|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 13, 2020 14:42:39 GMT
I shudder at the environmental cost of this. Me too. All the people saying they're using wipes, disinfecting, using plastic shopping bags... at the same time, people are driving less and buying less of the other consumable items. Many are meal planning and being more cautious with using leftovers So there is a tradeoff. I'll do my best for the environment while also protecting myself and my family
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jul 13, 2020 14:52:56 GMT
They carry out their own tests by the Direction Générale des Armées (General Direction of the Armies). They used nanoparticles the size of the coronavirus and looked at when the particles could start getting through + oxygen levels (some cloth masks' weave tightened up so much after several hot washes that it was getting difficult to breathe in them). The disposable surgical masks last for longer than 20 minutes from what I recall. Around 4h? But yeah, they protect the people around you, not yourself from others. I know that the FFP2 (N95) approved for use in Europe can last up to 8h and still be safe. Here is the link to the French government's website page on how manufacturers can get their masks tested for homologation. The different testing units all use tech approved by the Direction Générale des Armées. Wait?!? This does not make sense. Why are they testing filtration at this level? It doesn't make sense scientifically when you think about how the virus spreads and what the purpose of wearing a mask is... The point of wearing any type of mask is to stop the expulsion of droplets from our nose and mouth into the air around us when we exhale. And to a smaller extent, stop the inhalation of these suspended liquid droplets. The coronavirus can be present in these respiratory droplets. The coronavirus itself does not just fly around in the air. It is a virus. It can't survive on its own. So testing fabric for nanoparticle filtration levels doesn't make sense here. The virus isn't flying around by itself. Do any of the simple disposable masks filter at nanoparticle level? I do not think so. They "leak" around the edges, etc. So, all of these simple (non-N95) disposable masks straight out of the box the very first time wouldn't provide this level of protection either! But yet, they are still proven effective at decreasing cornonavirus transmission. By stopping the transfer of respiratory droplets, not flying virus particles. There are two masks regulated by the French norms: the basic ones and the duck beak ones. Both can be manufactured as fabric masks. The duck beak one imitates to a pretty good extent the FFP2 (N95 in the US) filtration. The patterns and different fabric recommendations are both available from the French AFNOR website. Also, droplets can be tiny. Also, there are medical professionals currently calling for a reconsideration of the novel coronavirus as being airborne and appealing the WHO to do so. Current health advice has not caught up with the likely airborne quality of the virus. Starting out with and testing for the strictest norm that is set for FFP2/N95 masks makes sense for a norm-making body whether we as consumers "get it" or not. The aim from the start was to produce fabric masks with the highest available protection, both from the person breathing out and for the person breathing in (the famous duck beak mask). It might not be up to par with the disposable FFP2/N95 mask but making it as close as possible by setting strict norms for pattern and fabrics to use was playing the safest card possible during a period when these masks were not available to the wider public.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jul 13, 2020 14:59:06 GMT
I’ve learned a lot from this thread! I never knew that cloth masks started getting wet after 20 minutes of wearing and should then be changed out. My shopping trips take longer than 20 minutes. Bold mine. CLOTH masks... Although disposables do too, but they are disposable!
|
|
|
Post by mom2jnk on Jul 13, 2020 15:44:27 GMT
Wait?!? This does not make sense. Why are they testing filtration at this level? It doesn't make sense scientifically when you think about how the virus spreads and what the purpose of wearing a mask is... The point of wearing any type of mask is to stop the expulsion of droplets from our nose and mouth into the air around us when we exhale. And to a smaller extent, stop the inhalation of these suspended liquid droplets. The coronavirus can be present in these respiratory droplets. The coronavirus itself does not just fly around in the air. It is a virus. It can't survive on its own. So testing fabric for nanoparticle filtration levels doesn't make sense here. The virus isn't flying around by itself. Do any of the simple disposable masks filter at nanoparticle level? I do not think so. They "leak" around the edges, etc. So, all of these simple (non-N95) disposable masks straight out of the box the very first time wouldn't provide this level of protection either! But yet, they are still proven effective at decreasing cornonavirus transmission. By stopping the transfer of respiratory droplets, not flying virus particles. There are two masks regulated by the French norms: the basic ones and the duck beak ones. Both can be manufactured as fabric masks. The duck beak one imitates to a pretty good extent the FFP2 (N95 in the US) filtration. The patterns and different fabric recommendations are both available from the French AFNOR website. Also, droplets can be tiny. Also, there are medical professionals currently calling for a reconsideration of the novel coronavirus as being airborne and appealing the WHO to do so. Current health advice has not caught up with the likely airborne quality of the virus. Starting out with and testing for the strictest norm that is set for FFP2/N95 masks makes sense for a norm-making body whether we as consumers "get it" or not. The aim from the start was to produce fabric masks with the highest available protection, both from the person breathing out and for the person breathing in (the famous duck beak mask). It might not be up to par with the disposable FFP2/N95 mask but making it as close as possible by setting strict norms for pattern and fabrics to use was playing the safest card possible during a period when these masks were not available to the wider public. Yep, I get this. These tiny droplets/aerosols are what I was referring to when I spoke of respiratory droplets in my post. But this article gives the size of these droplets in the single micrometer range, not the nanoparticle size of the coronavirus. Which is why I was questioning the use of nanoparticle filtration rates as a method of evaluating masks' life span. Scientists do not believe that the viable virus is flying through the air all by itself because, well, it is a virus.
