Jump to content

Menu

CDC mask announcement (a new thread)


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, freesia said:

Here’s another interesting thing that’s happening for us. We are having an outdoor grad ceremony/party for my dd. About 80% of the invited are vaccinated. The others include a handful of adults and some children. Most of the unvaccinated adults have RSVPed that they can’t come bc they are not vaccinated. I wasn’t expecting that.

That’s so wonderful they are being honest and doing the right thing by not going. 👍 Bummer that so many adults still aren’t vaxxed though. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

Many on this board seem to have been much more cautious than public health guidelines ever recommended in this country, and that’s fine, but you can’t expect others to hold that same perspective. I think it’s a minority of people, for example, that have not had their minor children interact with any friends without masks and other precautions since last March. It is hard for me to imagine requiring (rather than encouraging) that of most teens 14-15+, or thinking that just because parents tell them to do this, that they are actually being as careful as you think they are when you can’t see them. 

 

 

Even if one believes that a mask would stop viral infection, There are also competing safety concerns. 
 

For example, would a teen (or could be any age really) driver be more at risk due to potential Covid in symptom free, healthy seeming passengers and no mask, versus potential risks from wearing a mask and having possible reduced visibility (some masks stick out), and possible decreased alertness due to increased CO2 build up? 
 

There’s a Del Bigtree video of his son breathing in various masks using an OSHA approved meter to measure the levels in the mask and showing build up of CO2 to unhealthy levels.  Even a plastic face shield open at the bottom got surprisingly high levels but nowhere near as bad as the masks. 

 

I had thought that CO2 build up issue wasn’t really significant   because of wearing masks for lab work in times past and due to ME/CFS/TILT type problems in more recent years. But now it appears to be being shown that it is a problem. Maybe even reduces surgeon alertness in one study one of my physician relatives showed me. And perhaps some feeling Unwell over the years in circumstances where I have to mask has been due to the mask itself without my having realized it. 
 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

CDC is cautious and slow. They could have made this recommendation months ago. 
They were very slow on schools and outdoor advice, and other things, according some of the experts.
Not only do many people not follow their advice on runny eggs, unpasteurized cheese, alcohol, exercise, and many other things, but even on infectious disease, I saw something about their Zika recommendations and wonder if everyone in the US follows it or even knows about it. https://www.cdc.gov/zika/prevention/sexual-transmission-prevention.html
They recommend, for example, sexual precautions (abstinence or condoms) for pregnant women and their partners when traveling anywhere where Zika has ever been diagnosed, which includes the US (so would include everyone that lives here), most of the rest of N and S America, and France.
 

Interesting. 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

I am sure we could find other examples where people have no idea they are not following CDC guidelines in some area, or they do know and don’t care, because it is a matter of personal choice. 
 

——————-

I do have a lot of sympathy for those with health concerns that mean they are at much higher risk and that their vaccination may not protect them. But doesn’t this need to be calibrated to pre-pandemic risks? People with certain conditions/meds have to be careful all of the time, not just with Covid, and probably aren’t as protected from other vaccines, either.

 

Good points.
 

I think media coverage of Covid has been very different than pre2020. It is kept center news. 

A big problem imo is that vaccinated/unvaccinated seems to be a wedge being driven between people

 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:10 PM, Penelope said:

Cases of Covid are now below the levels seen in a mild flu season, and no one expected special precautions pre-2020, even though people were certainly contracting flu at group events. And flu vaccines are notorious for their low levels of effectiveness. We have been through a terrible time with a new infectious disease, but now that it is waning, we have to get back to some sort of balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

 

Even if one believes that a mask would stop viral infection, There are also competing safety concerns. 
 

For example, would a teen (or could be any age really) driver be more at risk due to potential Covid in symptom free, healthy seeming passengers and no mask, versus potential risks from wearing a mask and having possible reduced visibility (some masks stick out), and possible decreased alertness due to increased CO2 build up? 

Was masking while driving ever recommended? I mean, I did see some people doing it, and I think it’s mostly because they were in the habit of keeping it on all day and not touching it, but I didn’t think it was widely done.

I’d driven other people in my car when I needed to, but cracking windows when possible seemed like the better choice than driving with my mask on. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Penelope said:

Was masking while driving ever recommended? I mean, I did see some people doing it, and I think it’s mostly because they were in the habit of keeping it on all day and not touching it, but I didn’t think it was widely done.

I’d driven other people in my car when I needed to, but cracking windows when possible seemed like the better choice than driving with my mask on. 

It was recommended for certain situations (Uber drivers, public transportation), and sometimes it just makes more sense than taking it on and off (a delivery driver making frequent stops). I had a couple rare occasions to do so—a couple times where I was driving from point A to point B a very short distance apart (sometimes the same parking lot) and I didn’t want to do the whole sanitize, doff, sanitize don routine for just a short drive), and once when I had to pick up a relative from a week long hospital stay and drive in the same car. We both masked and had windows cracked as much as we could handle (it was winter). It bothers me when people get on other people’s case for masking while driving or in other situations where it usually isn’t necessary (not saying you, just in general as I often hear people make fun of driving while masked). No one knows what reasons someone might have to be more cautious, or just logistics, like only having one mask and not wanting to cross contaminate by removing it. 
 

