some say "wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection".
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Besides it being obviously common sense, there's tons of evidence that mask wearing reduces infections and deaths by C-19. For example:
"Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review
Jeremy Howarda,c,1 , Austin Huangb , Zhiyuan Lik , Zeynep Tufekcim, Zdimal Vladimire , Helene-Mari van der Westhuizenf,g , Arne von Delfto,g , Amy Pricen , Lex Fridmand , Lei-Han Tangi,j , Viola Tangl , Gregory L. Watsonh , Christina E. Baxs , Reshama Shaikhq , Frederik Questierr , Danny Hernandezp , Larry F. Chun , Christina M. Ramirezh , and Anne W. Rimoint
a fast.ai, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; bWarren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, 222 Richmond St, Providence, RI 02903; cData Institute, University of San Francisco, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; dDepartment of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139; e Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals, Czech Academy of Sciences, Rozvojová 135, CZ-165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic; fDepartment of Primary Health Care Sciences, Woodstock Road, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom; gTB Proof, Cape Town, South Africa; hDepartment of Biostatistics, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095; iDepartment of Physics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China; jComplex Systems Division, Beijing Computational Science Research Center, Haidian, Beijing 100193, China; kCenter for Quantitative Biology, Peking University, Haidian, Beijing 100871, China; lDepartment of Information Systems, Business Statistics and Operations Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China; mUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; nSchool of Medicine Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant S268C, Stanford, CA 94305; oSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa; pOpenAI, 3180 18th St, San Francisco, CA 94110; qData Umbrella, 345 West 145th St, New York, NY 10031; rVrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; sUniversity of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104; tDepartment of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095
This manuscript was compiled on April 10, 2020...
The science around the use of masks by the general public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly...
The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces the transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected droplets in both
laboratory and clinical contexts...
"3. Filtering Capability of Masks
...Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% ofparticles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).
When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress, it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for
source control. When someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets. Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).
Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."
An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).
In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant droplet size range, as well some efficacy in
blocking droplets and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help people keep their droplets to themselves.
4. Mask Efficacy Studies
Although no randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of masks as source control for SARS-CoV-2 has been published, a number of studies have attempted to indirectly estimate the efficacy of masks. Overall, an evidence review (29) finds "moderate certainty evidence shows that the use of handwashing plus masks probably reduces the spread of respiratory viruses."
The most relevant paper (30), with important implications for public mask wearing during the COVID-19 outbreak, is one that compares the efficacy of surgical masks for source control for seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and rhinovirus. With ten participants, the masks were effective at blocking coronavirus droplets of all sizes for every subject. However, masks were far less effective at blocking rhinovirus droplets of any size, or of blocking small influenza droplets. The results suggest that masks may have a significant role in source control for the current coronavirus outbreak. The study did not use COVID-19 patients, and it is not yet known whether seasonal coronavirus behaves the same as SARS-CoV-2; however, they are of the same genus, so similar behavior is likely.
Another relevant (but under-powered, with n=4) study (31) found that a cotton mask blocked 96% (reported as 1.5 log units or about a 36-fold decrease) of viral load on average, at eight inches away from a cough from a patient infected with COVID-19. If this is replicated in larger studies it would be an important result, because it has been shown (32) that "every 10-fold increase in viral load results in 26% more patient deaths" from "acute infections caused by highly pathogenic viruses".
A comparison of homemade and surgical masks for bacterial and viral aerosols (21) observed that "the median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask." Research focused on aerosol exposure has found all types of masks are at least somewhat effective at protecting the wearer. Van der Sande et al (33) found that "all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity", and concluded that "any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence". Overall however, analysis of particle filtration is likely to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, since the fraction of particles that are emitted as aerosol (vs. droplet) is quite small (26). Analysis of seasonal coronavirus compared to rhinovirus (30) suggests that filtration of COVID-19 may be much more effective, especially for source control.
