Jun 24, 2020, 6:06 am
Last edit by: NewbieRunner
Moderator announcement - June 23, 2020:
Flyertalk’s moderators generally take a hands-off approach when it comes to judging the accuracy of members’ statements. While that’s fine for travel debates, a pandemic is clearly a more serious issue.
A meta-analysis of 172 studies that looked at various interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, SARS and MERS from an infected person to people close to them, published in The Lancet on June 1, found that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission.
Given the science, the forum moderators are disallowing any further posts that debate whether or not masks should be worn. Posts that do so will be deleted and members subject to discipline.
Please also note, we do not allow posting of conspiracy theories or racist terms used in place of Covid-19, coronavirus, etc.
- Coronavirus and Travel moderator team
Flyertalk’s moderators generally take a hands-off approach when it comes to judging the accuracy of members’ statements. While that’s fine for travel debates, a pandemic is clearly a more serious issue.
A meta-analysis of 172 studies that looked at various interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, SARS and MERS from an infected person to people close to them, published in The Lancet on June 1, found that mask wearing significantly reduces the risk of viral transmission.
Given the science, the forum moderators are disallowing any further posts that debate whether or not masks should be worn. Posts that do so will be deleted and members subject to discipline.
Please also note, we do not allow posting of conspiracy theories or racist terms used in place of Covid-19, coronavirus, etc.
- Coronavirus and Travel moderator team
Coronavirus and masks/face coverings [Consolidated thread]
Mar 31, 2020, 1:53 pm
#271
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
Along with giving clear indications to manufactures to ramp up non-respirator mask production, while saving N95 respirators for healthcare workers and other high risk situations.
Instead, supply is choked down as high priority buyers (hospitals, state and federal agencies, etc) are buying up as much as they can to insure future supply for themselves and manufacturers largely have not built out capacity until recently because the capital costs weren't borne out by the expected return.
Instead, supply is choked down as high priority buyers (hospitals, state and federal agencies, etc) are buying up as much as they can to insure future supply for themselves and manufacturers largely have not built out capacity until recently because the capital costs weren't borne out by the expected return.
Mar 31, 2020, 3:15 pm
#272
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K, DL Pt
Posts: 1,086
What other position can US take when the country so sadly didn't use the two months to ramdp on on masks, other PPE and ventilators. The resource is so scarce and the medical community is in such dire need, protect the valuable resources. But in so doing you are actually hurting the flattening of the curve.
Now stories emerging of the church choir in the NW, the funeral in South, wonder if those outcomes would be far lower to not have happened if everyone wore a mask.
Funny with the density in the Far East and the close proximity of the population yet they mostly have bent the curve and have it all under control, and they all wear masks, hmm
https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/co...MIrd4w-hY5RU98
Now stories emerging of the church choir in the NW, the funeral in South, wonder if those outcomes would be far lower to not have happened if everyone wore a mask.
Funny with the density in the Far East and the close proximity of the population yet they mostly have bent the curve and have it all under control, and they all wear masks, hmm
https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/co...MIrd4w-hY5RU98
Last edited by chipmaster; Mar 31, 2020 at 4:22 pm
Mar 31, 2020, 4:38 pm
#273
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 237
I have box of 10 N95 masks I bought in 2009 when the swine flu broke out. I think the notion of being able to fit masks properly is seriously overblown. There is a metal bar you use to mold it to your nose. It's pretty easy.
The bigger concern is people using masks and not handling them properly, i.e. then when they take them off, maybe spreading the infection if anything got on the outside of it. But even then, it seems like the only person they are getting sick potentially is themselves. The mask would prevent them from getting sick and passing it on to other people.
The bigger concern is people using masks and not handling them properly, i.e. then when they take them off, maybe spreading the infection if anything got on the outside of it. But even then, it seems like the only person they are getting sick potentially is themselves. The mask would prevent them from getting sick and passing it on to other people.
I think there are 2 variety of N95 masks. One is the usual. Another one is very tight fitting along with fit testing (like testing if you can smell an irritant while wearing the mask). Not many people are using these, I presume.
Mar 31, 2020, 4:40 pm
#274
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PEK and BOS
Programs: BA - Blue
Posts: 4,530
Not quite true.
Mask and PPE not only "protect" from contamination from infectious diseases (in this case Covid 19) but they also unintentionally serve to collect the virus, especially masks.
