A Review of Evidence for Masks

[ktgrok]

Found this preprint of an article reviewing the evidence for masks. (if you click "get PDF" on the right you get the whole article)

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1?fbclid=IwAR1Br7fgbFa-NJcLY5wHAGezbsptrUVoGYGHkKH0JxLOYzuVsXogfByPlP4

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. Public mask wearing is most effective at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high. The decreased transmissibility could substantially reduce the death toll and economic impact while the cost of the intervention is low. 

[TCB]

22 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Found this preprint of an article reviewing the evidence for masks. (if you click "get PDF" on the right you get the whole article)

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1?fbclid=IwAR1Br7fgbFa-NJcLY5wHAGezbsptrUVoGYGHkKH0JxLOYzuVsXogfByPlP4

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. Public mask wearing is most effective at stopping spread of the virus when compliance is high. The decreased transmissibility could substantially reduce the death toll and economic impact while the cost of the intervention is low. 

Thanks! Will read it!

[ktgrok]

47 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

See we know masks can reduce droplets (ha, somewhat) but if the wearer isn’t sick, the risk of a damp mask on the face and everything that can stick to it could outweigh the benefits.  The droplets only matter if there is symptomatic or asymptomatic infection, and the transmission scenario is closer contact or prolonged contact.  
 

A healthy person wearing a mask provides no benefit, unless they are healthy but infected.  It would be interesting to get some solid numbers about that too, because if enough people are healthy but infected then the entire discussion of actual public risk changes a bit.

 

Well yeah, that's kind of what I have been saying ...albeit not well, obviously, lol. the point is to control spread from people who don't have symptoms yet, or such mild symptoms they don't really consider themselves "sick" yet. It seems people may have a very high viral load right before they get symptoms, or when they are mild enough to be blown off or not really noticed (as adults, we all know we do this....the "well, Im achy but I did mow the yard yesterday so it  is probably that" or "my nose is a bit congested, but it's allergy season so I'm sure it is just that). So mask wearing means those people cannot spew so many droplets, and fewer of the even smaller aerosolized particles (although it doesn't filter as many as a better quality mask). That reduces the viral load of those they encounter. 

Sick folks shouldn't be out and about masking, they should be staying home. But just controlling those who are obviously sick doesn't stop the spread, or this wouldn't be so hard to control. We need to stop the spread from those who feel well enough to go out and about - OR to be totally honest - from those who do know they don't feel well but don't care and are going out anyway. 

In this board we had a boardie whose husband said if he got Covid he would drive himself 20 hours home, stopping along the way for gas/bathrooms/food. If that actually happened, it would be better for everyone at those places if he was required by those places to wear a mask. Because sadly, we can't trust everyone who is sick to stay home, let alone know who is already infected, but not feeling sick yet. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Bambam]

More links in favor of masking:

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/heres-how-wearing-a-cloth-mask-helps-fight-the-spread-of-coronavirus/

https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-the-science-is-simple-and-im-one-of-100-experts-urging-governors-to-require-public-mask-wearing-138507 - Has some nice links

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v2  (Version 2 of original study linked in first post)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/resp.13834

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Plum said:

There was a JAMA video recently  about N95 use in Singapore. They found it was not as effective without proper training on how to wear them. He said some put it on upside down (?!? 🤦🏻‍♀️) and it was only as effective as the training. I didn’t watch the whole thing and was only half paying attention. Sorry! I have things to do! But here’s a link if you want to finish it for me. 
 

 

But that goes back to effective for what? Protecting the wearer or preventing them from spewing droplets? Two different goals, and when people say "not effective" for the first it does not negate the effectiveness of the second. I think that is where a lot of the confusion is coming from. 

[Pawz4me]

30 minutes ago, Plum said:

I just saw an article asking about mask fatigue. With the summer heat and humidity, I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more people giving up on wearing masks no matter how beneficial it has been proven to be. 

I'm worried about that. I'm as pro-mask as they come, but I run hot all the time, and a mask makes it much worse. So I'm really concerned how I'll fare when the heat and humidity ramp up. I can somehow feel the outdoor heat/humidity even when the a/c inside should feel frigid.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Plum said:

It sounded like they distributed N95 masks to every citizen in Singapore, so their goal was protecting the wearer, therefore protec

All my point of linking the video was that even IF we get everyone to start wearing masks, there's no guarantee that they will be worn in a way that is effective. I just saw an article asking about mask fatigue. With the summer heat and humidity, I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more people giving up on wearing masks no matter how beneficial it has been proven to be. 

Right, but that just sort of makes it more important that people wear them. If it is very unlikely (which it is) that I can get an N95 mask to fit well enough without a fit test to protect myself, then I am relying on others to wear SOMETHING over their face to slow the spread of droplets. (which they do seem to be effective at)

[TCB]

Someone may have already linked this one, sorry don’t have time right now to check through and see.

 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

Someone may have already linked this one, sorry don’t have time right now to check through and see.

 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/27/science.abc6197

Thank you! This part addresses some questions I'm seeing on the board. 

SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to replicate three times faster than SARS-CoV-1 and thus can rapidly spread to the pharynx from which it can be shed before the innate immune response becomes activated and produces symptoms (6). By the time symptoms occur, the patient has transmitted the virus without knowing.

Identifying infected individuals to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission is more challenging compared to SARS and other respiratory viruses because infected individuals can be highly contagious for several days, peaking on or before symptoms occur (2, 7). These “silent shedders” could be critical drivers of the enhanced spread of SARS-CoV-2. In Wuhan, China, it has been estimated that undiagnosed cases of COVID-19 infection, who were presumably asymptomatic, were responsible for up to 79% of viral infections (3). 

[TCB]

https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/5/5/e002794.full.pdf
 

Don’t think this one has been posted yet.

[MEmama]

On 5/27/2020 at 9:44 PM, square_25 said:

 

There are numbers on that. There have been a good number of antibody studies. About half of infected people are asymptomatic. There has been a range of estimated infection fatality rates (IFRs), but the largest studies (from Spain and NY) have come up with an IFR of about a percent. Since that's only counting confirmed deaths and not excess deaths, that may not be an overestimate :-/. A conservative estimate would be an IFR of 0.5% -- indeed, the IFR may depend on level of healthcare overwhelm, so 0.5% may be correct in that situation. 

There are other studies, too, with a wide range of possible numbers, including the Santa Clara and LA studies, which got the smallest estimated IFRs (0.1 or 0.2). People who tend to think the risk is low like to cite those. However, that data is starting to look less and less reasonable once we wind up with states that have lost more that 0.1% of their population and haven't gotten anywhere near herd immunity. 

By the way, asymptomatic spread is PRECISELY why this pandemic has actually disrupted our life. Spread is much, much easier to control if you know who's a carrier. 