The importance of using masks for health care workers has been observed (34) in three Chinese hospitals where, in each hospital, medical staff wearing masks (mainly in quarantine areas) had no COVID-19 infections, despite being around COVID-19 patients far more often, whilst other medical staff had 10 or more infections in each of the three hospitals.
Masks seem to be effective for source control in the controlled setting of an airplane. One case report (35) describes a man who flew from China to Toronto and then tested positive for COVID-19. He was wearing a mask during the flight. The 25 people closest to him on plane/flight attendants were tested and all were negative. Nobody has been reported from that flight as getting COVID-19. Another case study involving a masked influenza patient on an airplane (36) found that
"wearing a face mask was associated with a decreased risk for influenza acquisition during this long-duration flight".
Guideline development for health worker personal protective equipment have focused on whether surgical masks or N95 respirators should be recommended. Most of the research in this area focuses on influenza. At this point, it is not known to what extent findings from influenza studies apply to COVID-19 filtration. Wilkes et al (37) found that "filtration performance of pleated hydrophobic membrane filters was demonstrated to be markedly greater than that of electrostatic filters." However, even substantial differences in materials and construction do not seem to impact the transmission of droplet-borne viruses in practice, such as a metaanalysis of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks (38) that found "the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratoryconfirmed influenza." Johnson et al (39) showed that "surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza". Radonovich et al (40) found in an outpatient setting that "use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks... resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
One of the most frequently mentioned papers evaluating the benefits and harms of cloth masks have been by MacIntyre et al (41). Findings have been
misinterpreted, and therefore justify detailed discussion here. The authors "caution against the use of cloth masks" for healthcare professionals compared
to the use of surgical masks and regular procedures, based on an analysis of transmission in hospitals in Hanoi. We emphasize the setting of the study - health workers using masks to protect themselves against infection. The study compared a "surgical mask" group which received 2 new masks per day, to a "cloth mask" group that received 5 masks for the entire 4week period and were required to wear the masks all day, to a "control group" which used masks in compliance with existing hospital protocols, which the authors describe as a "very high level of mask use". It is important to note that the authors did not have a "no mask" control group because it was deemed "unethical to ask participants to not wear a mask." The study does not inform policy pertaining to public mask wearing as compared to the absence of masks in a community setting, since there is not a "no mask" group. The results of the study show that the group with a regular supply of new surgical masks each day had significantly lower infection of rhinovirus than the group that wore a limited supply of cloth masks. This paper lends support to the use of clean, surgical masks by medical staff in hospital settings to avoid rhinovirus infection by the wearer, and is consistent with other studies that show cloth masks provide poor filtration for rhinovirus (30). Its implementation does not inform the effect of using cloth masks versus not using masks in a community setting for source control of SARS-CoV-2, which is of the same genus as seasonal coronavirus, which has been found to be effectively filtered by cloth masks in a source control setting (30).
A. Studies of Impact on Community Transmission.
When evaluating the available evidence for the impact of masks on community transmission, it is critical to clarify the setting of the research study (health care facility or community), the respiratory illness being evaluated and what reference standard was used (no mask or surgical mask). There are no RCTs that have been done to evaluate the impact of masks on community transmission during a coronavirus pandemic. While there is some evidence from influenza outbreaks, the current global pandemic poses a unique challenge. A review (42) of 67 studies including randomized controlled trials and observational studies found that simple and lowcost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. The review recommended that "the following effective interventions should be implemented, preferably in a combined fashion, to reduce transmission of viral respiratory disease: 1. frequent handwashing with or without adjunct antiseptics; 2. barrier measures such as gloves, gowns, and masks with filtration apparatus; and 3. suspicion diagnosis with the isolation of likely cases". However, it cautioned that routine longterm implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic."