It always strikes me ironic to hear the same people who think that a mask won’t trap virus particles think that it will trap CO2 particles.  There’s no logic there. 

Edited by KSera
  • Like 14
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KSera said:

It was recommended for certain situations (Uber drivers, public transportation), and sometimes it just makes more sense than taking it on and off (a delivery driver making frequent stops). 

Public transportation, of course, and I have seen it but totally forgot. ☺️ Bless them for putting themselves out there for so many months. 
 

I do find them uncomfortable and distracting at times, so I have a lot of sympathy for people that have had to do that for so long. 
 

The only thing that I would be concerned about while driving with a mask is the fogging for someone who wears glasses or sunglasses. And you could have everyone else who isn’t driving wear one. 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

The only thing that I would be concerned about while driving with a mask is the fogging for someone who wears glasses or sunglasses. And you could have everyone else who isn’t driving wear one. 

Yeah, fogging would be an issue while driving. It would be important for anyone who needed to drive with a mask to have a solution that didn’t fog up their glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I'm interested to see how this is playing out around the US....I said right after the announcement that most people were still masking in my local area. A couple of weeks later DH is just back from Lowes and Kroger and reports very few masks and that Kroger is making announcements over the loudspeaker saying that vaccinated people don't have to mask. That said, I do live in an area that I would imagine has a pretty high vaccination rate (although I'm not sure--last I checked, I could only see numbers for where people had gotten vaccinated, as opposed to where they live, so I don't know of any way to actually check). We'll see what numbers do--both covid numbers and vaccination rates--so far neither seems to be reacting much, but it's early days. And I will cross my fingers that it doesn't make for a miserable summer for/with my 8 year old.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Kroger is making announcements over the loudspeaker saying that vaccinated people don't have to mask

I’m curious how this is worded. It seems like it would be odd for them to be specifically announcing that vaccinated people didn’t have to mask, as if they were discouraging people from wearing them. It makes more sense if it’s in the context of them saying that unvaccinated people are required to mask. I’ve been disappointed to see that in our area, which had mask mandates indoors until the CDC changed the guidance, a lot of stores have signs just suggesting that they encourage unvaccinated people to mask, which I don’t understand. If they changed the guidelines to fit the new CDC guidance, that’s not it. It doesn’t match what our governor or county are saying the rules are, either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our dog was hurt this weekend and had to have eye surgery Monday. We had to drive an hour away and that county has no mask mandate and also has the highest vaccination rates in the state. No one was masked inside the clinic and dh and I even ended up removing ours because it was stressful and we were there so long. It was strange but surprisingly I wasn’t really worried about anything Covid related and trust my vaccine. I’m still going to mask most places but I’m not really too worried at the moment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m curious how this is worded. It seems like it would be odd for them to be specifically announcing that vaccinated people didn’t have to mask, as if they were discouraging people from wearing them. It makes more sense if it’s in the context of them saying that unvaccinated people are required to mask. I’ve been disappointed to see that in our area, which had mask mandates indoors until the CDC changed the guidance, a lot of stores have signs just suggesting that they encourage unvaccinated people to mask, which I don’t understand. If they changed the guidelines to fit the new CDC guidance, that’s not it. It doesn’t match what our governor or county are saying the rules are, either.

He says it says something about how they're always thinking of the health of customers, etc, blah, blah....at this point, customers, employees, etc. who are fully vaccinated do not need to mask. I asked if it said anything about unvaccinated people still needing to mask, but he doesn't really remember. I'll have to go myself to get the full story 😉

But, yeah, I'm not surprised. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my county's schools used this as an opportunity to announce that masks will be optional but recommended as of June 1 for everyone. And blamed the CDC announcement for it, even though it very clearly goes against what the CDC actually said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

Our dog was hurt this weekend and had to have eye surgery Monday. We had to drive an hour away and that county has no mask mandate and also has the highest vaccination rates in the state. No one was masked inside the clinic and dh and I even ended up removing ours because it was stressful and we were there so long. It was strange but surprisingly I wasn’t really worried about anything Covid related and trust my vaccine. I’m still going to mask most places but I’m not really too worried at the moment.

I hope your dog is ok.  That sounds super stressful.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m curious how this is worded. It seems like it would be odd for them to be specifically announcing that vaccinated people didn’t have to mask, as if they were discouraging people from wearing them. It makes more sense if it’s in the context of them saying that unvaccinated people are required to mask. I’ve been disappointed to see that in our area, which had mask mandates indoors until the CDC changed the guidance, a lot of stores have signs just suggesting that they encourage unvaccinated people to mask, which I don’t understand. If they changed the guidelines to fit the new CDC guidance, that’s not it. It doesn’t match what our governor or county are saying the rules are, either.

My local store went from giant sign "face coverings required" to small sign that "encouraged" that unvaccinated wear masks to now the small sign is "face coverings required for unvaccinated people"...which I think is what was meant all along.  It took a minute to get things cleared up!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KSera said:

It always strikes me ironic to hear the same people who think that a mask won’t trap virus particles think that it will trap CO2 particles.  There’s no logic there. 