I know you're already minimizing risk, so I don't mean you, but I hope everyone who thinks masks don't work is also staying home. Because if masks don't work, we will have super-spreader events driven by asymptomatic people again, and you should actually be more freaked out. 

Yes.

DH and I are assumed to be asymptomatic carriers, since DS's diagnosis of Covid toes. Thank goodness we mask whenever we are out, but it was likely transferred to me by my boss who does not mask. He is in contact with people all day, most whom do not mask. How many people is he spreading it to in one community? How would there be any way to know for certain?

He believes it is impossible that a person can be “healthy” and spread the virus. How do we educate a nation in which a serious percentage of people believe that?

And knowing I am asymptomatic, why is there nowhere to report that information? How can we contract trace if half of positive cases are asymptomatic, and a significant percentage of symptomatic people get a false negative test result?

[Pen]

11 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Yes.

DH and I are assumed to be asymptomatic carriers, since DS's diagnosis of Covid toes. Thank goodness we mask whenever we are out, but it was likely transferred to me by my boss who does not mask. He is in contact with people all day, most whom do not mask. How many people is he spreading it to in one community? How would there be any way to know for certain?

He believes it is impossible that a person can be “healthy” and spread the virus. How do we educate a nation in which a serious percentage of people believe that?

And knowing I am asymptomatic, why is there nowhere to report that information? How can we contract trace if half of positive cases are asymptomatic, and a significant percentage of symptomatic people get a false negative test result?

 

This is a huge problem!

 

Have you talked with your county or state health department?  They ***should*** be interested. 

They should be interested in the public education end, even if they are possibly legally hampered from contact tracing without a positive test result.  

 

 

It seems like a similar isdue to when early on people could only be tested if they had travelled to China.  Now there is apparently a problem with only contact tracing on the basis of a positive test (despite huge false negative rates) instead of based on clinical evidence of illness. 

But if you have not called I think you should do so rather than assuming they won’t do anything. 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Pen

[Pen]

@MEmama or if no success with health departments, maybe a science newswriter?  Or contact someone doing  a lot of You Tube videos about CV19? Like John Campbell or DrBeen or Medcram? 

[MEmama]

11 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

This is a huge problem!

 

Have you talked with your county or state health department?  They ***should*** be interested. 

They should be interested in the public education end, even if they are possibly legally hampered from contact tracing without a positive test result.  

 

 

It seems like a similar isdue to when early on people could only be tested if they had travelled to China.  Now there is apparently a problem with only contact tracing on the basis of a positive test (despite huge false negative rates) instead of based on clinical evidence of illness. 

But if you have not called I think you should do so rather than assuming they won’t do anything. 

 

I haven’t called because I don’t have hard evidence. Since I can’t *prove without a doubt* where it was picked up, and was DS’s test wasn’t definitively positive, I’m not sure what to say, you know? 

I’ll try to remember to ask the doctor if she reports it.

[Pen]

@MEmama actually maybe contact to health departments should be in writing, sort of like written notice of a dangerous sidewalk puts a government entity officially on notice of a problem whereas a phone call can be ignored. 

 

Our posts crossed.  It could be phrased as a “concern” based on what doctor thought looking at the toes, and that you don’t want to be responsible for a local cluster outbreak getting missed till it is huge—even though you don’t know for sure the origins. 

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Pen

[Pen]

4 minutes ago, MEmama said:

I haven’t called because I don’t have hard evidence. Since I can’t *prove without a doubt* where it was picked up, and was DS’s test wasn’t definitively positive, I’m not sure what to say, you know? 

I’ll try to remember to ask the doctor if she reports it.

 

I edited above post after I saw this one which crossed it.

 

 I don’t think “hard evidence “ is expected for contact tracing.  I think they are supposed to start with interviewing the infected person, and go from there.

 

This situation is making it clear to me that even if we had had plenty of tests available from start, false negatives plus Asymptomatic spread would have meant it still would have gone into exponential growth. 

[Pen]

9 minutes ago, square_25 said:

It might have. I'm starting to think that masks and social distancing would have been the best thing in the first place. 

However, if we had testing that functioned in February, we would have noticed exponential spread before NY triumphantly got over 10,000 cases :-/. 

 

Wait.  I thought exponential spread *was* noticed before then. When was it noticed?

 

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Nope. Best estimates using IFR would be that New York had more than 10,000 cases by March 1st. Probably more, frankly, since 210 people died by March 25th, it takes about 3-4 weeks for people to die from the virus on average, and the IFR is looking like about 0.5% to 1% in NY. If you calculate how many people must have therefore had it by March 1st... you see that it's a LOT. 

This is where the NY/CA comparisons really bother me. CA had only 53 deaths by March 25th, suggesting a FAR smaller number of cases by March 1st. If you push out a week later (so, then we're approximating cases by March 8th), NY had 153 deaths and CA had 1550. So, to recap, before ANY US state or locality imposed any serious restrictions whatsoever, NY had 10 times as many cases as CA. Lo and behold, it now has about 10 times as many deaths. It's not about "government response," it's about how much the cases proliferated before we bothered to measure the problem in any kind of serious way. 

 

I also think populace response was important, though it’s rather a Catch 22 circle.  If populace in NYC area didn’t perceive a problem they could not reasonably respond. 

 

[Pen]

Where were the 10,000 NY cases as of March 1? 

Asymptomatic cases?   Or ? What would we expect? 20% hospital rate so ~ 2000 people with significant CV19-like symptoms, and maybe ~ 200 of them in ICU in hospitals possibly already centered in Queens hotspot?  But still nothing triggering alarm bells in medical staff?  Or ***was*** there an alarm triggered but an impossibility in getting testing?  

 

But then, if there was an alarm triggered due to seeing typical more clear symptoms recognized at that time like the ground glass lung opacities, and with speed of social media, I would have thought that there would have been more Distancing earlier than there seemed to be.  

 

By March, typical symptoms to look for in symptomatic cases like ground glass lung opacities were known, iirc.  Yet there did not seem to be NYC doctors saying “Hey! We are seeing that here!” 

 

?????

 

It seems like it arrived as a stealthy army of Trojan horses with live people in place of the horse(s),  and viruses in them in place of the soldiers inside.   

 

 

 

[Pen]

56 minutes ago, square_25 said:

More evidence for masks: looks like the sick Missouri hairdressers may not have infected people (although they aren't done testing): 

https://www.wlwt.com/article/first-42-coronavirus-tests-at-springfield-great-clips-location-all-negative-springfield-greene-county-health-department/32715081#

 

Were the stylists only wearing masks in regard to customers? Or did stylist 2 get CV19 from stylist 1 while both were diligently wearing masks?