http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf
"Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review
Jeremy Howarda,c,1 , Austin Huangb , Zhiyuan Lik , Zeynep Tufekcim, Zdimal Vladimire , Helene-Mari van der Westhuizenf,g , Arne von Delfto,g , Amy Pricen , Lex Fridmand , Lei-Han Tangi,j , Viola Tangl , Gregory L. Watsonh , Christina E. Baxs , Reshama Shaikhq , Frederik Questierr , Danny Hernandezp , Larry F. Chun , Christina M. Ramirezh , and Anne W. Rimoint
a fast.ai, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; bWarren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, 222 Richmond St, Providence, RI 02903; cData Institute, University of San Francisco, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; dDepartment of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139; e Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals, Czech Academy of Sciences, Rozvojová 135, CZ-165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic; fDepartment of Primary Health Care Sciences, Woodstock Road, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom; gTB Proof, Cape Town, South Africa; hDepartment of Biostatistics, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095; iDepartment of Physics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China; jComplex Systems Division, Beijing Computational Science Research Center, Haidian, Beijing 100193, China; kCenter for Quantitative Biology, Peking University, Haidian, Beijing 100871, China; lDepartment of Information Systems, Business Statistics and Operations Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China; mUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; nSchool of Medicine Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant S268C, Stanford, CA 94305; oSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa; pOpenAI, 3180 18th St, San Francisco, CA 94110; qData Umbrella, 345 West 145th St, New York, NY 10031; rVrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; sUniversity of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104; tDepartment of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095
This manuscript was compiled on April 10, 2020...
The science around the use of masks by the general public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly...
The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces the transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected droplets in both
laboratory and clinical contexts...
"3. Filtering Capability of Masks
...Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% ofparticles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).
When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress, it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for
source control. When someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets. Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).
Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."
An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).
In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant droplet size range, as well some efficacy in
blocking droplets and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help people keep their droplets to themselves.
4. Mask Efficacy Studies
Although no randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of masks as source control for SARS-CoV-2 has been published, a number of studies have attempted to indirectly estimate the efficacy of masks. Overall, an evidence review (29) finds "moderate certainty evidence shows that the use of handwashing plus masks probably reduces the spread of respiratory viruses."
The most relevant paper (30), with important implications for public mask wearing during the COVID-19 outbreak, is one that compares the efficacy of surgical masks for source control for seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and rhinovirus. With ten participants, the masks were effective at blocking coronavirus droplets of all sizes for every subject. However, masks were far less effective at blocking rhinovirus droplets of any size, or of blocking small influenza droplets. The results suggest that masks may have a significant role in source control for the current coronavirus outbreak. The study did not use COVID-19 patients, and it is not yet known whether seasonal coronavirus behaves the same as SARS-CoV-2; however, they are of the same genus, so similar behavior is likely.
Another relevant (but under-powered, with n=4) study (31) found that a cotton mask blocked 96% (reported as 1.5 log units or about a 36-fold decrease) of viral load on average, at eight inches away from a cough from a patient infected with COVID-19. If this is replicated in larger studies it would be an important result, because it has been shown (32) that "every 10-fold increase in viral load results in 26% more patient deaths" from "acute infections caused by highly pathogenic viruses".
A comparison of homemade and surgical masks for bacterial and viral aerosols (21) observed that "the median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask." Research focused on aerosol exposure has found all types of masks are at least somewhat effective at protecting the wearer. Van der Sande et al (33) found that "all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity", and concluded that "any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence". Overall however, analysis of particle filtration is likely to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, since the fraction of particles that are emitted as aerosol (vs. droplet) is quite small (26). Analysis of seasonal coronavirus compared to rhinovirus (30) suggests that filtration of COVID-19 may be much more effective, especially for source control.
The importance of using masks for health care workers has been observed (34) in three Chinese hospitals where, in each hospital, medical staff wearing masks (mainly in quarantine areas) had no COVID-19 infections, despite being around COVID-19 patients far more often, whilst other medical staff had 10 or more infections in each of the three hospitals.
Masks seem to be effective for source control in the controlled setting of an airplane. One case report (35) describes a man who flew from China to Toronto and then tested positive for COVID-19. He was wearing a mask during the flight. The 25 people closest to him on plane/flight attendants were tested and all were negative. Nobody has been reported from that flight as getting COVID-19. Another case study involving a masked influenza patient on an airplane (36) found that
"wearing a face mask was associated with a decreased risk for influenza acquisition during this long-duration flight".