Thus, health care works are trained in how to put on (a non fitted mask is not functional to prevent virus contamination) and more importantly how to take off contaminated masks and PPE so that you don't infect yourself from the gear you have worn to prevent infection!
Just breathing in air containing Corona virus particles is a risk, but if the mask acts as a reservoir for the virus you have been breathing but not inhaling all day, it can multiple the number of particles dramatically, worsening your risk when you remove the mask if you do not know the procedure for doing it safely.
Finally, to prevent further downstream infection, there must be a way to safely dispose of the masks/PPE so that others (sanitation workers) do not get exposed to the Covid 19 virus.
I'm a physician, as I look at the information available, the risk/benefit ratio does not favor wearing a mask (N95 or better, all others are placebo) while in public rather than just staying out of public as much as possible and using hand washing, etc.
All the best.
Mask and PPE not only "protect" from contamination from infectious diseases (in this case Covid 19) but they also unintentionally serve to collect the virus, especially masks.
Thus, health care works are trained in how to put on (a non fitted mask is not functional to prevent virus contamination) and more importantly how to take off contaminated masks and PPE so that you don't infect yourself from the gear you have worn to prevent infection!
Just breathing in air containing Corona virus particles is a risk, but if the mask acts as a reservoir for the virus you have been breathing but not inhaling all day, it can multiple the number of particles dramatically, worsening your risk when you remove the mask if you do not know the procedure for doing it safely.
Finally, to prevent further downstream infection, there must be a way to safely dispose of the masks/PPE so that others (sanitation workers) do not get exposed to the Covid 19 virus.
I'm a physician, as I look at the information available, the risk/benefit ratio does not favor wearing a mask (N95 or better, all others are placebo) while in public rather than just staying out of public as much as possible and using hand washing, etc.
All the best.
1. Doffing (taking OFF) masks IS a contamination hazard. BUt that is ONLY true if one is wearing a mask that has protected the wearer. I can't conceive of a scenario where, when not wearing a mask, those droplets would have landed at or near my mouth/nose/eyes, and that is somehow meant to be better than accidental contamination of a fraction of those viral particles in taking the mask off?? Just doesn't make sense.
2. The major utility of mask wearing by the general population is to prevent onward transmission, NOT self-protection. On a population level, decreasing R0 by even 10-20% has a huge impact on the growth trajectory of the pandemic over 1-2 months.
3. SARS-Cov2 is NOT airborne transmitted (most of the time) such not sure what the risk of breathing virions in the air in general is? The problem is droplet contamination. And wearing any face covering will also reduce (to an extent) fomite (inanimate object) contamination. It's not perfect, but the alternative is no mask...again, can't really conceive how no mask can be superior in any scenario.
I'm willing to quibble on the utility of masks for self-protection, the absolute and relative magnitude of effects in reducing onward transmission, and the fact that respirators are better reserved for HCWs where their exposure risk is near absolute.
Be well!
tb
PS I'm glad that Fauci is revisiting this issue. I wrote to him a month ago on this very issue, and his office 'thanked me' (which I appreciate), even if they totally ignored my advice at the time!!
Last edited by trueblu; Mar 31, 2020 at 4:41 pm Reason: PS
Mar 31, 2020, 5:48 pm
#275
Ambassador: China
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Malibu Inferno Ground Zero
Programs: UA AA CO
Posts: 4,836
Parents teach their small children to cover their mouths when they sneeze or cough. Its a learned universal behavior...and common sense.The idea is to cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze so the germs in your body are not propelled into the air or across the room, which could make others sick.
It's not difficult to cover your cough.
Mar 31, 2020, 7:59 pm
#276
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
Hey tb- saw today in the Johns Hopkins digest that the FDA has approved a hydrogen peroxide vapor based decontamination system for mask reuse.