 

(the next story down about 3 yo saving a neighbor’s life is sweet btw)

[Pen]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they occasionally took masks off for breaks, but even if they didn't, they spend FAR more time with each other than they do with customers. Prolonged exposure is a different sort of beast. 

 

Yes prolonged is different.

But I would like to know if they were masked all the time at work or not.  

[Pen]

Incentive could be opening back up?   

[Pen]

21 minutes ago, square_25 said:

How would it help to admit they weren't always wearing masks? 

 

If they were always wearing them, it suggests that the situation of hair salons is also likely to be relatively unsafe with regard to Asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases at least for the workers, even with masks.

If they erred and weren’t wearing them the whole time it is something that might conceivably be remedied more easily for future. 

 

[Terabith]

I'm copying and pasting a facebook post from Dr. James Larson with links:  

THE TRUTH ABOUT MASKS

The truth is that coronavirus is largely spread by respiratory droplets. And homemade masks can block the majority of those droplets. “Healthy” people infect just as many people as sick ones. And places like Austria saw a 90% drop in COVID infection within two weeks of mandating masks. So all of us should be wearing masks. But please don’t take my word for it. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again. Instead, look at all the evidence below.

CLOTH MASKS BLOCK THE PRIMARY MODE OF CORONAVIRUS TRANSMISSION

First of all, we needed to realize exactly how coronavirus spreads. This is primarily through respiratory droplets which are about 5-10 microns in diameter. Studies tracing the outbreaks in China show that the transmission mode was primarily through these larger droplets. https://www.who.int/…/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causin…

Still we can’t rule out transmission through aerosols (droplets smaller than 5 microns). But, fortunately cloth masks can block both droplets and aerosols.

A study from Wake Forest (in publication) shows that home-made masks can block almost all droplets, including aerosols. The better the material, the more droplets they block. The best masks are made with two layers of batik quilting fabric, or else cotton backed with flannel. These block even more droplets than a standard surgical mask, like the one I’m wearing in the photo on this post. https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/…/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Clo…

Other studies have shown that unfitted surgical masks can drastically reduce the spread of the seasonal human coronavirus, a much less virulent cousin that causes mild colds. This study shows that even if aerosols and droplets emerge through the mask, they seem to have been filtered of all coronavirus RNA. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#Tab1

The following video demonstrates the effect on a scale we can see. These droplets are bigger than the ones we’ve talked about so far. I use it only to help visualize what the other studies show on the microscopic scale.
https://m.youtube.com/watch…

And its important to remember, that you have to inhale a certain number of live viruses to actually catch the disease. That exact number isn’t known for COVID. But 1000 is the best guess of virologists. You may think “who cares if the mask blocks most virus? All it takes is one and I get sick.” But that’s not correct.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-ques…/

Blocking most of the virus droplets means the people around you are unlikely to inhale enough to get infected. This is also why being outside is safer than in an enclosed area; the wind spreads your droplets around and people nearby are less likely to get hit with enough live virus to cause an infection https://www.vox.com/…/coronavirus-runners-cyclists-airborne…

WHY HEALTHY PEOPLE SHOULD WEAR A MASK

This is a frequent topic of debate. Why should healthy people be made to wear a mask? Well there is one major problem: up to half of those infected with COVID don’t know it, but can still spread it. So you can’t really know whether you are truly healthy. It’s an assumption of health, and it’s often incorrect.

In fact numerous studies have found that roughly half of COVID infections are transmitted between people before they know they are sick. (These are in process but so is the pandemic.) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5

https://www.medrxiv.org/conte…/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031815v1

This asymptomatic transmission is what accounts for people developing infections after lockdowns and quarantines are instituted.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conte…/10.1101/2020.04.17.20053157v1

MASKS WILL STOP THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS

Using all of these numbers, new models predict a vast drop in COVID cases with the universal use of face masks. (I know models have been wildly inaccurate, but stick with me just a bit more.) Some actually show it to be far more effective than the economic shutdown we have been going through. In fact they give us hope that with only 70% of the population wearing masks we could extinguish this disease before a vaccine is ever developed. That’s something we can all be happy about.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07353

https://news.cgtn.com/…/AI-modeling-shows-mask-e…/index.html

https://www.medrxiv.org/…/05/15/2020.05.09.20096644.full.pdf

BUT DOES IT WORK IN REAL LIFE?

Like I said, the last few months have been full of models and predictions whipsawing from one extreme to another. And there are valid concerns that average people don’t know how to use masks or that masks might give us too much confidence, leading to unsafe behavior. But we can look to real-life examples to provide evidence of the effectiveness of masks. And that shows us that masks can be incredibly effective.

Let’s talk about Japan (we’ve had 10 times their number of cases despite only being 2.5 times as large.) They’ve had no lockdown and closed no stores, but everyone wears masks. And they’ve had days with no new cases reported. But there could certainly be other reasons for their low case levels, such as total testing and differences in reporting. Besides, you could argue that their culture is used to wearing masks and would use them more effectively.

So instead let's look at Austria, a country with no previous culture of face mask wearing. They made masks mandatory in public starting April 6. Two weeks later, infections had dropped by 90%.https://www.sciencetimes.com/…/austria-90-drop-coronavirus-…

Let’s look at the Czech Republic. They required facemasks in mid March. Within three days, the people produced enough masks at home for every man, woman and child, all 10 million. Coupled with their social distancing, this has kept the total cases in Czech Republic to one of the lowest in Europe, with only 50 deaths. https://www.usatoday.com/…/czech-government-imp…/2940393001/

Similarly, Slovakia, the second country in Europe to implement facemask use has had some of the lowest cases and deaths in Europe. https://www.euractiv.com/…/facemasks-against-covid-19-why-…/

And finally let's look to America. What happens when a hot zone institutes face mask policies? Well Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston instituted universal masking of patients and staff, the rate of staff COVID infections dropped by 50%. https://www.wbur.org/…/…/brigham-and-womens-masks-infections

Other than that, it’s hard to say. Our testing rates are low, case reporting and compiling vary significantly from state to state, and most states only require employees to wear masks when in contact with customers. We really don’t have reliable data from which to draw conclusions.

WHY NOT JUST MASK THOSE AT HIGH RISK?

While this seems like a reasonable and simpler solution at first, it is logistically impossible. Most elderly people here live in multigenerational homes and can't afford to live on their own. Even if they stay home, their families will bring COVID home to roost.

And if we were to round them all up and put them in some sort of protective housing, well that too would be an enormous violation of civil rights. Plus putting many high risk individuals together just means that when a care worker at this facility eventually infects somebody, we will have just set up a slaughterhouse and made the disease that much more likely to kill them all.