Guideline development for health worker personal protective equipment have focused on whether surgical masks or N95 respirators should be recommended. Most of the research in this area focuses on influenza. At this point, it is not known to what extent findings from influenza studies apply to COVID-19 filtration. Wilkes et al (37) found that "filtration performance of pleated hydrophobic membrane filters was demonstrated to be markedly greater than that of electrostatic filters." However, even substantial differences in materials and construction do not seem to impact the transmission of droplet-borne viruses in practice, such as a metaanalysis of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks (38) that found "the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratoryconfirmed influenza." Johnson et al (39) showed that "surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza". Radonovich et al (40) found in an outpatient setting that "use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks... resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
One of the most frequently mentioned papers evaluating the benefits and harms of cloth masks have been by MacIntyre et al (41). Findings have been
misinterpreted, and therefore justify detailed discussion here. The authors "caution against the use of cloth masks" for healthcare professionals compared
to the use of surgical masks and regular procedures, based on an analysis of transmission in hospitals in Hanoi. We emphasize the setting of the study - health workers using masks to protect themselves against infection. The study compared a "surgical mask" group which received 2 new masks per day, to a "cloth mask" group that received 5 masks for the entire 4week period and were required to wear the masks all day, to a "control group" which used masks in compliance with existing hospital protocols, which the authors describe as a "very high level of mask use". It is important to note that the authors did not have a "no mask" control group because it was deemed "unethical to ask participants to not wear a mask." The study does not inform policy pertaining to public mask wearing as compared to the absence of masks in a community setting, since there is not a "no mask" group. The results of the study show that the group with a regular supply of new surgical masks each day had significantly lower infection of rhinovirus than the group that wore a limited supply of cloth masks. This paper lends support to the use of clean, surgical masks by medical staff in hospital settings to avoid rhinovirus infection by the wearer, and is consistent with other studies that show cloth masks provide poor filtration for rhinovirus (30). Its implementation does not inform the effect of using cloth masks versus not using masks in a community setting for source control of SARS-CoV-2, which is of the same genus as seasonal coronavirus, which has been found to be effectively filtered by cloth masks in a source control setting (30).
A. Studies of Impact on Community Transmission.
When evaluating the available evidence for the impact of masks on community transmission, it is critical to clarify the setting of the research study (health care facility or community), the respiratory illness being evaluated and what reference standard was used (no mask or surgical mask). There are no RCTs that have been done to evaluate the impact of masks on community transmission during a coronavirus pandemic. While there is some evidence from influenza outbreaks, the current global pandemic poses a unique challenge. A review (42) of 67 studies including randomized controlled trials and observational studies found that simple and lowcost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. The review recommended that "the following effective interventions should be implemented, preferably in a combined fashion, to reduce transmission of viral respiratory disease: 1. frequent handwashing with or without adjunct antiseptics; 2. barrier measures such as gloves, gowns, and masks with filtration apparatus; and 3. suspicion diagnosis with the isolation of likely cases". However, it cautioned that routine longterm implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic."
http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf
Last edited:
Since it clearly states on the box that these masks will NOT protect a person from COVID-19, in light of surgical masks being manufactured to a higher standard, we can safely and logically conclude that homemade reusable masks as well as reusable designer masks made from basic materials won’t provide any form of protection either.
From this logical and common sense conclusion two questions immediately spring to mind.
1. In light of clearly reading that these masks DO NOT provide any protection against COVID-19 or any other infection or disease, why are people still buying them in huge numbers and wearing them?
2. Are there any masks available that can protect an individual from the supposed COVID-19 virus or any other viral type pathogens?
The answer to the first question is simple, most people are sheep, they don’t think and reason for themselves, they follow what the mainstream media, their governments as well as other “official” organisations tell them without questioning the validity and accuracy of the information handed to them, in short they’ll do what they’re told. How many people have actually read the surgical mask box warning?
