OT: COVID-19 Face Mask Recommendations

Submitted by seegoblu on July 4th, 2020 at 9:42 AM

I will be returning to work in the next few weeks and would be interested in people’s recommendations for a reusable face mask that is really breathable.

Thus far my public activities have been intentionally limited so I have been using a less than ideal mask (polyester-ish stretchy material). However, given my renewed mass transit commute and  the office setting for my job, I would really love to get something that will both protect me/public as well as not suffocate me in the process. 

blue in dc

July 4th, 2020 at 3:37 PM ^

I’ve read the full transcript.   The vast majority of evidence he presents is that cloth masks are not particularly effective at protecting the user.    No one disagrees with that.   Then he has this statement:

‘This same group claims that places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have been shown to substantially lower community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In fact, in countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks many other control measures were put in place at the same time that mask use may have increased. I believe their example for the impact of cloth masking reflects the age-old elephant sign phenomenon; I can declare to you with all sincerity that when I put a sign in my front yard in the Twin Cities area years ago that no elephants are allowed, guess what happened? Not one elephant has showed up in my front lawn since I put up that sign. Not one. And this is the same phenomena that occurs with saying mask use was responsible for stopping widespread SARS-CoV-2 transmission in countries that were putting into place a myriad of control measures such as widespread testing, extensive contact tracing programs and quarantine measures.‘.  No scientific evidence whatsoever to dispute the study, just “I believe”.

Here are some Stanford scientists who disagree.

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scientists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html (I can find many more).

 

Most interestingly to me is that the University of Minnesota Medical System does not seem swayed by his arguments. “Everyone—including patients, visitors, employees, and others—is required to wear a mask when entering one of our clinics, hospitals, or other locations. Our guidance is in line with other local health systems.”  https://mphysicians.org/covid19 (for thise that have not listened to the podcast or read the transcript, the Dr featured is a University of Minnesota researcher.

Sometimes it is hard to figure out what to do when scientists disagree   Here I would argue not so much.   The costs of uncontrolled Covid are high (rationing health care which is what is happening right now has tremendous negative impacts).   The cost of wearing a face mask doesn’t seem particularly high.   Therefore why would you not take the more cautious approach and use the low cost remedy that could have significant benefit?  
 

 

uminks

July 4th, 2020 at 3:19 PM ^

The COVID virus is about 2 microns, so to be really safe you would need a N99 mask. N95 will only protect you for any molecule bigger than 3 microns. Masks are more important to prevent your droplets from reaching surfaces where they may stay for 24 hours and someone in a store or other businesses may touch that surface and get contaminated. Another reason social distancing is important is due to the fact when someone sneezes, cough, sings, talks or open their mouth they expel aerosols 6 to 10 ft and these smaller COVID virus molecules will go through any mask less than N99.

blue in dc

July 4th, 2020 at 4:03 PM ^

“Filtration efficiencies of the hybrids (such as cotton–silk, cotton–chiffon, cotton–flannel) was >80% (for particles <300 nm) and >90% (for particles >300 nm). We speculate that the enhanced performance of the hybrids is likely due to the combined effect of mechanical and electrostatic-based filtration. Cotton, the most widely used material for cloth masks performs better at higher weave densities (i.e., thread count) and can make a significant difference in filtration efficiencies. Our studies also imply that gaps (as caused by an improper fit of the mask) can result in over a 60% decrease in the filtration efficiency, implying the need for future cloth mask design studies to take into account issues of “fit” and leakage, while allowing the exhaled air to vent efficiently. Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles.”

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252

 

schizontastic

July 4th, 2020 at 4:12 PM ^

For mass transit, I'd recommend a "real" KN95 and glasses/sunglasses. It is possible to get used to it, if the mass transit is air con'ed. 

If unable to tolerate, I would try to find a "surgical" (procedure) mask / cone mask similar to the ones that hospitals have staff wear universally or give to visitors. Significant improvement over typical cloth masks. 

Of course, wash your hands after the transit and before removing mask. 

Hold This L

July 4th, 2020 at 4:36 PM ^

I found this article about a month ago and thought it was kinda fascinating. It was published in April but it looks like something happened in late May. 
 

Conditions have changed but I still think it’s worth a quick read 

michymich

July 4th, 2020 at 5:43 PM ^

I am not fearful of Covid but I do wear a mask if I go into a store for the consideration of others. I digress.

 

I try and wear a mask as little as possible because from my limited understanding, we have lungs for a reason. A mouth and a nose.

If I had diabetes or asthma then my approach would be differently. Here is to more healthy people getting covid19 and doing their best to avoid unhealthy people who obviously have the burden of recognizing their vulnerability and making a proper risk assessment.

blue in dc

July 4th, 2020 at 6:58 PM ^

You don’t digress.   I’m sure anyone at higher risk who occasionally has to venture out appreciates your consideration.  

Also, while  they aren’t likely to die, it sounds like Houston is seeing plenty of younger healthier patients ending up in the hospital

“Methodist’s leaders, who were planning for a surge and had been dealing with a stream of coronavirus patients since March, pointed to the most important difference between Houston now and New York then: the patient mix. The majority of new patients here are younger and healthier and are not as severely ill as many were in New York City, where officials report that over 22,000are likely to have died from the disease.‘
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/us/coronavirus-houston-new-york.html?referringSource=articleShare

michymich

July 5th, 2020 at 1:39 AM ^

What does this exactly mean? Younger and healthier patients ending up in the hospital? Hmmm. You mean like young people who get some symptom and show up at the emergency room?

 

If they were in the ICU...ok, you got me but I don't believe that. What is healthy? 5'10 and 275 lbs? Is healthy 30 with asthma?

 

I am very skeptical of media reporting which has been wrong very often. Did you hear about all these false positives like supposedly Djokovic who had it and now doesn't have it? Not attacking you but lots of misinformation and paranoia out there.

 

Here's to more healthy people getting it. It's the only way to stop self destructive madness. There are a lot of mentally weak and scared people. I have met them. One guy who is probably in his mid 30's wearing a mask all the time where we had to talk him off the ledge. His girlfriend was Italian.

 

I know another girl (haven't seen her)...mid 20's acting like she is going to die. It's amazing how you can manipulate people when the facts are clear that if you are between 20-50 with no underlying conditions (good ht/weight, no asthma, non smoker) that your chances of dying are slim to none.

 

 

Hold This L

July 5th, 2020 at 2:14 PM ^

CDC gave their death rate estimates by age groups and this was in late May (meaning the increase in cases but not huge increase in deaths would probably make a re-estimate even lower. For ages 0-49, which I thought was a huge range but nonetheless, it was .05% or around that number. So I do think ppl are overreacting in this instance. It’s certainly something to be wary and cognizant of, but it doesn’t mean paranoia and anxiety to the levels we have seen. 

Wiomter

November 16th, 2020 at 8:42 AM ^

Hello. Good post! I often read all news about covid and trying to use all recommendations to stay in safety. I even changed my job, now I work from home. Also I often buy ppe products products online and always wear mask outside! Hope this will end soon..