https://www.battelle.org/newsroom/ne...sing-n95-masks
ETA: another face mask cleaning and decontamination process using ethylene oxide
https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavir...ace-masks.html
https://www.battelle.org/newsroom/ne...sing-n95-masks
ETA: another face mask cleaning and decontamination process using ethylene oxide
https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavir...ace-masks.html
Last edited by rustykettel; Apr 1, 2020 at 8:59 am
Apr 1, 2020, 7:01 am
#277
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: I 35 south bound, finally stopped
Programs: LT Plt, 4mm, *A GLD, burned out medical provider, executing our estate plan
Posts: 1,665
Went back through this thread and while there was a lot of news posted and personal bias based upon long experience for and against wearing masks etc etc, minimal data was provided. IMO masks were not encouraged by the CDC and WHO because the run on them would have been worse. And it still occurred. But the CDC and especially the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health knows that any type of face covering, whether purchased or home made is probably better than no face covering. Disclaimer- I wear PPE and masks every day at work, and I work with people who have viral infectious diseases, so I too have a little bias and education. Take home from these federally funded studies
tl:dr
electret layers matter
bio-pathogens of interest such as influenza, SARS, anthrax are all above 100 nm
The major findings of this study were: (a) aerosol leakage for the same simulated gap size is higher in N95s compared to SMs (surgical masks) and FPUs (for pediatric use), implying SMs or FPUs, particularly those with electret filters, may offer better protection compared to N95s that have not been fit-tested; (b) leakage of aerosols is not a strong function of size particularly above 100 nm, independent of the PPE brand; and (c) higher total inward leakage does not necessarily imply higher risk to the population and must be considered in conjunction with breathing flow rates.
PMID: 27754781
and in this study they used Hanes t shirts and a whole bunch of other clothing for masks. While the data clearly show that masks are better, duh, they also show that simple clothing made in to masks does reduce penetration poorly or marginally, however both poor and marginally are not zero. Kinda looks like a Hanes sweat shirt might work pretty good. At this point anything would help.
The results obtained in the study showed that cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40–90% instantaneous penetration levels when challenged with polydisperse NaCl aerosols employed in the NIOSH particulate respirator test protocol at a face velocity of 5.5 cm s−1. Similarly, varying levels of penetrations (9–98%) were obtained for different size monodisperse NaCl aerosol particles in the 20–1000 nm range. Monodisperse aerosol penetration curves for many fabric materials were similar to the curve for a mechanical filter indicating that electret charge was not incorporated in the fabric materials tested in the study. The penetration levels for these fabric materials against polydisperse, as well as monodisperse aerosols, were much higher than the values for the control N95 respirator filter media. A poor filtration performance is expected for improvised fabric materials because these materials are not designed for respiratory protection.Common fabric materials and cloth masks showed a wide variation in penetration values for polydisperse (40–90%) as well as monodisperse aerosol particles in the 20–1000 nm range (40–97%) at 5.5 cm s−1 face velocity. The penetration levels obtained for fabric materials against both polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols were much higher than the value for the control N95 respirator filter media but were in the range found for some surgical masks in previous studies. Penetrations of monodisperse aerosol particles slightly increased at 16.5 cm s−1 face velocity, while polydisperse aerosols showed no significant effect except one fabric mask with an increase. The penetration values obtained for common fabric materials indicate that only marginal respiratory protection can be expected for submicron particles taking into consideration face seal leakage.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
This study was funded by two Medical Countermeasures Initiative projects MCM2DXXXXX205, MCM2JXXXXX270HT from the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
and
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CAN #927 Z1NT).
tl:dr
electret layers matter
bio-pathogens of interest such as influenza, SARS, anthrax are all above 100 nm
The major findings of this study were: (a) aerosol leakage for the same simulated gap size is higher in N95s compared to SMs (surgical masks) and FPUs (for pediatric use), implying SMs or FPUs, particularly those with electret filters, may offer better protection compared to N95s that have not been fit-tested; (b) leakage of aerosols is not a strong function of size particularly above 100 nm, independent of the PPE brand; and (c) higher total inward leakage does not necessarily imply higher risk to the population and must be considered in conjunction with breathing flow rates.
PMID: 27754781
and in this study they used Hanes t shirts and a whole bunch of other clothing for masks. While the data clearly show that masks are better, duh, they also show that simple clothing made in to masks does reduce penetration poorly or marginally, however both poor and marginally are not zero. Kinda looks like a Hanes sweat shirt might work pretty good. At this point anything would help.