This is what the fight/flight mode does to people once activated, they’ll do anything to survive. This is all well and good when you’re being chased by a dangerous animal, however this mode is very dangerous and completely devoid of any rational and logical thought process when dealing with a killer virus that has never been proven to exist yet alone be taking the amount of lives claimed.
Go out into the streets and you’ll see that very few individuals have read the warning, get on the public transport system here in London and you’ll see that even fewer people have conducted their own research ie simply read the surgical mask warning label. Yet these will be the same brainwashed and indoctrinated lemmings who will attempt to bully, berate and disparage you because you’ve actually bothered to read the box warning, have conducted your own research and thus logically and correctly concluded that wearing an ear loop surgical mask, a reusable homemade mask or anything similar is simply a waste of time in trying to prevent/slow down the spread of any virus, disease or infection.
3M N95, N99, N100 face masks aren’t effective against the Coronavirus either, those masks are specially made to filter out dust, fumes and mist particles, this is why you’ll see them frequently being used by construction workers on building sites, in houses and apartments where as a result of the work being carried out there are considerably more dust, fume and mist contaminants in the air.
N95, N100 and other similar face masks filter out particles up to 0.3 microns, the Coronavirus however measures between 0.06-0.14 microns, in other words the virus being smaller than the filter element capabilities can easily pass through regardless.
The fact of the matter is because of the Coronavirus particles being so small, you’ll require a type of mask that can filter out gases, smoke and vapours as those particles tend to be of a similar size to COVID-19. You’ll notice that people who work in laboratories especially those managing viruses and infectious diseases typically wear respirator masks like the above, in fact you’re more likely to see them wearing a hazmat suit in addition to the respirator, something like this:
Last edited:
O
OnTheWayOut
Anything that stops your spittle from flying around is a help. Not foolproof .... but everything you can do helps slow the spread.
Let's face it .... scientists are still not in full agreement on how Covid works and how it is spread. As time goes by hopefully there will be more consistent consensus but at this time throwing all your eggs in one scientific basket is foolish. Take precautions as much as you can to protect you and yours. It will also help others as a bonus. Wearing a mask is a part of all that, I don't understand why it's a big deal. Throw a mask on for a few minutes while shopping or whatever, take it off in the car. Easy peasy.
Let's face it .... scientists are still not in full agreement on how Covid works and how it is spread. As time goes by hopefully there will be more consistent consensus but at this time throwing all your eggs in one scientific basket is foolish. Take precautions as much as you can to protect you and yours. It will also help others as a bonus. Wearing a mask is a part of all that, I don't understand why it's a big deal. Throw a mask on for a few minutes while shopping or whatever, take it off in the car. Easy peasy.
Pretty sure the anti-mask people are the kid's of those who went to war against car seat belts back in the 70's 
Kind of ironic seeing as the seat belts of the 70s were in no way safe restraints and are even considered illegal todayPretty sure the anti-mask people are the kid's of those who went to war against car seat belts back in the 70's
You have noticed the difference in what we wear today vs the joke of a lap band that existed up to the 80s right? Many car makers (GM / Ford etc) had to pay out millions in damages due to the piss poor design as they caused more issues with lumbar separation and only reduced deaths by 20%
Even rear seats / kids seats these days are (at a minimum) 3 point bands
For those who require more protection 5 and 7 point bands exist
Same concept with the mask
A cloth mask is as useless as toilet paper in contracting covid
An N95 is very good at preventing
Higher grades work even better
20% is a lot in my book.
Remember a cloth mask is useful to prevent the spread if you are asymptomatic. We need to think about others first.
Placebos give the dumber people too much of a false sense of security
Again back to your seat belt idea; if adding a belt makes you feel safer and you now drive 40+ km per hour you are increasing considerably your risk
Many people with cloth / paper masks are fucking fearless. You have seen everything from protest movements to large scale gatherings.
The distancing aspect is far more effective than the mask, even if asymptomatic, even if you get close to someone and then quickly move away
Many who get masks instead STAY close because they think the mask is armour and they are safe somehow
For those types of mindsets N95 is only solution
No no no... Have you not learned anything?