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Jul 13, 2020 16:07:45 GMT
Scientists do not believe that the viable virus is flying through the air all by itself because, well, it is a virus. They seem to now, WHO updated it's position on this just recently LINK LINK 2
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 17:04:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 16:10:12 GMT
Went to the hospital Friday for testing for my DD for epilepsy. They forbid cloth masks. And provide a disposable one.
|
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,706
Jun 28, 2014 17:36:35 GMT
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Jul 13, 2020 16:28:53 GMT
We are a mandatory mask state and having disposables in the car makes it SO much easier to run errands. Now when we forget our cloth masks, we have extra in the car.
They’re also way more comfortable when I get my hair done.
|
|
Bridget in MD
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,982
Member is Online
Jun 25, 2014 20:40:00 GMT
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Jul 13, 2020 16:46:57 GMT
My son is working on his Eagle Project workbook and has to provide COVID saftey measure plans for it. He is making safe exchange parking spaces for our local sheriff's office, so they will be painting outside in August weather. I wouldn't think they'd have to wear masks. the sheriff is providing eye protection and gloves, but they felt it would be too hot for kids to also wear masks. I just purchased a box of 50 disposble masks from amazon so he is going to try to keep kids 6' apart while painting plus eye and masks will be available. I just feel bad because August in MD with our humidity is no joke. I'm hoping the disposable ones will be a little cooler, plus then if they get paint on them, it is not a cloth mask they may want to reuse. They can just toss.
|
|
SweetieBsMom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,598
Jun 25, 2014 19:55:12 GMT
|
Post by SweetieBsMom on Jul 13, 2020 16:52:47 GMT
I have both. I have disposables that I have in the car for emergencies. When I go back to work, I'll have a bunch of disposables in my work bag and in my desk drawer, again for emergencies. For the cloth ones I have them in a cute basket by the front door. When I go out I grab one (also have a couple of cloth ones in the car). When I come home the 'used' mask goes into the empty basket and when I have a bunch, they go in the wash. I am under self imposed quarantine so when I go "out" it's a quick run to the grocery store. I'm not shopping in any huge capacity. I do have to go to Kohls and PetCo this week so that will be the most mask time I've had thus far and I wouldn't be going if I didn't have to.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 13, 2020 16:55:01 GMT
Went to the hospital Friday for testing for my DD for epilepsy. They forbid cloth masks. And provide a disposable one. Probably because a e you don't know if the mask has been washed recently, but i suppose people reuse paper ones too, so giving them at the door seems like a good idea
|
|
|
Post by sam9 on Jul 13, 2020 17:01:26 GMT
Disposables fit me very poorly. I have a small head. They are also unbearably itchy.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,170
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Jul 13, 2020 17:03:55 GMT
You know, I’d feel better about all the people wearing masks IF they wore them properly and didn’t mess with them so much.
Today I had to go for my pre-op Covid test. Small waiting room in a small building, maybe 10x10. One guy seated in there, one woman went in just ahead of me. I stayed just inside the door while she was at the desk. She sat and I checked in and sat so we were in a triangle, six feet or more apart. They both get called back and I’m the last one in the waiting area when a guy comes in - he gets to the middle of the waiting room, in front of me, before he pulls out his mask and puts it on. I get that people forget, especially if they don’t go many places, but geez!
And the people who have them below their noses. Or the ones who touch them 20 times.
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,904
Aug 14, 2015 21:47:17 GMT
|
Post by pilcas on Jul 13, 2020 17:05:45 GMT
I find it easier to breathe with the disposable ones. Cooler too. If I am going to be using it for a long time I use the disposable ones.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 13, 2020 17:07:21 GMT
You know, I’d feel better about all the people wearing masks IF they wore them properly and didn’t mess with them so much. Today I had to go for my pre-op Covid test. Small waiting room in a small building, maybe 10x10. One guy seated in there, one woman went in just ahead of me. I stayed just inside the door while she was at the desk. She sat and I checked in and sat so we were in a triangle, six feet or more apart. They both get called back and I’m the last one in the waiting area when a guy comes in - he gets to the middle of the waiting room, in front of me, before he pulls out his mask and puts it on. I get that people forget, especially if they don’t go many places, but geez! And the people who have them below their noses. Or the ones who touch them 20 times. the ones who touch them are not as worrisome to me. I can wash my hands and use sanitizer and the areas they touch can be cleaned. The below the nose masks let the particles into the air
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jul 13, 2020 18:11:00 GMT
But this article gives the size of these droplets in the single micrometer range, not the nanoparticle size of the coronavirus. Which is why I was questioning the use of nanoparticle filtration rates as a method of evaluating masks' life span. Scientists do not believe that the viable virus is flying through the air all by itself because, well, it is a virus. As noted in my previous reply, the airborne status of the virus is now recognised. The first study on this dates back to early March (and was from the US). They were already measuring the virus being in the air 3h after aerosolisation to imitate natural air emission (breathing out) patterns.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jul 13, 2020 19:33:59 GMT
Went to the hospital Friday for testing for my DD for epilepsy. They forbid cloth masks. And provide a disposable one. I am going to medically necessary physical therapy twice a week. It is a hospital affiliated facility. When I, and any others, walk in, temps are taken and a NEW disposable mask is issued. If one chooses, they can put the disposable mask over the one being worn or throw the used one out!