One more example of the extreme lack of scientific understanding behind all these conspiracy theories.   

 

73237564_10222650594604152_5600280663949764443_o.jpg

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joker2 said:

Our dog was hurt this weekend and had to have eye surgery Monday. We had to drive an hour away and that county has no mask mandate and also has the highest vaccination rates in the state. No one was masked inside the clinic and dh and I even ended up removing ours because it was stressful and we were there so long. It was strange but surprisingly I wasn’t really worried about anything Covid related and trust my vaccine. I’m still going to mask most places but I’m not really too worried at the moment.

The more important thing is... Is your dog okay? I hope so!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

The more important thing is... Is your dog okay? I hope so!!!

She should be fine. She’s so done with the cone of shame but has about another two weeks in it.  They did a corneal graft? I honestly didn’t even know that doggie ophthalmologists were a thing.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

That’s a good one, but what happens when they do one that shows the size of the virus particle compared to the size of the particles a cloth or even a surgical mask is able to filter? Even if it were respiratory droplets and aerosols.
 

I guess there has been some talk about increased CO2 levels, but to most people it’s pretty obvious that we get oxygen through masks. Have you ever worked out in one, though? If you are breathing very hard, it’s subjectively much harder to breathe through a mask. I feel like there is an intermediate position between “masks are dangerous in all situations” and “there are no real or potential downsides to masks.” 
 

(I know you were only addressing conspiracy theories, so not responding only to your post). 

Subjectively more difficult, yes.  Enough to affect your oxygen level, not really.  This article is a doctor running a marathon distance while masked and monitoring his oxygen level, which stayed at 98% or above the whole time.  I get what your saying though, when I first upgraded from a simple 3 ply cloth mask to a KN95 I felt like it was harder to breath for the first several minutes. I think it was just more work than I was used to.  It felt more claustrophobic than anything. 

 

 

https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a33521706/face-mask-oxygen-levels-running-myth-coronavirus-doctor-fact-check/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Penelope said:

That’s a good one, but what happens when they do one that shows the size of the virus particle compared to the size of the particles a cloth or even a surgical mask is able to filter? Even if it were respiratory droplets and aerosols.

It’s not a matter of just hole size relative to virus particle size since there is the random movement of tiny particles through multiple layers of criss crossing fibers to account for, in addition to the electrostatic charge attracting and capturing them. Tests can (and have) been done to show the appropriate sized particles can be largely captured. 
 

I forgot to quote your other part, but I find the type of mask has a big impact on comfort and breathability. I spent most of the first year wearing homemade cloth masks with an inner layer of polypropylene medical fabric with high filtration, and I felt like those gave me great protection, especially because I can tie them on tightly without gaps. I switched to KF94s at the beginning of this year though, and I find those far more comfortable. The KF94 is definitely what I would workout in. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HeartString said:

when I first upgraded from a simple 3 ply cloth mask to a KN95 I felt like it was harder to breath for the first several minutes. I think it was just more work than I was used to.  It felt more claustrophobic than anything. 

That’s so interesting, since I had the opposite experience going cloth to KF94. But as I said, I had a heavy duty filtration layer in the middle, so on edge to edge and my mask was always tight on tightly. Probably my filter fabric was just too much. Not that it reduced my ability to oxygenate well, it just wasn’t nearly as comfortable as what I wear now. I did test it with my pulse oximeter as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wheres Toto said:

One more example of the extreme lack of scientific understanding behind all these conspiracy theories.   

 

73237564_10222650594604152_5600280663949764443_o.jpg


I realize that this person is an anti vaxxer and that you will probably dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory”—I also realize that the meter used may not be accurate above 2000ppm.  Though I expect it is better than no meter.
 

In any case, 1000-2000 ppm is apparently “drowsiness” level and there are a lot of situations that even  “drowsiness” is not a good idea for.

While the meter may be less accurate in higher ranges, nonetheless 5000 ppm is apparently OSHA limit for 8hr/day exposure and lots of people have that long or even longer at jobs, at school especially if aftercare or bus is added on ...   And I do not know if children and adults would have same tolerances.  But even 6 or 7 hours per day 5 days per week may be rather a lot if it is for full time job or full time school. 
 

https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/10/del-bigtree-tests-air-quality-of-breathing-while-wearing-a-mask-on-a-child-proving-masks-are-toxic/

 

I do not think it “proves” anything.
 

But I think it is as worth considering as videos that showed how masks stopped or greatly decreased droplets from going out from someone as he  whispered, talked, shouted... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.
 

Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, happi duck said:

My local store went from giant sign "face coverings required" to small sign that "encouraged" that unvaccinated wear masks to now the small sign is "face coverings required for unvaccinated people"...which I think is what was meant all along.  It took a minute to get things cleared up!

Kroger here left the big sign in place, but added a "face coverings optional for fully vsccinated people" here. If anything, I think masking has increased. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pen said:


I realize that this person is an anti vaxxer and that you will probably dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory”—I also realize that the meter used may not be accurate above 2000ppm.  Though I expect it is better than no meter.
 

In any case, 1000-2000 ppm is apparently “drowsiness” level and there are a lot of situations that even  “drowsiness” is not a good idea for.