You probably believe the earth is flat as well. Not sure where you get your information, but it's not based on science. Let me explain. Say I have Covid-19 but I have no symptoms. As I exhale, water droplets containing the virus potentially infecting people I come in contact with. By wearing a face covering, one reduces the amount of droplets as they exhale, thus reducing the risk of transmission. That is a scientific fact.
I suppose you thing this article by the CDC on masks is garbage.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
Maybe this will help you understand how masks work. Ugh!
Last edited:
Why can't you get it through your thick head that the use of masks or face coverings reduces the chance of an infected person transmitting the virus to others. Therefore, if everyone wears a face covering while in indoor public areas, we can reduce the spread since many are asymptomatic.
Since it clearly states on the box that these masks will NOT protect a person from COVID-19, in light of surgical masks being manufactured to a higher standard, we can safely and logically conclude that homemade reusable masks as well as reusable designer masks made from basic materials won’t provide any form of protection either.
From this logical and common sense conclusion two questions immediately spring to mind.
1. In light of clearly reading that these masks DO NOT provide any protection against COVID-19 or any other infection or disease, why are people still buying them in huge numbers and wearing them?
2. Are there any masks available that can protect an individual from the supposed COVID-19 virus or any other viral type pathogens?
Look at places like Japan where everyone is wearing masks. 20,000 cases and less than 1,000 deaths with a population of 126 million.
Japan & Taiwan both heavily discouraged use of masks
Taiwan was one of the most successful countries in combating Covid and Japan is certainly a very successful first world country
Japanese govt announcement against using masks is here:
The current Japanese government advice to citizens and residents is that only those with cold or other illness symptoms need wear face masks in public, and that advice makes sense in the current shortage. It also makes sense for healthy people to curb habitual mask usage and not to panic-buy and hoard masks, in order to give priority at least to those who are ill.
So far from the truth it isn't even funny. Japanese people commonly wear masks for something as simple as the common cold. In fact it's considered rude to not wear a mask if you're sick.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/05/28/national/science-health/masks-helped-fight-coronavirus/
O
OnTheWayOut
Another thing of note in that article .... the picture shows a crowd the first day after the state of emergency was lifted. I defy you to find a person with no mask. Here that would not be the case! And that's why japan so doing so much better than Canada.
I don't know if masks protect me but I'm wearing one anyways. Even if they don't do anything there's no downside. But if I don't wear a mask and they do protect you, I am risking getting sick or dying, and infecting everyone I come in contact with
Japan and Taiwan discouraged N95 masks so there wouldn't be a shortage for hospitals that needed them. In asia it's very common to wear a cloth mask or surgical mask
Japan and Taiwan discouraged N95 masks so there wouldn't be a shortage for hospitals that needed them. In asia it's very common to wear a cloth mask or surgical mask
It is concerning how folks like Teejay and Canadaman see the world. Are they trolling or are they serious? If trolling, it's odd but some might think it's funny, if serious MY GOD, I'd have them committed.
That out of date, behind the times, behind the latest cutting edge science "box" - authority (LOL) - of yours, lol, is disproven by the scientific evidence i posted, which you probably didn't even bother to read, let alone refute. And never will be able to refute, as follows:
Since it clearly states on the box that these masks will NOT protect a person from COVID-19, in light of surgical masks being manufactured to a higher standard, we can safely and logically conclude that homemade reusable masks as well as reusable designer masks made from basic materials won’t provide any form of protection either.
