearer or others from this virus, correct? So what is ultimately what is the point outside of a hospital/healthcare setting? Instead we should be washing hands diligently, socially distancing and not touching our face. Surgical masks, at least for this virus, seem like a kind of medical theater; like the TSA of healthcare.

---

Surgical masks are not foolproof. They don't provide a lot of protection for the wearer, but my understanding is that they do help keep the person wearing them from spreading it to others. The coughing and sneezing that would result in a broadcast of the virus instead results in the virus being contained in the mask. That still poses some threat, but it's a lot less posed than by wearing no mask.

The key would be getting everyone to wear a mask out in public during times of outbreak, because you don't know whether or not you have the virus.

They protect both. Here's a study that was done last year:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/risa.13181

Better masks are better, but even a surgeon's mask helps with larger sized droplets. It'll also cut down on the speed that the droplets are propelled around when someone talks, breathes, coughs, etc.

Well, I mean, we just shut down the whole world's economy over this for 5+ weeks and unemployed around a third of the workforce, so I think asking you to shave your ugly mug a bit more is reasonable by comparison?

k2aggie07 said:

---

They protect both. Here's a study that was done last year:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/risa.13181

Better masks are better, but even a surgeon's mask helps with larger sized droplets. It'll also cut down on the speed that the droplets are propelled around when someone talks, breathes, coughs, etc.

---

Undoubtedly its better than nothing. But likewise, they are commonly called "courtesy masks" for a reason. People dont wear them properly or diligently enough to be recommended for the non high-risk, asymptomatic. Of course the CDC may change it's tune come the fall but for now and for most of us, social distancing, washing hands and not touching our faces will be more than enough.

I don't think that's the case, if we believe this study anyway.

From the paper:

Quote:

---

Ideally, the results of the model should be validated against experimental data....As an example, we use the model to estimate the reduction in infection rate that could have been attained through the use of protective equipment during the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic in San Francisco...5% compliance, even with the least protective barrier we considered, essentially eliminates the epidemic...Since the information used to inform our model was derived from epidemiological data on the actual epidemic...not from engineering or clinical estimates of the various parameters ... and only changes to the dynamics of the epidemic were determined, it is felt that this application of the model can provide trustworthy information regarding the effect of protection.

...

It was found that a 50% compliance in donning the device resulted in a significant (at least 50% prevalence and 20% cumulative incidence) reduction in risk for fitted and unfitted N95 respirators, high-filtration surgical masks, and both low-filtration and high-filtration pediatric masks. An 80% compliance rate essentially eliminated the influenza outbreak.

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Damn straight EVERYBODY in loving and Borden Counties in Texas better wear a mask. Our lives depend on it.

---

I knew the fine citizens of Gail wouldn't be able to social distance correctly!!!

k2aggie07 said:

---

I don't think that's the case, if we believe this study anyway.

From the paper:

Quote:

---

Ideally, the results of the model should be validated against experimental data....As an example, we use the model to estimate the reduction in infection rate that could have been attained through the use of protective equipment during the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic in San Francisco...5% compliance, even with the least protective barrier we considered, essentially eliminates the epidemic...Since the information used to inform our model was derived from epidemiological data on the actual epidemic...not from engineering or clinical estimates of the various parameters ... and only changes to the dynamics of the epidemic were determined, it is felt that this application of the model can provide trustworthy information regarding the effect of protection.

...

It was found that a 50% compliance in donning the device resulted in a significant (at least 50% prevalence and 20% cumulative incidence) reduction in risk for fitted and unfitted N95 respirators, high-filtration surgical masks, and both low-filtration and high-filtration pediatric masks. An 80% compliance rate essentially eliminated the influenza outbreak.

---

---

Model + simulation. What are the actual real-life outcomes when humans are involved?

The study even notes that at 20% does nothing for the population and you need 80% of high-filtration masks to achieve outbreak elimination (an extreme goal for certain).

Quote:

---

Simulations revealed that a 20% compliance rate for people wearing RPDs showed some utility in reducing the s pread of infection if the highest protection factor devices (e.g., PF > 7) were deployed, but overall did not have a big impact on the spread of infection due to the inuenza virus.

At a 50% compliance rate, however, the effect of the inuenza outbreak was signicantly reduced (prevalence cut by at least half) by all adult RPDs except the low-ltration adult surgical mask.

At 80% compliance, an inuenza outbreak is essentially prevented by all of the RPDs except the low-ltration surgical mask, for both children and adults. We conclude on the basis of the simulations that a roughly 50% compliance rate is recommended in order for RPDs that are likely to be used on an emergency basis to constitute an effective counter- measure. We also conclude that low-ltration surgical masks (PF 2) for adults would not provide an effective countermeasure even as a high rate of compliance, consistent with the fact that the masks were not designed for that purpose.