While the meter may be less accurate in higher ranges, nonetheless 5000 ppm is apparently OSHA limit for 8hr/day exposure and lots of people have that long or even longer at jobs, at school especially if aftercare or bus is added on ...   And I do not know if children and adults would have same tolerances.  But even 6 or 7 hours per day 5 days per week may be rather a lot if it is for full time job or full time school. 
 

https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/10/del-bigtree-tests-air-quality-of-breathing-while-wearing-a-mask-on-a-child-proving-masks-are-toxic/

 

I do not think it “proves” anything.
 

But I think it is as worth considering as videos that showed how masks stopped or greatly decreased droplets from going out from someone as he  whispered, talked, shouted... 

 

A lot of the numbers you are tossing out are not correctly construed in that video.  This might help give you some context.

 

https://factcheck.afp.com/flawed-experiments-exaggerate-risk-co2-concentration-masks

-"Bigtree is the founder of an anti-vaccine organization, but does not mention any medical or scientific credentials on his website."

-"“They are using the wrong device and they are trying to compare the wrong numbers,” explained Hyo-Jick Choi, a researcher at the University of Alberta, who designed surgical masks and respirator filters that deactivate certain viral strains."

-"There is no doubt that wearing a face mask will increase carbon dioxide levels,” Choi conceded. However, the researcher warned that Bigtree’s video misleads by presenting the 5,000 ppm mark as a definite marker of toxicity.  Five thousand ppm is the highest recommended exposure for people working eight-hour days every day, particularly in closed spaces.

The experiments further mislead by truncating the chart, making 5,000 ppm look like the highest mark, when in fact the real chart shows that 40,000 ppm and above is the level considered dangerous, even for short periods of time."

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spryte said:

I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.
 

Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.

Same for my family member who was in hospital. Not the same as working out, but no impact on O2 at all. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Spryte said:

I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.
 

Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.

 

47 minutes ago, KSera said:

Same for my family member who was in hospital. Not the same as working out, but no impact on O2 at all. 

Right.  I wear an n95 for up to 10 hours at a time.  Some of that time is spent "working out", also known as CPR in full PPE.  I have worked shifts where I have worn the same n95 continuously for 10 hours (no breaks).  02 sat is fine.

It is true that the CO2 level inside the mask is well above the CO2 level in ambient air.  But so is the CO2 level in the air in your natural respiratory anatomical dead space at the end of each breath (mouth, nose, trachea, bronchi) which you also rebreathe with each breath.   The space inside of the mask basically acts as an extension of your own anatomical dead space.  Healthy people's bodies do not have any trouble to adapting to that extra deadspace.  The human respiratory system is very flexible and can cope with an extra 100cc or so of dead space just fine.  

Comparing N95 dead space CO2 concentrations with ambient workplace standards is a false comparison.  Ambient workplace standards apply to the ambient air - air that comprises the entire breath, for every breath taken while in the environment.  N95 dead space air, on the other hand , is a small volume, and the rest of the breath is comprised of normal ambient air that flows through the mask with each breath.

For fun:  Study of physiolgical effect of N95 during exercise.  Result:  1) "There were no significant differences between FFR and control in the physiological variables, exertion scores, or comfort scores", and predictably 2)"FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards" - which, as explained above, is not meaningful.

Also: a very nice, through review article, Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical activity in Health and Disease: "Although the body of literature directly evaluating this issue is evolving, for healthy individuals, the available data suggest that face masks, including N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth face masks, may increase dyspnea but have small and often difficult-to-detect effects on Wb, blood gases, and other physiological parameters during physical activity, even with heavy/maximal exercise" - subjects may feel subjectively short of breath, but their physiological markers change negligibly, if at all.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, wathe said:

 

Right.  I wear an n95 for up to 10 hours at a time.  Some of that time is spent "working out", also known as CPR in full PPE.  I have worked shifts where I have worn the same n95 continuously for 10 hours (no breaks).  02 sat is fine.

It is true that the CO2 level inside the mask is well above the CO2 level in ambient air.  But so is the CO2 level in the air in your natural respiratory anatomical dead space at the end of each breath (mouth, nose, trachea, bronchi) which you also rebreathe with each breath.   The space inside of the mask basically acts as an extension of your own anatomical dead space.  Healthy people's bodies do not have any trouble to adapting to that extra deadspace.  The human respiratory system is very flexible and can cope with an extra 100cc or so of dead space just fine.  

Comparing N95 dead space CO2 concentrations with ambient workplace standards is a false comparison.  Ambient workplace standards apply to the ambient air - air that comprises the entire breath, for every breath taken while in the environment.  N95 dead space air, on the other hand , is a small volume, and the rest of the breath is comprised of normal ambient air that flows through the mask with each breath.

For fun:  Study of physiolgical effect of N95 during exercise.  Result:  1) "There were no significant differences between FFR and control in the physiological variables, exertion scores, or comfort scores", and predictably 2)"FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards" - which, as explained above, is not meaningful.