Plus you have the final piece in this puzzle. Unfortunately it's another one that puts egg on the face of the medical community and our assumptions. It turns out that wearing an N95 mask is maybe not the best way to keep yourself from getting sick. Having the infected person wear the mask is. In a study published (and largely overlooked) in 2013 in the Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery, it was shown that even a simple surgical mask on a source of aerosol was better at preventing exposure than an N95 on the “healthy subject.” https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jamp.2012.0998

This is why the motto in Czech Republic is “My mask protects you, your mask protects me.”

WHY WE SHOULD ALL BE WEARING MASKS

Putting it all together, we should definitely all be wearing masks as much as possible in public. Especially situations with high risk of transmission (office buildings, restaurants, parties, bars, nightclubs, public transit, gyms, and religious services). For more info on that, please read this incredibly informative article by Dr. Erin Bromage at Dartmouth https://www.erinbromage.com/…/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

I’ll be the first to admit that the medical profession is playing catch up here. And the inconsistent, conflicting messages have been very confusing. Hell, I’m contradicting the WHO! But I think the evidence is solid. And so do others:

Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Based Review https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1

CAN’T WE JUST GET IT OVER WITH?

I know I sometimes think “I’d rather just catch this virus, get it over with and get back to normal life.” I’m sure many of you do too. Some think that risking infection is their duty to return the country to normal. But that’s letting the virus win.

Patriots make sacrifices, sure. But not senseless ones. And risking infection is an unnecessary sacrifice because wearing a mask, washing your hands, and keeping 6 feet away is the only sacrifice you have to make. (Well, that and getting your brain tickled by the COVID nasal swab if you have symptoms.)

I hope you come to the same conclusion I did. I hope we can all agree to make these accommodations. For so long, it has seemed like we would have to choose between our people and our economy. But with this new information, for the first time in a long time, I’m hopeful we can save both.

Stay safe my friends

 

 

 

[Terabith]

5 hours ago, MEmama said:

I haven’t called because I don’t have hard evidence. Since I can’t *prove without a doubt* where it was picked up, and was DS’s test wasn’t definitively positive, I’m not sure what to say, you know? 

I’ll try to remember to ask the doctor if she reports it.

Has your son's test come back yet?  Has anyone in your house had a positive test?  I agree with your hypothesis (that you were infected through your non mask wearing boss, are asymptomatic, and brought it to your son, who has COVID toes), but a positive test anywhere in that chain would make the argument much more compelling, from a health department standpoint.

[Terabith]

2 minutes ago, kand said:

Thanks for this post. There are a lot of interesting links in here, and it’s so encouraging to see the science is all pointing toward us being able to get back to some semblance of normal life as long as (almost) everyone is wearing masks. This conclusion from the link I quoted above is especially surprising and pertinent:

“A Vaseline-sealed N95 respirator on the receiver offered less protection when compared with any mask on the source. Respiratory source control can offer more protection to HCW and potentially decrease the spread of aerosolized infections.”

This goes hand-in-hand with some studies shared yesterday showing a cloth mask was highly effective in preventing outward transmission of virus particles when worn by the infected individual. Boy, and if we could just get everybody on board with this and everyone using face coverings, that could mean some of us wouldn’t have to be wearing the super heavy duty ones that we’re  currently wearing to try to protect ourselves better from all the people who are not masking. I would love to wear a simple two layer ear loop mask sometimes, rather than a three layer plus filter tightly sealed to my face mask. 

Yeah, it was depressing reading social media on a local group of moms surviving covid together.  People were talking about what their hopes were for school opening up in the fall, and so many people were like, "Absolutely kids should not be asked to wear masks at school."  And honestly, as annoying as it would be, that's the ONLY conceivable scenario that seems remotely safe to me.  (I still have concerns about the 2,000 person high schools with kids crammed into rooms like sardines.)  

[Bootsie]

32 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I'm copying and pasting a facebook post from Dr. James Larson with links:  

THE TRUTH ABOUT MASKS

The truth is that coronavirus is largely spread by respiratory droplets. And homemade masks can block the majority of those droplets. “Healthy” people infect just as many people as sick ones. And places like Austria saw a 90% drop in COVID infection within two weeks of mandating masks. So all of us should be wearing masks. But please don’t take my word for it. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again. Instead, look at all the evidence below.

CLOTH MASKS BLOCK THE PRIMARY MODE OF CORONAVIRUS TRANSMISSION

First of all, we needed to realize exactly how coronavirus spreads. This is primarily through respiratory droplets which are about 5-10 microns in diameter. Studies tracing the outbreaks in China show that the transmission mode was primarily through these larger droplets. https://www.who.int/…/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causin…

Still we can’t rule out transmission through aerosols (droplets smaller than 5 microns). But, fortunately cloth masks can block both droplets and aerosols.

A study from Wake Forest (in publication) shows that home-made masks can block almost all droplets, including aerosols. The better the material, the more droplets they block. The best masks are made with two layers of batik quilting fabric, or else cotton backed with flannel. These block even more droplets than a standard surgical mask, like the one I’m wearing in the photo on this post. https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/…/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Clo…

Other studies have shown that unfitted surgical masks can drastically reduce the spread of the seasonal human coronavirus, a much less virulent cousin that causes mild colds. This study shows that even if aerosols and droplets emerge through the mask, they seem to have been filtered of all coronavirus RNA. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#Tab1

The following video demonstrates the effect on a scale we can see. These droplets are bigger than the ones we’ve talked about so far. I use it only to help visualize what the other studies show on the microscopic scale.
https://m.youtube.com/watch…

And its important to remember, that you have to inhale a certain number of live viruses to actually catch the disease. That exact number isn’t known for COVID. But 1000 is the best guess of virologists. You may think “who cares if the mask blocks most virus? All it takes is one and I get sick.” But that’s not correct.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-ques…/

Blocking most of the virus droplets means the people around you are unlikely to inhale enough to get infected. This is also why being outside is safer than in an enclosed area; the wind spreads your droplets around and people nearby are less likely to get hit with enough live virus to cause an infection https://www.vox.com/…/coronavirus-runners-cyclists-airborne…

WHY HEALTHY PEOPLE SHOULD WEAR A MASK

This is a frequent topic of debate. Why should healthy people be made to wear a mask? Well there is one major problem: up to half of those infected with COVID don’t know it, but can still spread it. So you can’t really know whether you are truly healthy. It’s an assumption of health, and it’s often incorrect.