---

What are we supposed to believe? Obviously wearing a mask is better than nothing especially if you're sick, at high risk and have to go outside and/or social distancing doesnt work. But should we make mask-wearing mandatory when even low-filtration masks are of dubious effectiveness?

tysker said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

They protect both. Here's a study that was done last year:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/risa.13181

Better masks are better, but even a surgeon's mask helps with larger sized droplets. It'll also cut down on the speed that the droplets are propelled around when someone talks, breathes, coughs, etc.

---

Undoubtedly its better than nothing. But likewise, they are commonly called "courtesy masks" for a reason. People dont wear them properly or diligently enough to be recommended for the non high-risk, asymptomatic. Of course the CDC may change it's tune come the fall but for now and for most of us, social distancing, washing hands and not touching our faces will be more than enough.

---

Social distancing must end in order of the economy to get back in gear. That's what I'm talking about--an environment where mass social distancing is no longer the prescribed remedy. When we reach that point, masks would be useful. If you think we can keep up social distancing for much longer, then I think you're in for a surprise. It is a remedy that is killing the patient.

Gilligan said:

---

My Van Dyke is a no-go...

---

Frankly that was the case before this pandemic

Quote:

---

Social distancing must end in order of the economy to get back in gear. That's what I'm talking about--an environment where mass social distancing is no longer the prescribed remedy. When we reach that point, masks would be useful. If you think we can keep up social distancing for much longer, then I think you're in for a surprise. It is a remedy that is killing the patient.

---

I completely agree.
But I dont think even a large minority of the population will be wiling to wear masks. I believe that their effectiveness isnt worth the effort or stigma, unless there is large-scale buy-in, which I doubt Washing hands, however, will be more normalized.

Stopped at "can government please force...". F THAT.

CalebMcCreary06 said:

---

Stopped at "can government please force...". F THAT.

---

The fact that there are folks in this country that would want this saddens me more than I can say.

I don't know, and I don't know what the definition is between a low and high filtration surgeon's mask.

Or where a simple cloth mask with a nonwiven fiber insert sits.

The other thing to consider is that the study was for influenza, and I think this virus is bigger. Not sure. Influenza A has been observed to be actually aerosolized as an important transmission vector for it, which we don't really know yet for this one.

It is interesting (correlation?) that no Asian country other than China saw sustained growth the way the Western nations did/have.

Just heard a WHO official on NPR say not to wear masks Exception would be if you have it and are trying to avoid spreading to those in close contact, like family members.

Also said most people wearing them in public are wearing them wrong, anyway

Tf kind of nonsense OP is this?

Check places that sell respirators for like welding, construction, painting and such.

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Check places that sell respirators for like welding, construction, painting and such.

---

Long since sold out.

What? The CDC is recommending cloth face masks. Can't be! The smart people at TexAgs said so.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html

Those that said it I was wrong about this can kneel down and bow to me while I feed you some crow.

Some cities are already mandating this and soon yours will be too.

I'm not surprised that some of you graduated from by beloved university because common sense was not a prerequisite. The more people wearing masks, the less ventilators we are going to need, the less beds we are going to need, and the less doctors and nurses that require masks will we need.

I don't want to endanger the lives of my loved ones, and I certainly do not want you to. This is not the flu. You can be sick without you knowing it and passing it around.

I hope they impose $1,000 fines and up to 180 days in jail for those of you that refuse to do so.

This is not just for yourself. It is for the safety of the people around you. So stop being so ignorant and selfish. Wear a face mask and save lives. You're going to be required sooner or later.

You're sick if you hope people get fined, or jailed for this.

jjay91 said:

---

What? The CDC is recommending cloth face masks. Can't be! The smart people at TexAgs said so.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html

Those that said it I was wrong about this can kneel down and bow to me while I feed you some crow.

Some cities are already mandating this and soon yours will be too.

I'm not surprised that some of you graduated from by beloved university because common sense was not a prerequisite. The more people wearing masks, the less ventilators we are going to need, the less beds we are going to need, and the less doctors and nurses that require masks will we need.

I don't want to endanger the lives of my loved ones, and I certainly do not want you to. This is not the flu. You can be sick without you knowing it and passing it around.

I hope they impose $1,000 fines and up to 180 days in jail for those of you that refuse to do so.

This is not just for yourself. It is for the safety of the people around you. So stop being so ignorant and selfish. Wear a face mask and save lives. You're going to be required sooner or later.

---

Fewer not less ventilators, beds, and doctors.
If you are going to say so many have no common sense, I will say you have poor grammar. Did you take English at Blinn?

And are you going to buy a mask for me? For everyone on here that can't find them?