The results obtained in the study showed that cloth masks and other fabric materials tested in the study had 40–90% instantaneous penetration levels when challenged with polydisperse NaCl aerosols employed in the NIOSH particulate respirator test protocol at a face velocity of 5.5 cm s−1. Similarly, varying levels of penetrations (9–98%) were obtained for different size monodisperse NaCl aerosol particles in the 20–1000 nm range. Monodisperse aerosol penetration curves for many fabric materials were similar to the curve for a mechanical filter indicating that electret charge was not incorporated in the fabric materials tested in the study. The penetration levels for these fabric materials against polydisperse, as well as monodisperse aerosols, were much higher than the values for the control N95 respirator filter media. A poor filtration performance is expected for improvised fabric materials because these materials are not designed for respiratory protection.Common fabric materials and cloth masks showed a wide variation in penetration values for polydisperse (40–90%) as well as monodisperse aerosol particles in the 20–1000 nm range (40–97%) at 5.5 cm s−1 face velocity. The penetration levels obtained for fabric materials against both polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols were much higher than the value for the control N95 respirator filter media but were in the range found for some surgical masks in previous studies. Penetrations of monodisperse aerosol particles slightly increased at 16.5 cm s−1 face velocity, while polydisperse aerosols showed no significant effect except one fabric mask with an increase. The penetration values obtained for common fabric materials indicate that only marginal respiratory protection can be expected for submicron particles taking into consideration face seal leakage.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
This study was funded by two Medical Countermeasures Initiative projects MCM2DXXXXX205, MCM2JXXXXX270HT from the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
and
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CAN #927 Z1NT).
Apr 1, 2020, 9:11 am
#278
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,784
https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...a6d_story.html
CDC guidance on masks remains under development, the federal official said. The official said the new guidance would make clear that the general public should not use medical masks — including surgical and N95 masks — that are in desperately short supply and needed by health-care workers.
Instead, the recommendation under consideration calls for using do-it-yourself cloth coverings, according to a second official who shared that thinking on a personal Facebook account. It would be a way to help “flatten the curve,” the official noted.
Instead, the recommendation under consideration calls for using do-it-yourself cloth coverings, according to a second official who shared that thinking on a personal Facebook account. It would be a way to help “flatten the curve,” the official noted.
Apr 1, 2020, 9:26 am
#279
Join Date: Oct 2005
Programs: Continental
Posts: 1,588
Will spraying a mask with alcohol or peroxide after use help to sterilize it?
Apr 1, 2020, 9:27 am
#280
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,752
Having lived in SE Asia (HK), the "mask conundrum" wasn't exactly a complicated one to figure out. Asymmetrical risk should be treated differently than a general risk environment. To put another way, even in HK, during normal times and not sick, I don't wear a mask--if only because it's uncomfortable. When I am sick, I'll wear a mask, if only because it's standard etiquette to reduce the chance of infecting others. However, when there's an air of some kind of unknown contagion, asymmetrical environment, virtually everyone will be masked. This is a form of aggressive and proactive mitigation that's relatively inexpensive--cheap hedge.
I find the most plausible and reasonable explanation are from the Pros who have observed that even *if* a mask isn't 100% proof against droplets, it is highly likely it will keep some % out, thereby reducing the potential intensity of the infection; and, in case there are a relatively high % of asymptomatic, I see very little downside to wearing masks during periods of heightened risks.
I find the most plausible and reasonable explanation are from the Pros who have observed that even *if* a mask isn't 100% proof against droplets, it is highly likely it will keep some % out, thereby reducing the potential intensity of the infection; and, in case there are a relatively high % of asymptomatic, I see very little downside to wearing masks during periods of heightened risks.
Apr 1, 2020, 9:28 am
#281
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: I 35 south bound, finally stopped
Programs: LT Plt, 4mm, *A GLD, burned out medical provider, executing our estate plan
Posts: 1,665
And how to recycle those N95s that might have a little SARS Cov 2 on them
Apr 1, 2020, 9:39 am
#282
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: I 35 south bound, finally stopped
Programs: LT Plt, 4mm, *A GLD, burned out medical provider, executing our estate plan
Posts: 1,665
Last edited by boerne; Apr 1, 2020 at 1:19 pm Reason: fixed typo
Apr 1, 2020, 11:56 am
#283
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K, DL Pt
Posts: 1,086
Having lived in SE Asia (HK), the "mask conundrum" wasn't exactly a complicated one to figure out. Asymmetrical risk should be treated differently than a general risk environment. To put another way, even in HK, during normal times and not sick, I don't wear a mask--if only because it's uncomfortable. When I am sick, I'll wear a mask, if only because it's standard etiquette to reduce the chance of infecting others. However, when there's an air of some kind of unknown contagion, asymmetrical environment, virtually everyone will be masked. This is a form of aggressive and proactive mitigation that's relatively inexpensive--cheap hedge.