In fact numerous studies have found that roughly half of COVID infections are transmitted between people before they know they are sick. (These are in process but so is the pandemic.) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5

https://www.medrxiv.org/conte…/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031815v1

This asymptomatic transmission is what accounts for people developing infections after lockdowns and quarantines are instituted.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conte…/10.1101/2020.04.17.20053157v1

MASKS WILL STOP THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS

Using all of these numbers, new models predict a vast drop in COVID cases with the universal use of face masks. (I know models have been wildly inaccurate, but stick with me just a bit more.) Some actually show it to be far more effective than the economic shutdown we have been going through. In fact they give us hope that with only 70% of the population wearing masks we could extinguish this disease before a vaccine is ever developed. That’s something we can all be happy about.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07353

https://news.cgtn.com/…/AI-modeling-shows-mask-e…/index.html

https://www.medrxiv.org/…/05/15/2020.05.09.20096644.full.pdf

BUT DOES IT WORK IN REAL LIFE?

Like I said, the last few months have been full of models and predictions whipsawing from one extreme to another. And there are valid concerns that average people don’t know how to use masks or that masks might give us too much confidence, leading to unsafe behavior. But we can look to real-life examples to provide evidence of the effectiveness of masks. And that shows us that masks can be incredibly effective.

Let’s talk about Japan (we’ve had 10 times their number of cases despite only being 2.5 times as large.) They’ve had no lockdown and closed no stores, but everyone wears masks. And they’ve had days with no new cases reported. But there could certainly be other reasons for their low case levels, such as total testing and differences in reporting. Besides, you could argue that their culture is used to wearing masks and would use them more effectively.

So instead let's look at Austria, a country with no previous culture of face mask wearing. They made masks mandatory in public starting April 6. Two weeks later, infections had dropped by 90%.https://www.sciencetimes.com/…/austria-90-drop-coronavirus-…

Let’s look at the Czech Republic. They required facemasks in mid March. Within three days, the people produced enough masks at home for every man, woman and child, all 10 million. Coupled with their social distancing, this has kept the total cases in Czech Republic to one of the lowest in Europe, with only 50 deaths. https://www.usatoday.com/…/czech-government-imp…/2940393001/

Similarly, Slovakia, the second country in Europe to implement facemask use has had some of the lowest cases and deaths in Europe. https://www.euractiv.com/…/facemasks-against-covid-19-why-…/

And finally let's look to America. What happens when a hot zone institutes face mask policies? Well Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston instituted universal masking of patients and staff, the rate of staff COVID infections dropped by 50%. https://www.wbur.org/…/…/brigham-and-womens-masks-infections

Other than that, it’s hard to say. Our testing rates are low, case reporting and compiling vary significantly from state to state, and most states only require employees to wear masks when in contact with customers. We really don’t have reliable data from which to draw conclusions.

WHY NOT JUST MASK THOSE AT HIGH RISK?

While this seems like a reasonable and simpler solution at first, it is logistically impossible. Most elderly people here live in multigenerational homes and can't afford to live on their own. Even if they stay home, their families will bring COVID home to roost.

And if we were to round them all up and put them in some sort of protective housing, well that too would be an enormous violation of civil rights. Plus putting many high risk individuals together just means that when a care worker at this facility eventually infects somebody, we will have just set up a slaughterhouse and made the disease that much more likely to kill them all.

Plus you have the final piece in this puzzle. Unfortunately it's another one that puts egg on the face of the medical community and our assumptions. It turns out that wearing an N95 mask is maybe not the best way to keep yourself from getting sick. Having the infected person wear the mask is. In a study published (and largely overlooked) in 2013 in the Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery, it was shown that even a simple surgical mask on a source of aerosol was better at preventing exposure than an N95 on the “healthy subject.” https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jamp.2012.0998

This is why the motto in Czech Republic is “My mask protects you, your mask protects me.”

WHY WE SHOULD ALL BE WEARING MASKS

Putting it all together, we should definitely all be wearing masks as much as possible in public. Especially situations with high risk of transmission (office buildings, restaurants, parties, bars, nightclubs, public transit, gyms, and religious services). For more info on that, please read this incredibly informative article by Dr. Erin Bromage at Dartmouth https://www.erinbromage.com/…/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

I’ll be the first to admit that the medical profession is playing catch up here. And the inconsistent, conflicting messages have been very confusing. Hell, I’m contradicting the WHO! But I think the evidence is solid. And so do others:

Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Based Review https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1

CAN’T WE JUST GET IT OVER WITH?

I know I sometimes think “I’d rather just catch this virus, get it over with and get back to normal life.” I’m sure many of you do too. Some think that risking infection is their duty to return the country to normal. But that’s letting the virus win.

Patriots make sacrifices, sure. But not senseless ones. And risking infection is an unnecessary sacrifice because wearing a mask, washing your hands, and keeping 6 feet away is the only sacrifice you have to make. (Well, that and getting your brain tickled by the COVID nasal swab if you have symptoms.)

I hope you come to the same conclusion I did. I hope we can all agree to make these accommodations. For so long, it has seemed like we would have to choose between our people and our economy. But with this new information, for the first time in a long time, I’m hopeful we can save both.

Stay safe my friends

 

 

 

The bolded is misleading about Austria.  The number of new cases on April 6 was 246--to have a 90% drop, the new cases would have to drop to 25--which did not happen until May (not two weeks later).  In addition, masks are not required in public in Austria.  Some type of face covering (mask, scarf, or shield) is required on public transportation and inside stores.  They are not required on the street, in parks, or anywhere outdoors.  Austria has done a great job of containing an outbreak.  However, there were other measures that were put I place, besides requiring masks in certain situations.  Towns with significant outbreaks were put on isolation--no one was allowed to enter or leave.  Supplies were dropped off at the edge of the town.  Other towns were under quarantine--you had to stay in your town except for a few situations; that meant that you shopped at the one small grocery store in your town; the store was closed on Sundays and for some other holidays.  There was no take or pickup service for restaurants.  No big box type of stores were open.  If you thought you might be infected, you called and an emergency team was sent to you to administer a test  rather than your going to a testing site.  There is no way to isolate the results of face coverings from the other measures that were taken.  

[Terabith]

18 minutes ago, kand said:

Totally agree. It is hard to imagine especially the little kids wearing masks all day, but that seems better to me that not having the kids go to school at all, based on what I hear from friends struggling with trying to help their kids with school at home. It should be totally doable for colleges and even high schools though. Those are the ages I expect their would be the most issues with compliance, though. And how would dorms work? It wouldn’t be reasonable for people to mask 24/7. 

Yeah, I'm not sure masking for six hours is realistic for the pre-k-2 crowd (but I'm not really sure it's not either), but I think middle and high schools could certainly mask except for lunch.  (Which..is a whole thing in itself.  I have no idea how to solve that.)  