Also: a very nice, through review article, Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical activity in Health and Disease: "Although the body of literature directly evaluating this issue is evolving, for healthy individuals, the available data suggest that face masks, including N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth face masks, may increase dyspnea but have small and often difficult-to-detect effects on Wb, blood gases, and other physiological parameters during physical activity, even with heavy/maximal exercise" - subjects may feel subjectively short of breath, but their physiological markers change negligibly, if at all.

This is the very best explanation of this phenomenon I have seen. Especially the bolded. Thanks so much for writing it all out!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spryte said:

I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.
 

Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.

Yeah, DH has worn a mask (or two!) all day every day for 9 months now. It's not exactly fun, but it's not a big deal. All of his students, too. I just asked if he's felt like he's had any health effects from wearing a mask all the time and he scoffed and said, "yeah, I haven't had a sore throat all year. That kind of health effect?" I won't say the other things he said about that sort of question, because they're not very polite. From my perspective, the most important health effect is how he hasn't gotten covid despite teaching in full classrooms all year and multiple times with covid positive students. 

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeartString said:

A lot of the numbers you are tossing out are not correctly construed in that video.  This might help give you some context.

 

https://factcheck.afp.com/flawed-experiments-exaggerate-risk-co2-concentration-masks

-"Bigtree is the founder of an anti-vaccine organization, but does not mention any medical or scientific credentials on his website."

-"“They are using the wrong device and they are trying to compare the wrong numbers,” explained Hyo-Jick Choi, a researcher at the University of Alberta, who designed surgical masks and respirator filters that deactivate certain viral strains."

-"There is no doubt that wearing a face mask will increase carbon dioxide levels,” Choi conceded. However, the researcher warned that Bigtree’s video misleads by presenting the 5,000 ppm mark as a definite marker of toxicity.  Five thousand ppm is the highest recommended exposure for people working eight-hour days every day, particularly in closed spaces.

 

take a look at what I wrote - did I really “toss out” numbers wrongly or did I basically say the same thing as this in different words? 
 

What I wrote:

“While the meter may be less accurate in higher ranges, nonetheless 5000 ppm is apparently OSHA limit for 8hr/day exposure and lots of people have that long or even longer at jobs, at school especially if aftercare or bus is added on ...”

 

(and yes, most school classes I am recently familiar with are “closed spaces”. So are a lot of work places. ) 

2 hours ago, HeartString said:

 

The experiments further mislead by truncating the chart, making 5,000 ppm look like the highest mark, when in fact the real chart shows that 40,000 ppm and above is the level considered dangerous, even for short periods of time."

 

 


strange. I thought that was basically same as I was trying to explain in my own added notes - that the device might not be accurate above  2000ppm  and about the 5000ppm being the level for a regular 8 hour workday as I understood it.   I have a feeling OSHA means typical 5 day week like most schools and jobs not actress “every day” as the write up you quoted  as in seven days per week - but maybe actual OSHA rules instead of either my explanation or the one you found would help! 
 

(40,000ppm is a level for passing out or dying isn’t it? 
 

I wasn’t taking about passing out or dying. I was talking about merely drowsiness being an effect at 1000-2000ppm and afaik what you quoted agrees with that and agrees that the meter would be accurate at that level, so if it’s getting above 5000 or 8000ppm reading I think at least drowsiness from 1000 ppm as per OSHA is a sensible conclusion on effect. 
 

And yes I will stand by what I said that I think drowsiness itself can be dangerous. Both as regards whatever might be happening to the drowsy brain and do we want drowsy airline pilots? That’s a pretty extreme example, but even drowsy butchers, drowsy electricians, drowsy car mechanics... may not be excellent. Drowsy doctors? 

 

If the meter is actually somewhat accurate above the 2000 mark, then it was showing at levels for worse problems than just drowsiness 
 

 

3 hours ago, Pen said:


I realize that this person is an anti vaxxer and that you will probably dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory”—I also realize that the meter used may not be accurate above 2000ppm.  Though I expect it is better than no meter.
 

In any case, 1000-2000 ppm is apparently “drowsiness” level and there are a lot of situations that even  “drowsiness” is not a good idea for.

While the meter may be less accurate in higher ranges, nonetheless 5000 ppm is apparently OSHA limit for 8hr/day exposure and lots of people have that long or even longer at jobs, at school especially if aftercare or bus is added on ...   And I do not know if children and adults would have same tolerances.  But even 6 or 7 hours per day 5 days per week may be rather a lot if it is for full time job or full time school. 
 

https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/10/del-bigtree-tests-air-quality-of-breathing-while-wearing-a-mask-on-a-child-proving-masks-are-toxic/

 

I do not think it “proves” anything.
 

But I think it is as worth considering as videos that showed how masks stopped or greatly decreased droplets from going out from someone as he  whispered, talked, shouted... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Pen said:

take a look at what I wrote - did I really “toss out” numbers wrongly or did I basically say the same thing as this in different words? 
 

What I wrote:

“While the meter may be less accurate in higher ranges, nonetheless 5000 ppm is apparently OSHA limit for 8hr/day exposure and lots of people have that long or even longer at jobs, at school especially if aftercare or bus is added on ...”