I find the most plausible and reasonable explanation are from the Pros who have observed that even *if* a mask isn't 100% proof against droplets, it is highly likely it will keep some % out, thereby reducing the potential intensity of the infection; and, in case there are a relatively high % of asymptomatic, I see very little downside to wearing masks during periods of heightened risks.
I find the most plausible and reasonable explanation are from the Pros who have observed that even *if* a mask isn't 100% proof against droplets, it is highly likely it will keep some % out, thereby reducing the potential intensity of the infection; and, in case there are a relatively high % of asymptomatic, I see very little downside to wearing masks during periods of heightened risks.
Would be much more honest to say the following
1) Mask are a requirement and essential for our health care providers and that we ( the Federal government ) is going to take leadership in consolidating and distribution as needed
2) Mask can reduce risk for the general population and given the current shortage we will start controlled allocation / distribution and recommend everyone wear one when in public space.
Seems all of the Far East was successful in insuring there were enough: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/o...-shortage.html
Also ironic and sad pictures of of India or Iran and some other very poor places show more people out and about wearing masks then in the US, is it any wonder we seem to lead in cases ?
Looks like the CDC is back tracking and spinning a story to explain it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/h...nsmission.html
Apr 1, 2020, 1:29 pm
#284
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Programs: ʙᴏɴᴠo̱ʏ Au, IHG Au, HH Dia, Nexus, Pilot FlyingJ Preferred
Posts: 5,336
Need to differentiate between surgical style face masks and respirators.
Respirators (N95, N100, PAPR, etc)
1) Healthcare workers
2) Occupational protection as required in other industries (hantavirus hasn't gone away! I really would like protection when cleaning out rodent nests)
3) Everyone else
Surgical style masks
1) Medical grade (usually have fluid barrier protection) for healthcare workers.
2) People supporting or near to healthcare workers
3) Positions with one to many contacts (bus drivers, TSA screeners, grocery clerks, delivery people, etc)- basically attempt to squelch onward spread from people who have exposure TO many more people
4) Employment situations where it's difficult or impossible to maintain 6ft+/2M+ distance (certain construction and trades positions where you need multiple people to do a task, etc)
5) General public
As elective procedures have dropped precipitously (to the point of endangering the ability of healthcare facilities to keep their doors open & staffed just when they're about to be needed most), the demand for surgical style masks should be dropping. My suspicion is that there's both supply chain disruptions and overbuying by healthcare providers and the government to build up their own supply to avoid further disruption.
Respirators (N95, N100, PAPR, etc)
1) Healthcare workers
2) Occupational protection as required in other industries (hantavirus hasn't gone away! I really would like protection when cleaning out rodent nests)
3) Everyone else
Surgical style masks
1) Medical grade (usually have fluid barrier protection) for healthcare workers.
2) People supporting or near to healthcare workers
3) Positions with one to many contacts (bus drivers, TSA screeners, grocery clerks, delivery people, etc)- basically attempt to squelch onward spread from people who have exposure TO many more people
4) Employment situations where it's difficult or impossible to maintain 6ft+/2M+ distance (certain construction and trades positions where you need multiple people to do a task, etc)
5) General public
As elective procedures have dropped precipitously (to the point of endangering the ability of healthcare facilities to keep their doors open & staffed just when they're about to be needed most), the demand for surgical style masks should be dropping. My suspicion is that there's both supply chain disruptions and overbuying by healthcare providers and the government to build up their own supply to avoid further disruption.
Apr 1, 2020, 1:31 pm
#285
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: I 35 south bound, finally stopped
Programs: LT Plt, 4mm, *A GLD, burned out medical provider, executing our estate plan
Posts: 1,665
Looks like the CDC is back tracking and spinning a story to explain it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/h...nsmission.html
I also suspect that you get to the decision making level at the CDC because of politics, not because you are the best in your field. Whenever I interfaced with .gov on medical things, that was my universal take away. Info from Nevada may confirm this.
https://www.propublica.org/article/i...to-coronavirus