College is a whole different ball of wax.  Teeny tiny liberal arts colleges, with most classes having fewer than ten students and everyone has their own dorm room?  I mean, I could maybe see that working in traditional, residential way, if they get iron clad agreements from kids that they won't leave campus during the semester, maybe test everyone before school starts in the fall, and mask during classes.  Larger universities?  I suspect will do a combination of online for most classes but in person for small groups/ labs/ a few courses that can be smaller.  With masks.  But I don't see dorms working at large universities.  

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, kand said:

On this, if you follow the link, you’ll see it’s actually a 90% drop in cases per capita, not raw numbers of new cases. So, it went from 90 per 1,000,000 to 10 per 1,000,000.

It’s true they had many other measures in place and we can’t say which accounted for how much of the drop. I do again continue to get the idea that people do not want there to be evidence showing masks to be effective, though. It’s puzzling to me. If we have something that works as well as some of these studies indicate, hallelujah, right?! Then we could get things back open. Otherwise, so far we’ve got pretty much nothing, and home we stay. 

Unless there was a huge population change in two weeks, the only way to get a 90% drop in cases per capita is to also get a 90% drop in raw number of cases.  On April 6, the new cases per 1 million was about 27, it did not drop down to drop to 2.7 per 1,000,000 by April 20.  

When people provide incorrect information it weakens their argument and their credibility.  If the studies indicate that masks are effective, don't weaken the case by providing incorrect evidence.  

Also, students are not wearing masks at school, at least in some parts of Austria.

[Bootsie]

The benefit of the general public wearing a mask is so that someone who is unknowingly infected does not spread the disease to others through coughing, sneezing, talking, breathing, etc.  What happens if someone wearing a mask is infected?  The virus is collected on the cloth rather than be dispersed into the air.  What does that mean for the infected individual wearing the mask?  Is the viral load of that person likely to increase and the person become even sicker?  

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

The benefit of the general public wearing a mask is so that someone who is unknowingly infected does not spread the disease to others through coughing, sneezing, talking, breathing, etc.  What happens if someone wearing a mask is infected?  The virus is collected on the cloth rather than be dispersed into the air.  What does that mean for the infected individual wearing the mask?  Is the viral load of that person likely to increase and the person become even sicker?  

The virus can't replicate in the mask, so at worst they are rebreathing the same virus particles already inside them - similar to if they were sniffing when they had a runny nose, instead of blowing their nose. I don't think we have reason to believe that would be significantly dangerous. 

[MEmama]

12 hours ago, Terabith said:

Has your son's test come back yet?  Has anyone in your house had a positive test?  I agree with your hypothesis (that you were infected through your non mask wearing boss, are asymptomatic, and brought it to your son, who has COVID toes), but a positive test anywhere in that chain would make the argument much more compelling, from a health department standpoint.

His test came back negative. The doctor wasn’t surprised given the high number of false negatives, though. 
It’s frustrating because it’s that percentage of false negatives that makes the official numbers somewhat meaningless, and makes full, accurate contact tracing impossible.

Edited May 30, 2020 by MEmama

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

You know, if you're going to insist on strong evidence for masks, you should insist on similarly strong evidence about this idea. There's now loads of evidence on masks from the experiences of different countries, tests with cloth filtration, studies on who did and didn't get infected in various settings, etc. None of these are the strongest possible category of evidence, but overall they add up to a picture that suggests that masks may be helpful. 

I have seen no evidence at all that wearing masks makes people sicker. Do Asian countries with pervasive mask wearing have higher CFRs? It doesn't look like it. Have we done a controlled study with a sick person in a mask and not in a mask? Not as far as I know. 

Do you know of any studies that promote that idea? 

Yes, of course, I would want strong evidence about the idea before broad policy was based upon it.  No, I don't know of any studies, that is why I asked the question.  I don't even begin to understand viral load.  

[Joker]

13 hours ago, kand said:

Totally agree. It is hard to imagine especially the little kids wearing masks all day, but that seems better to me that not having the kids go to school at all, based on what I hear from friends struggling with trying to help their kids with school at home. It should be totally doable for colleges and even high schools though. Those are the ages I expect their would be the most issues with compliance, though. And how would dorms work? It wouldn’t be reasonable for people to mask 24/7. 

My dc’s university is making dorms single person. Some dorms will actually be apartments the school is renting for the year. Classes will be capped at 50 students. Most large lectures will be online with small in person discussion groups. They also are apparently going to enforce some kind of requirement for passing periods so it looks like students won’t be able to register for back to back courses ( I’m unclear on this one). Everyone on campus has to wear masks unless in room and all dining will be take out. They have a student population of about 50,000, so not tiny but I think they have a solid plan.

[caayenne]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

The benefit of the general public wearing a mask is so that someone who is unknowingly infected does not spread the disease to others through coughing, sneezing, talking, breathing, etc.  What happens if someone wearing a mask is infected?  The virus is collected on the cloth rather than be dispersed into the air.  What does that mean for the infected individual wearing the mask?  Is the viral load of that person likely to increase and the person become even sicker?  

Jumping in here...sorry! As far as I know, there are not any studies on this. But in hospitals, every single patient that is admitted with this virus is masked, all of the time. Every picture I have seen of any patient in a hospital bed during this crisis has been wearing a mask. And not N95’s, but just surgical masks. And in all of the studies, the cloth masks work pretty much exactly like surgical masks. If the masks are not making them sicker over the weeks they spend in the hospital, and we know that many have recovered and gone home, this is probably not an issue. I cannot think of any reason why the masks would make infected people sicker in their homes but not in the hospital.

[caayenne]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

The benefit of the general public wearing a mask is so that someone who is unknowingly infected does not spread the disease to others through coughing, sneezing, talking, breathing, etc.  What happens if someone wearing a mask is infected?  The virus is collected on the cloth rather than be dispersed into the air.  What does that mean for the infected individual wearing the mask?  Is the viral load of that person likely to increase and the person become even sicker?  

Also, isn’t the argument being used for not wearing masks that only sick people should have to wear masks??

[caayenne]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

 

To be fair, to study this properly, you would need a comparison group. That is, you'd need to see what happens when they are masked and when they are not. 

That's why the evidence FOR masks is relatively compelling: we've now seen what happens in countries who do mask and in countries who do not. But this doesn't work without a comparison group. 

True, and I do think this should be studied! It seems like this might help to convince people.

Or maybe not, because I do agree with the poster earlier who said that it seems more and more that the anti-mask crowd wants to be the anti-mask crowd. They are not hoping that masks will prove to be the answer here, because they don’t want to wear them. Or maybe because they are afraid that they will be made to wear them?? 

I do understand that people are concerned about their rights, but I don’t understand at all the argument that wearing masks is unfair and against some people’s rights, so we should all accept that we are going to get the virus, which takes away the safety for all of the people who are trying not to get the virus!