 

(and yes, most school classes I am recently familiar with are “closed spaces”. So are a lot of work places. ) 


strange. I thought that was basically same as I was trying to explain in my own added notes - that the device might not be accurate above  2000ppm  and about the 5000ppm being the level for a regular 8 hour workday as I understood it.   I have a feeling OSHA means typical 5 day week like most schools and jobs not actress “every day” as the write up you quoted  as in seven days per week - but maybe actual OSHA rules instead of either my explanation or the one you found would help! 
 

(40,000ppm is a level for losing consciousness  or dying isn’t it ? 
 

I wasn’t taking about losing consciousness or dying. I was talking about merely drowsiness being an effect at 1000-2000ppm and afaik what you quoted agrees with that and agrees that the meter would be accurate at that level, so if it’s getting above 5000 or 8000ppm reading I think at least drowsiness from 1000 ppm as per OSHA is a sensible conclusion on effect. 
 

And yes I will stand by what I said that I think drowsiness itself can be dangerous. Both as regards whatever might be happening to the drowsy brain and also do we want drowsy airline pilots? That’s a pretty extreme example, but even drowsy butchers (for their own safety), drowsy electricians, drowsy car mechanics... may not be excellent. Drowsy doctors?  I did also find articles on surgeons having lowered capacities, even though there is certainly debate on that. 

 

If the meter is actually somewhat accurate above the 2000 mark, then it was showing at levels for worse problems than just drowsiness 
 

 

ETA this was supposed to be part of former post reply to @HeartString it seems to have split into two posts with some repeating — 
 

I think you are trying to “debunk” by saying oh, but mask doesn’t reduce breathing to a state of OSHA loss of consciousness level. 
 


 

Yes. Fine.

 

But they do seem to cause much more CO2 build up than I had formerly been aware of . 
 


also a question for you - you accused me of “tossing out numbers” - did you really carefully compare my numbers and what you put or were you so eager to go find a “debunking” article that you yourself “tossed out” the debunking article without even bothering to carefully compare it to what I wrote?

Did you watch the video yourself? Or just go on a Google search for a “debunking” article to “Toss out”? 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Pen said:

ETA this was supposed to be part of former post reply to @HeartString it seems to have split into two posts with some repeating — 
 

I think you are trying to “debunk” by saying oh, but mask doesn’t reduce breathing to a state of OSHA loss of consciousness level. 
 


 

Yes. Fine.

 

But they do seem to cause much more CO2 build up than I had formerly been aware of . 
 


also a question for you - you accused me of “tossing out numbers” - did you really carefully compare my numbers and what you put or were you so eager to go find a “debunking” article that you yourself “tossed out” the debunking article without even bothering to carefully compare it to what I wrote?

Did you watch the video yourself? Or just go on a Google search for a “debunking” article to “Toss out”? 

I said your numbers needed context.  You should read this from Wathe, especially the bolded.   You're numbers aren't incorrect, they lack context and don't mean what you think they mean.  You know that saying "I know just enough to be dangerous", that's what your numbers are.  A tiny bit of truth, taken fully out of context, shaded a bit, and made to look like something else entirely. I know you didn't create them of course, I'm not blaming you.  You're just getting info from a shyster. 

This guy is a TV producer, not a doctor.  He has no idea what he is talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Bigtree

 

9 hours ago, wathe said:

 

Right.  I wear an n95 for up to 10 hours at a time.  Some of that time is spent "working out", also known as CPR in full PPE.  I have worked shifts where I have worn the same n95 continuously for 10 hours (no breaks).  02 sat is fine.

It is true that the CO2 level inside the mask is well above the CO2 level in ambient air.  But so is the CO2 level in the air in your natural respiratory anatomical dead space at the end of each breath (mouth, nose, trachea, bronchi) which you also rebreathe with each breath.   The space inside of the mask basically acts as an extension of your own anatomical dead space.  Healthy people's bodies do not have any trouble to adapting to that extra deadspace.  The human respiratory system is very flexible and can cope with an extra 100cc or so of dead space just fine.  

Comparing N95 dead space CO2 concentrations with ambient workplace standards is a false comparison.  Ambient workplace standards apply to the ambient air - air that comprises the entire breath, for every breath taken while in the environment.  N95 dead space air, on the other hand , is a small volume, and the rest of the breath is comprised of normal ambient air that flows through the mask with each breath.

For fun:  Study of physiolgical effect of N95 during exercise.  Result:  1) "There were no significant differences between FFR and control in the physiological variables, exertion scores, or comfort scores", and predictably 2)"FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards" - which, as explained above, is not meaningful.

Also: a very nice, through review article, Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical activity in Health and Disease: "Although the body of literature directly evaluating this issue is evolving, for healthy individuals, the available data suggest that face masks, including N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth face masks, may increase dyspnea but have small and often difficult-to-detect effects on Wb, blood gases, and other physiological parameters during physical activity, even with heavy/maximal exercise" - subjects may feel subjectively short of breath, but their physiological markers change negligibly, if at all.

 

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wathe said:

 

Right.  I wear an n95 for up to 10 hours at a time.  Some of that time is spent "working out", also known as CPR in full PPE.  I have worked shifts where I have worn the same n95 continuously for 10 hours (no breaks).  02 sat is fine.