Besides it being obviously common sense, there's tons of evidence that mask wearing reduces infections and deaths by C-19. For example:
"Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review
Jeremy Howarda,c,1 , Austin Huangb , Zhiyuan Lik , Zeynep Tufekcim, Zdimal Vladimire , Helene-Mari van der Westhuizenf,g , Arne von Delfto,g , Amy Pricen , Lex Fridmand , Lei-Han Tangi,j , Viola Tangl , Gregory L. Watsonh , Christina E. Baxs , Reshama Shaikhq , Frederik Questierr , Danny Hernandezp , Larry F. Chun , Christina M. Ramirezh , and Anne W. Rimoint
a fast.ai, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; bWarren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, 222 Richmond St, Providence, RI 02903; cData Institute, University of San Francisco, 101 Howard St, San Francisco, CA 94105, US; dDepartment of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139; e Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals, Czech Academy of Sciences, Rozvojová 135, CZ-165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic; fDepartment of Primary Health Care Sciences, Woodstock Road, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom; gTB Proof, Cape Town, South Africa; hDepartment of Biostatistics, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095; iDepartment of Physics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China; jComplex Systems Division, Beijing Computational Science Research Center, Haidian, Beijing 100193, China; kCenter for Quantitative Biology, Peking University, Haidian, Beijing 100871, China; lDepartment of Information Systems, Business Statistics and Operations Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China; mUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; nSchool of Medicine Anesthesia Informatics and Media (AIM) Lab, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant S268C, Stanford, CA 94305; oSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa; pOpenAI, 3180 18th St, San Francisco, CA 94110; qData Umbrella, 345 West 145th St, New York, NY 10031; rVrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; sUniversity of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104; tDepartment of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E Young Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90095
This manuscript was compiled on April 10, 2020...
The science around the use of masks by the general public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly...
The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces the transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected droplets in both
laboratory and clinical contexts...
"3. Filtering Capability of Masks
...Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% ofparticles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).
When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress, it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for
source control. When someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets. Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).
Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."
An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).
In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant droplet size range, as well some efficacy in
blocking droplets and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help people keep their droplets to themselves.
4. Mask Efficacy Studies
Although no randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of masks as source control for SARS-CoV-2 has been published, a number of studies have attempted to indirectly estimate the efficacy of masks. Overall, an evidence review (29) finds "moderate certainty evidence shows that the use of handwashing plus masks probably reduces the spread of respiratory viruses."
The most relevant paper (30), with important implications for public mask wearing during the COVID-19 outbreak, is one that compares the efficacy of surgical masks for source control for seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and rhinovirus. With ten participants, the masks were effective at blocking coronavirus droplets of all sizes for every subject. However, masks were far less effective at blocking rhinovirus droplets of any size, or of blocking small influenza droplets. The results suggest that masks may have a significant role in source control for the current coronavirus outbreak. The study did not use COVID-19 patients, and it is not yet known whether seasonal coronavirus behaves the same as SARS-CoV-2; however, they are of the same genus, so similar behavior is likely.
Another relevant (but under-powered, with n=4) study (31) found that a cotton mask blocked 96% (reported as 1.5 log units or about a 36-fold decrease) of viral load on average, at eight inches away from a cough from a patient infected with COVID-19. If this is replicated in larger studies it would be an important result, because it has been shown (32) that "every 10-fold increase in viral load results in 26% more patient deaths" from "acute infections caused by highly pathogenic viruses".
A comparison of homemade and surgical masks for bacterial and viral aerosols (21) observed that "the median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask." Research focused on aerosol exposure has found all types of masks are at least somewhat effective at protecting the wearer. Van der Sande et al (33) found that "all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity", and concluded that "any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence". Overall however, analysis of particle filtration is likely to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, since the fraction of particles that are emitted as aerosol (vs. droplet) is quite small (26). Analysis of seasonal coronavirus compared to rhinovirus (30) suggests that filtration of COVID-19 may be much more effective, especially for source control.
The importance of using masks for health care workers has been observed (34) in three Chinese hospitals where, in each hospital, medical staff wearing masks (mainly in quarantine areas) had no COVID-19 infections, despite being around COVID-19 patients far more often, whilst other medical staff had 10 or more infections in each of the three hospitals.
Masks seem to be effective for source control in the controlled setting of an airplane. One case report (35) describes a man who flew from China to Toronto and then tested positive for COVID-19. He was wearing a mask during the flight. The 25 people closest to him on plane/flight attendants were tested and all were negative. Nobody has been reported from that flight as getting COVID-19. Another case study involving a masked influenza patient on an airplane (36) found that
"wearing a face mask was associated with a decreased risk for influenza acquisition during this long-duration flight".