|
|
|
Post by sam9 on Jul 13, 2020 20:22:37 GMT
I just watched Bill Nye's TikTok on face mask experiments. I tried it with my favourite cloth mask, the one I feel the most secure and comfortable in, and it passed the test.
ETA: Yes, I know that masks can only reduce risk and are not a guarantee of anything. I’m just happy to know that my mask is reasonably effective. I wasn’t sure and had no way of knowing.
|
|
|
Post by mom2jnk on Jul 14, 2020 12:06:10 GMT
But this article gives the size of these droplets in the single micrometer range, not the nanoparticle size of the coronavirus. Which is why I was questioning the use of nanoparticle filtration rates as a method of evaluating masks' life span. Scientists do not believe that the viable virus is flying through the air all by itself because, well, it is a virus. As noted in my previous reply, the airborne status of the virus is now recognised. The first study on this dates back to early March (and was from the US). They were already measuring the virus being in the air 3h after aerosolisation to imitate natural air emission (breathing out) patterns. I am really doing a very poor job of explaining myself right now. I acknowledge and confirm the aerosol transmission of the virus.
I am NOT debating that. I have read of it extensively. I acknowledge and understand the concept of aerosol transmission of this coronavirus. I got it. I'm actually a scientist in real life. Let me try one more time... 1. The virus is carried in the air by the aerosols. 2. These aerosols are much bigger than the size of the actual nanometer size virus particles. 3. The aerosols in which the virus are present have been measured to be single micrometers in diameter. 4. Micrometers are much larger than nanometers. 5. If the size of the aerosols in which the viable virus is contained are in the single micrometer range, why are the scientists measuring the filtration rate of mask at the nanometer level? Why are these scientists studying the filtration at this much smaller level? Measuring filtration at that micrometer level would be more realistic and appropriate if they wanted to mimic viral transmission by aerosol.My statement that viable virus is not flying through the air, all by itself (not contained in any liquid, but just viable virus particles suspended by itself in the air), is valid.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jul 14, 2020 12:31:15 GMT
Measuring filtration at that micrometer level would be more realistic and appropriate if they wanted to mimic viral transmission by aerosol. They are *not* studying the coronavirus. They are making norms for the country and reporting to the normalising body of the European Comi. In the sudden time of crisis, they had to come up on the spot with norms for fabric masks which they hadn't had to deal with before. They went with the most precise, most strict norms possible. Again, they make norms and are the French standardisation coordinating system. For everything (food safety, environment, etc.). They suddenly had to deal with norms for fabric masks. They went as safe as possible. It is not their job to decide what scientists were (and still are) figuring out about the novel coronavirus. Go as strict as possible when dealing with the unknown, period. Until you have credible and irrefutable evidence, you can't risk as a standardisation organism to make that claim and make that leap. I'm not sure how better I can make myself understood. They played it safe and they were right to do so. Scientists are currently still debating how to best replicate natural aerolisation for the novel coronavirus in a controlled environement. You can't wait months to make norms when there's an emergency. Go strict and if there's enough evidence down the road (years later), relax the testing environment. It's the better safe than sorry approach. For someone setting the official recommended standard, the IRL consequences and legal implications of having not been safe enough when dealing with a crisis due to a new actor would be terrible. Maybe there's no federal standardisation organisation where you live and that's making this situation difficult to comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by christine58 on Jul 14, 2020 12:37:32 GMT
Went to the hospital Friday for testing for my DD for epilepsy. They forbid cloth masks. And provide a disposable one. Hope she’s ok
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jul 14, 2020 12:39:54 GMT
My statement that viable virus is not flying through the air, all by itself (not contained in any liquid, but just viable virus particles suspended by itself in the air), is valid. Also, airborne doesn't mean "flying through the air". It means that it remains in the air and can be carried by movement like a breeze. MIT measured a travel distance up to 27 feet back in March. In late May, the American Institute of Physics also warned about this from their study: This is airborne status. I don't know why you're so fixated on being right that "by itself" it doesn't travel. That doesn't affect the matter at hand. The norms were set for an emergency situation so they went with the smallest measurable component. You might continue to claim it's not realistic but it remains the safest approach when we don't have definitive figures on how small an infected droplet can be. Novel coronavirus, least amount of risk. We walked straight into the unknown. Setting norms and standards is usually done a posteriori. That is not possible when you need to urgently make stuff for a new situation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 17:04:42 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 14:31:49 GMT
Went to the hospital Friday for testing for my DD for epilepsy. They forbid cloth masks. And provide a disposable one. Hope she’s ok Yep all good!
|
|