It is true that the CO2 level inside the mask is well above the CO2 level in ambient air.  But so is the CO2 level in the air in your natural respiratory anatomical dead space at the end of each breath (mouth, nose, trachea, bronchi) which you also rebreathe with each breath.   The space inside of the mask basically acts as an extension of your own anatomical dead space.  Healthy people's bodies do not have any trouble to adapting to that extra deadspace.  The human respiratory system is very flexible and can cope with an extra 100cc or so of dead space just fine.  

Comparing N95 dead space CO2 concentrations with ambient workplace standards is a false comparison.  Ambient workplace standards apply to the ambient air - air that comprises the entire breath, for every breath taken while in the environment.  N95 dead space air, on the other hand , is a small volume, and the rest of the breath is comprised of normal ambient air that flows through the mask with each breath.

For fun:  Study of physiolgical effect of N95 during exercise.  Result:  1) "There were no significant differences between FFR and control in the physiological variables, exertion scores, or comfort scores", and predictably 2)"FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards" - which, as explained above, is not meaningful.

Also: a very nice, through review article, Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical activity in Health and Disease: "Although the body of literature directly evaluating this issue is evolving, for healthy individuals, the available data suggest that face masks, including N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth face masks, may increase dyspnea but have small and often difficult-to-detect effects on Wb, blood gases, and other physiological parameters during physical activity, even with heavy/maximal exercise" - subjects may feel subjectively short of breath, but their physiological markers change negligibly, if at all.

Thank you. Excellent and very informative response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HeartString said:

I said your numbers needed context.  You should read this from Wathe, especially the bolded.   You're numbers aren't incorrect, they lack context and don't mean what you think they mean.  You know that saying "I know just enough to be dangerous", that's what your numbers are.  A tiny bit of truth, taken fully out of context, shaded a bit, and made to look like something else entirely. I know you didn't create them of course, I'm not blaming you.  You're just getting info from a shyster. 

This guy is a TV producer, not a doctor.  He has no idea what he is talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Bigtree

 

 


@HeartString I already knew the gist of what was in the “ debunk”  article you quoted. If I did not express it properly so that you could understand I apologize for that. I started with my own caveat that Bigtree is an anti vaxxer. I know he is an antivaxxer.  

 

I do not look to Wikipedia as a good source for the type of use you are giving it right now. It is too easy to “discredit” people on it. And other people are shut out from trying to give contrary information. It’s sort of another version of looking to the Kardashians, or Snopes for solid information. 
 

and btw I already put that I myself have had to use masks (or respirators) extensively for a variety of reasons before CV19 . I had thought they were okay. I am no longer so sure of that. 
 

 

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous two Pubmed links are ones I have read . Here are more from an endnotes reference list, most of which so far, I have not read, but may interest you.  They may go in either direction for or against masks - and I am not sure everyone of them deals with masks at all: 

 

1  T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

2  J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal protective and environmental measures.  Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

3  J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review.  MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf

4  L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial.  JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

5  J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574.

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

6  F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/

7  J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al.  Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial.  Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/

8  M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf

9  S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086

10 H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 Jun. 14:991-1002.

https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf

11  C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

12  N95 masks explained. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained

13  V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

14  C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo

15  M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601

16  C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo

17  N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci.  2018; 23(2). 61-69.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

18  T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736

19  N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

20  N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms – a costly and unnecessary ritual?  J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

21  C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery.  JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/

22  L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

23  N Leung, D Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Nature Research.  2020 Mar 7. 26,676-680 (2020).

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1

24  S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

25  S Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients.  Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6.

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

26  S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection – evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

27  C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

28  W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920.  34-42.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34

29  M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

30  E Person, C Lemercier et al.  Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance.  Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/

31  B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes.  Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devil’s sword – a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/

32  P Shuang Ye Tong, A Sugam Kale, et al.  Respiratory consequences of N95-type mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers – A controlled clinical study.  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Nov 16; 4:48.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/

33  T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease.  J Formos Med Assoc. 2004 Aug; 103(8):624-628.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/

34  F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods.  2018 Oct; 260:98-106.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/

35  A Rule, O Apau, et al. Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season.  PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31; 13(8): e0203223.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30169507/

36  F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods.  2018 Oct; 260:98-106.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/

37  A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al.  Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers.  BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/

38  L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/

39  C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers.  BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

40  A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126.

http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

41  D Lukashev, B Klebanov, et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and its activation-inducible short isoform negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2006 Oct 15; 177(8) 4962-4965.

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/177/8/4962

42  A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD4+ T-cells in viral immunity.  J Exper Med. 2012 Jun 30; 209(8):1391-1395.

https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3420330

Read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding to the masked-in-store post-change anecdata: DH went to the store today, this is the largest grocery store (aside from Walmart) for ~75 miles in a county with 44% vaccination rate. He said maybe 1 in 10 customers were wearing masks, and it was busy. He is vaccinated and wore his, and included himself for the 1 in 10. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our county will not relax mask mandates until 70% of the eligible population has completed their vaccination series.  Very wise, I think. 