Guideline development for health worker personal protective equipment have focused on whether surgical masks or N95 respirators should be recommended. Most of the research in this area focuses on influenza. At this point, it is not known to what extent findings from influenza studies apply to COVID-19 filtration. Wilkes et al (37) found that "filtration performance of pleated hydrophobic membrane filters was demonstrated to be markedly greater than that of electrostatic filters." However, even substantial differences in materials and construction do not seem to impact the transmission of droplet-borne viruses in practice, such as a metaanalysis of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks (38) that found "the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratoryconfirmed influenza." Johnson et al (39) showed that "surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza". Radonovich et al (40) found in an outpatient setting that "use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks... resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
One of the most frequently mentioned papers evaluating the benefits and harms of cloth masks have been by MacIntyre et al (41). Findings have been
misinterpreted, and therefore justify detailed discussion here. The authors "caution against the use of cloth masks" for healthcare professionals compared
to the use of surgical masks and regular procedures, based on an analysis of transmission in hospitals in Hanoi. We emphasize the setting of the study - health workers using masks to protect themselves against infection. The study compared a "surgical mask" group which received 2 new masks per day, to a "cloth mask" group that received 5 masks for the entire 4week period and were required to wear the masks all day, to a "control group" which used masks in compliance with existing hospital protocols, which the authors describe as a "very high level of mask use". It is important to note that the authors did not have a "no mask" control group because it was deemed "unethical to ask participants to not wear a mask." The study does not inform policy pertaining to public mask wearing as compared to the absence of masks in a community setting, since there is not a "no mask" group. The results of the study show that the group with a regular supply of new surgical masks each day had significantly lower infection of rhinovirus than the group that wore a limited supply of cloth masks. This paper lends support to the use of clean, surgical masks by medical staff in hospital settings to avoid rhinovirus infection by the wearer, and is consistent with other studies that show cloth masks provide poor filtration for rhinovirus (30). Its implementation does not inform the effect of using cloth masks versus not using masks in a community setting for source control of SARS-CoV-2, which is of the same genus as seasonal coronavirus, which has been found to be effectively filtered by cloth masks in a source control setting (30).
A. Studies of Impact on Community Transmission.
When evaluating the available evidence for the impact of masks on community transmission, it is critical to clarify the setting of the research study (health care facility or community), the respiratory illness being evaluated and what reference standard was used (no mask or surgical mask). There are no RCTs that have been done to evaluate the impact of masks on community transmission during a coronavirus pandemic. While there is some evidence from influenza outbreaks, the current global pandemic poses a unique challenge. A review (42) of 67 studies including randomized controlled trials and observational studies found that simple and lowcost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. The review recommended that "the following effective interventions should be implemented, preferably in a combined fashion, to reduce transmission of viral respiratory disease: 1. frequent handwashing with or without adjunct antiseptics; 2. barrier measures such as gloves, gowns, and masks with filtration apparatus; and 3. suspicion diagnosis with the isolation of likely cases". However, it cautioned that routine longterm implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic."
http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf
BREAKING NEWS:
New study from a small lab in China, mind you not confirmed yet. To increase the protection from spreading the virus you should wear a mask but also maintain social silencing, be quiet and do not talk. Learn and use sign language instead. There is hardly any
chance of infecting others if you keep your mouth shut. Social silencing coming to a city near you soon.
New study from a small lab in China, mind you not confirmed yet. To increase the protection from spreading the virus you should wear a mask but also maintain social silencing, be quiet and do not talk. Learn and use sign language instead. There is hardly any
chance of infecting others if you keep your mouth shut. Social silencing coming to a city near you soon.
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
new england journal of medicine
Jesus FUCK ME....Canadaman has discovered that Floridians and Texans were hanging and partying in medical facilities and this is why they are the envy of COVIDIOTS.