My son is diabetic, so I care very much about this issue. If most people would wear masks, he might be able to leave the house. But other than walks in the neighborhood, he hasn’t been literally anywhere in over two months! 😕 Because we live in Texas, the land of the free.

[caayenne]

1 minute ago, square_25 said:

I think the point is that you mostly get benefit from masks when people who are sick but don't know it wear them. The problem is that to have people who are sick but don't know it wearing masks, you need everyone wearing masks. 

Exactly! I was saying that the anti-masking people keep arguing that healthy people should not have to wear masks, only sick people should. And then when science is presented that shows that if asymptomatic people wear masks, the virus doesn’t spread as much, the argument becomes that if asymptotic people wear masks, the masks might make them sicker. 

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, caayenne said:

Exactly! I was saying that the anti-masking people keep arguing that healthy people should not have to wear masks, only sick people should. And then when science is presented that shows that if asymptomatic people wear masks, the virus doesn’t spread as much, the argument becomes that if asymptotic people wear masks, the masks might make them sicker. 

I am not necessarily anti-masking.  Most of the studies that support masking show that there is a benefit of particles emitted from someone who is infected being in the air.  In many situations, we find that behavior that is undertaken for certain benefits has unintended consequences.  Asking questions is not arguing against something.  

[ktgrok]

31 minutes ago, Joker said:

My dc’s university is making dorms single person. Some dorms will actually be apartments the school is renting for the year. Classes will be capped at 50 students. Most large lectures will be online with small in person discussion groups. They also are apparently going to enforce some kind of requirement for passing periods so it looks like students won’t be able to register for back to back courses ( I’m unclear on this one). Everyone on campus has to wear masks unless in room and all dining will be take out. They have a student population of about 50,000, so not tiny but I think they have a solid plan.

That does sound reasonable, especially when we are talking about a voluntary thing - no one is required to go to college. I think our strictest protocols need to be fore k-12. I also am hoping colleges will have more online offerings so that high risk students can continue their work online. It boggles my mind that say, in my state college/university system, there are some schools with huge numbers of online classes, ones where you can get a degree online, and ones with almost zero online classes. I was very very close to my BA in Religion at Florida State University when personal reasons caused me to move back to south florida. I have zero way to finish that degree unless I actually physically move back there for a year (not all the courses I need are offered at the same time). Other colleges in the state have online courses, but not that degree, and if I do an interdisicplinary degree or something, the other colleges would require me to take 30-60 hours of credits there anyway, in order to graduate, so a bunch of credits I don't need, just so they can say I took enough courses at THEIR college, oh, and when you are over a certain number of credits you have to pay extra. Sigh. If and when I ever get my BA it will have to be from WGU or something. (sorry, side rant, lol) Anyway...they all should be offering classes online ASAP. 

9 minutes ago, caayenne said:

 

I do understand that people are concerned about their rights, but I don’t understand at all the argument that wearing masks is unfair and against some people’s rights, so we should all accept that we are going to get the virus, which takes away the safety for all of the people who are trying not to get the virus!

My son is diabetic, so I care very much about this issue. If most people would wear masks, he might be able to leave the house. But other than walks in the neighborhood, he hasn’t been literally anywhere in over two months! 😕 Because we live in Texas, the land of the free.

Right, our inalienable rights are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. LIfe comes first. 

[Joker]

7 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That does sound reasonable, especially when we are talking about a voluntary thing - no one is required to go to college. I think our strictest protocols need to be fore k-12. I also am hoping colleges will have more online offerings so that high risk students can continue their work online. It boggles my mind that say, in my state college/university system, there are some schools with huge numbers of online classes, ones where you can get a degree online, and ones with almost zero online classes. I was very very close to my BA in Religion at Florida State University when personal reasons caused me to move back to south florida. I have zero way to finish that degree unless I actually physically move back there for a year (not all the courses I need are offered at the same time). Other colleges in the state have online courses, but not that degree, and if I do an interdisicplinary degree or something, the other colleges would require me to take 30-60 hours of credits there anyway, in order to graduate, so a bunch of credits I don't need, just so they can say I took enough courses at THEIR college, oh, and when you are over a certain number of credits you have to pay extra. Sigh. If and when I ever get my BA it will have to be from WGU or something. (sorry, side rant, lol) Anyway...they all should be offering classes online ASAP. 

Right, our inalienable rights are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. LIfe comes first. 

I did notice while helping youngest pick out classes that almost every course had an online option for those who can’t or don’t want to attend in person due to Covid. They just have to email someone with their reasons. It did say preference would be given to those with medical reasons but I was happy to see it. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Joker

[Roadrunner]

I want to start by saying that I am pro mask, but I feel so privileged not to have to work during this pandemic. I can’t breath through those masks for a prolonged period of time without feeling like I am going to pass out. So I no longer leave the house unless I absolutely have to. We are lucky to be able to exercise without masks, although  I put them on if I see anybody approaching me on a trail. I mentioned to a bank employee the other day how impressed I was that she could survive all day in them and she said she goes every 30 minutes or so to take couple death breaths outside. And this is a young girl in her 20s. It’s tough and tougher in cities where you can’t avoid crowds. At least I can manage my shopping in 30 minutes and don’t need public transportation. I guess I am saying this in response to posters who mentioned some employees don’t wear those masks when customers aren’t there. I am sure they take them off every change they get, just to inhale. 
An entire new appreciation for doctors who wear them while conducting surgeries on their feet for hours and hours at a time. And a realization my asthmatic kid could never be a surgeon. 

[caayenne]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Right, our inalienable rights are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. LIfe comes first. 

 

I almost posted this exact same thing! Thank you for saying it. 

[caayenne]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I am not necessarily anti-masking.  Most of the studies that support masking show that there is a benefit of particles emitted from someone who is infected being in the air.  In many situations, we find that behavior that is undertaken for certain benefits has unintended consequences.  Asking questions is not arguing against something.  

I am glad to hear it! The world needs more people right now who are open to the idea that it is important to protect the high-risk people and try to stop or at least greatly slow down the spread of the virus.

I do not necessarily think that you are arguing. But I have definitely heard others on this board and conservative media personalities arguing that masks will make people sicker. There does not appear to be any scientific evidence of this, however. Someone on this board posted an article the other day from a doctor that was arguing this, but he wasn’t backing up his arguments with science, and the website was for an anti-globalism, anti-science, the-government-is-out-to-get-us website, so it was difficult to take it seriously. I think it is important to get our science from scientists and science publications.