I started laughing in the grocery store the other day when an elderly man (at least 80) came in, saw me and said "Oh (F word).  I forgot my mask!"  He used his shirt to cover his mouth and nose while he quickly grabbed one thing. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, we’re at a playground in a Boston suburb, and there are many more unmasked faces, including the kids 😕 . I dunno about this.

I think the current science says it's very safe for kids to play outside in the sun without masks.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, we’re at a playground in a Boston suburb, and there are many more unmasked faces, including the kids 😕 . I dunno about this.

I just checked and Boston’s 7 day average is only 45 cases per day. New England also has the highest vaccination rates in the country, over 70% of Massachusetts is vaccinated. I can’t think of a safer place to play unmasked outdoors.  
 

The anxiety is real though! I get it.  You’ll get through it.  

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I just checked and Boston’s 7 day average is only 45 cases per day. New England also has the highest vaccination rates in the country, over 70% of Massachusetts is vaccinated. I can’t think of a safer place to play unmasked outdoors.  

The anxiety is real though! I get it.  You’ll get through it.  

I am freaking out a bit because my gym (that I finally started back at last week after being fully vaxxed) is relaxing their masking requirement (indoors!) starting next week.  Only for vaxxed people, technically, but they won't be checking. 😡

I am trying to decide what to do.  The vax rates here (suburbs of Boston), are, indeed, among the highest in the nation.  I'm considering keeping going and using my Happy Mask instead of the 'sports mask' I'd been using.

But even I'm not much at all worried about outdoors at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Sk8ermaiden said:

Honestly the science has said outdoor activities were pretty darn safe, almost from the beginning. 

I already explained why I don’t think this is obviously settled science when it comes to little kids on playgrounds.

 

19 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I just checked and Boston’s 7 day average is only 45 cases per day. New England also has the highest vaccination rates in the country, over 70% of Massachusetts is vaccinated. I can’t think of a safer place to play unmasked outdoors.  
 

The anxiety is real though! I get it.  You’ll get through it.  

Yes. I know. That’s why we were at the playground in the first place and why we didn’t leave.

But I’d feel happier if people masked up for a bit longer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe the CDC guessed right: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/health/vaccination-interest-cdc-mask-guidance/index.html

Quote

Data obtained exclusively by CNN shows that interest in getting vaccinated against Covid-19 increased right after Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, announced two weeks ago that vaccinated people could take off their masks.

They're basing it on traffic to vaccines.gov right after the updated guidance and saying that the decline in vaccine numbers that had been happening reversed somewhat after the announcement (but it's unclear whether that had more to do with the announcement or with eligibility expanding to 12-15 year olds).

Of course, in the meantime, my awesome governor says he's going to ban schools from mandating masks going forward (I wrote a headline, if any news people need it: "Georgia bans schools from following public health guidelines"), so things better keep moving in the right direction or fall could be a mess.

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2021 at 2:42 PM, Jean in Newcastle said:

I started laughing in the grocery store the other day when an elderly man (at least 80) came in, saw me and said "Oh (F word).  I forgot my mask!"  He used his shirt to cover his mouth and nose while he quickly grabbed one thing. 

I have required the shirt trick a time or two, lol! 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2021 at 12:38 PM, Pen said:

 

 

 

Even if one believes that a mask would stop viral infection, There are also competing safety concerns. 
 

For example, would a teen (or could be any age really) driver be more at risk due to potential Covid in symptom free, healthy seeming passengers and no mask, versus potential risks from wearing a mask and having possible reduced visibility (some masks stick out), and possible decreased alertness due to increased CO2 build up? 
 

There’s a Del Bigtree video of his son breathing in various masks using an OSHA approved meter to measure the levels in the mask and showing build up of CO2 to unhealthy levels.  Even a plastic face shield open at the bottom got surprisingly high levels but nowhere near as bad as the masks. 

 

I had thought that CO2 build up issue wasn’t really significant   because of wearing masks for lab work in times past and due to ME/CFS/TILT type problems in more recent years. But now it appears to be being shown that it is a problem. Maybe even reduces surgeon alertness in one study one of my physician relatives showed me. And perhaps some feeling Unwell over the years in circumstances where I have to mask has been due to the mask itself without my having realized it. 
 

Interesting. 

 

Good points.
 

I think media coverage of Covid has been very different than pre2020. It is kept center news. 

A big problem imo is that vaccinated/unvaccinated seems to be a wedge being driven between people

 

 

The thing about surgeons having reduced alertness was shown to be related to length of surgery vs mask. 

And I'm having a REAL hard time figuring out how a mask both is too porous to trap the virus but not porous enough to allow CO2 to pass through. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to donate blood today, and masks were optional for vaccinated people.  I actually felt pretty okay about it, since I figure the people working at or donating blood are likely to actually be vaccinated.  I even took my mask off for the screening since my pulse rate is on the border of being accepted, and it's a bit higher when I mask.  I put it back on after they finished with the health screening part though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://apple.news/AxyIwJaUDR06P6pG8hT-J_g
 

“But adjustments for vaccinations show the rate among susceptible, unvaccinated people is 73 percent higher than the standard figures being publicized. With that adjustment, the national death rate is roughly the same as it was two months ago and is barely inching down. The adjusted hospitalization rate is as high as it was three months ago. The case rate is still declining after the adjustment.”

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...