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?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.tysker said: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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.tysker said: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.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.
Frankly that was the case before this pandemicGilligan said:
My Van Dyke is a no-go...
I completely agree.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.
CalebMcCreary06 said:
Stopped at "can government please force...". F THAT.
Long since sold out.BurnetAggie99 said:
Check places that sell respirators for like welding, construction, painting and such.
Fewer not less ventilators, beds, and doctors.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.