[Serenade]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

I want to start by saying that I am pro mask, but I feel so privileged not to have to work during this pandemic. I can’t breath through those masks for a prolonged period of time without feeling like I am going to pass out. So I no longer leave the house unless I absolutely have to. We are lucky to be able to exercise without masks, although  I put them on if I see anybody approaching me on a trail. I mentioned to a bank employee the other day how impressed I was that she could survive all day in them and she said she goes every 30 minutes or so to take couple death breaths outside. And this is a young girl in her 20s. It’s tough and tougher in cities where you can’t avoid crowds. At least I can manage my shopping in 30 minutes and don’t need public transportation. I guess I am saying this in response to posters who mentioned some employees don’t wear those masks when customers aren’t there. I am sure they take them off every change they get, just to inhale. 
An entire new appreciation for doctors who wear them while conducting surgeries on their feet for hours and hours at a time. And a realization my asthmatic kid could never be a surgeon. 

I was shopping at Target in Durham the other day where masks are required, and I noticed that almost everybody took off their masks as soon as they exited the building.  It was hot and humid outside, and I think that especially makes people feel they can't breathe well with the mask. The first time I wore a mask, I felt lightheaded.  I'm actually not sure how much was mental and how much was physical, but I have gotten better used to wearing them.  However, like you, I just try to go out and shop as little as I can.  

[Bambam]

33 minutes ago, Serenade said:

<snip> and I noticed that almost everybody took off their masks as soon as they exited the building.  It was hot and humid outside, and I think that especially makes people feel they can't breathe well with the mask.  <snip>

I do this. As soon as I'm out of the store and not in a group of people walking into the store, I remove my mask too.  It's possible some day I'll get used to wearing it and not think about it when I am outside, but that's not happening right now.

[Pen]

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

The benefit of the general public wearing a mask is so that someone who is unknowingly infected does not spread the disease to others through coughing, sneezing, talking, breathing, etc.  What happens if someone wearing a mask is infected?  The virus is collected on the cloth rather than be dispersed into the air.  What does that mean for the infected individual wearing the mask?  Is the viral load of that person likely to increase and the person become even sicker?  

 

In general viruses can not replicate with out being inside living cells and co opting the cells own resources.

Thus, in general, they won’t increase in a mask.

OTOH, I have been designing my homemade masks with an inner layer of t-shirt type cotton, middle filter layer and outer tougher dense weave quilting batik.  In addition to the inner T-shirt material layer being soft on face, it also is not a high filtration fabric, which I hope might mean some of my own germs of whatever sort would get caught at the filter layer and I would have a bit of separation by the T-shirt material even from my own germs.  A shape that gave a curve away from face or even a drop down below nose rather than close against face could also help with this. 

Speculative: Materials for filter layer that tend to glom onto virus, bacteria etc rather than easily shed them could also help. (Paper towels, flannel, Blue shop towels may possibly do this better than a slick material.) 

The viral load of the person wearing is not likely to increase due to the virus not being likely to multiply without being in cells (my “not likely,” language is because I don’t trust this virus to behave like a “normal” virus and am not certain that it has not been enhanced or modified, if I were sure that it follows normal virus rules I would use more definite language).   But a mask that helps collect virus away from the wearer might still help some if the person were infected.  Air volume, like airing out a sick person’s isolation room would be expected to help.

There May also be antiviral materials that could be incorporated in a mask, but I have not seen any thus far that I feel would be better than cotton from many pov taken into account, such as not wanting something that is itself toxic right by my face.

Still, there may be materials that would be okay for humans but that would tend to deactivate virus which could be especially helpful if long hours of mask use were needed.  

Changing out the cloth mask with a fresh one every so often (or very often, like every hour or so) would also probably help as a low tech way of reducing virus, bacteria etc on the mask. 

 

[Reefgazer]

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342

 

 

[Pen]

45 minutes ago, kand said:

Have you seen the electroceutical fabric idea? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/30/fact-check-fabric-may-neutralize-coronaviruses-electricity/5286542002/

Yes.  It is interesting!

but way beyond my diy mask possibilities  

I have been looking at this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39956

even if not a perfect continuous film, dipping my diy filters in diy saltwater is something that I can do.  Though I cannot know if it would be effective and don’t want to deliberately expose myself in a test. 😊

I think determination of effectiveness for SARS2 goes way beyond what I can think of for a sciencefair-like home experiment    Tho it would be way cool if I could think of something! Or get that information to someone who is set up to do careful, safe!, Laboratory testing.

though some home experiments could probably be done with ordinary home grown bacteria like from a mouth swab

 

Anyway, I think that dipping my masks or mask filters into a jar of saltwater is something I can manage to do and add it to my might help, unlikely to hurt practices.   

 

45 minutes ago, kand said:

Do you happen to have a pulse oximeter? I found it helpful to take some pulse oximetry measurements while wearing a mask, so that i could see that even when it felt like I wasn't getting as much air as I wanted, I was still staying nicely oxygenated. That makes me not worry now if I ever get that feeling. I do take off my mask once I am back at my car.

I agree.  Actually knowing if breathing is effective for O2 would be a good idea.  

Itonically, people may breathe too much, too deeply sometimes, not just too shallow...  if anyone is interested in more on this I suggest looking up things like nitric oxide breathing and breathing techniques for asthma...   these could also interesting / helpful  perhaps:

https://youtu.be/mBqGS-vEIs0

 

https://youtu.be/AiwrtgWQeDc

 

https://youtu.be/2OE4ono2LrM

45 minutes ago, kand said:

We have discussed that study at some length. Perhaps it was not this thread? In short, read through it carefully, including the result table. In addition to it being a study of just 4 subjects, and the petri dishes being at an absurd 20cm (less than 8 inches) from the subjects face, the results actually show that the masked subjects produced fewer viral particles in the petri dishes. And the cloth masks reduced the number even more than the surgical masks 🤷‍♀️. Their conclusion had to do only with particles cultured from the fabric of the mask itself, which isn't highly relevant, since hopefully no one is going around touching the outside of other people's masks. So, according to this tiny study, yay for cloth masks!

 

👍

[Pen]

I like the O2 test for masks.

 I am also concerned about overheating as well as masks not sufficiently allowing breathing due to fit or material.  In China I gather that they stopped mandating masks during PE, and I think that masks during exercise could be a problem. 

I think mask are important though, so I think exercise (also very important) should be outdoors and distanced—or maybe relatively low cardiovascular exertion involved.  Or if indoors we need something like effective UVc sanitation lights coupled with  perhaps light masks or other separation (could be curtains or plexiglass around equipment stations rather than masks on faces perhaps) and or some distance between participants...   indoors singles tennis would probably give a good bit of space compared to indoor basketball, for example.  Track with runners in separate lanes started out in staggered positions, would probably be safer than even line starts and safer yet than big pack of people start type events like cross country usually is...