chrisl137

Those policies are all going to have some way to facilitate people removing masks to eat and drink as needed.

I've had periods where I was working in cleanrooms in conditions like that for months at a time, but with a full bunny suit in addition to the mask. I know many people who spend a large fraction of their career all dressed up in bunny suits, sometimes double masked and with sleeves taped closed. I've never heard anybody complain about it, or even bring it up. It's not even something that even comes up in conversation, other than the amount of time it takes to get dressed to get into the cleanest cleanrooms.

Also - have you ever measured your blood oxygenation in an airplane? It drops quite a bit because of the effective elevation they pressurize the cabin to. Probably more so than you'll see from any mask.

FlyBitcoin

Not a single real HCW in the line of battle cares one bit about this, nor is there even the shred of a movement to change how HCW are masked before CV19 or during CV19.

The human body has ways of compensating for this minimal change that have zero short term or long term effects beyond the stress of the surgery itself on the surgeon.

And when the group affected most by a "study" doesn't care about the results, then you shouldn't either.

chipmaster

Mask for safety or mask to pass the minimum need regulation from airline/government?

I just did my first set of flights since lockdown; was N95 for about 4 hours, not anything like my old time 18 hour TPAC with connnect. No way could I wear the N95 even with only 1/2 strapped for that long.

I guess I might have three kinds, the lame surgical, N95 and my respirator ( haven't used it but looks pretty extreme, LOL ). I am anxiously awaiting for my MIC one as pictured, we'll see if it is more comfortable.

rickg523

The one you're most comfortable with. Remember, if you're not symptomatically sick (in which case, please don't fly at all), the idea is to try and keep the virus - if you have it - from leaving your face and infecting someone else.

DrMarkMicro

That looks like a dust/pollution-type mask, with exhalation valves? If so, it will indeed be a lot more comfortable, however they’re designed to protect the wearer from said dust/pollution, and they do little or nothing to filter or deflect exhalations (with or without added virus from the wearer’s upper respiratory tract).

Mostly people and authorities don’t seem to care, since the main reason for requiring or advising people to wear any sort of face covering seems to be to be seen to be ‘doing something’, but if one is going to wear a face covering it is worth taking care not to contaminate ones own face and/or hands when putting it on or taking it off and while storing it after use...
(You may well know all that, but it’s worth repetition since others often don’t!).

econ

SF Bay Area health department orders on face coverings specifically call out those types of masks (with one-way valves for exhalation) as ones that do not meet their requirements, FWIW.

DrMarkMicro

Well that’s good, but fairly unusual from what I’ve seen from some US, Canadian, U.K. and Australian ‘Official’ sources I checked out of interest a few days ago.

Kevin AA

The face masks with a one way valve are popular because they're cool looking, and the placebo effect is even greater.

estnet

Not only do they not "meet requirements" there is evidence that the valves result in INCREASED pressure of exhalation which could increase the distance an infected person spread virus - there's a reason these are not allowed!

narvik

If everyone is wearing a mask, it doesn't matter if the masks have a valve or not, as long as the masks are good at filtering out the virus from entering.
​​​​
Also, most valves tend to vent to the sides, so still better than no mask at all.

jmastron

I would disagree -- that might be true if everyone were wearing an N95 properly fitted, which we're not, and if we were *only* concerned about inhaled droplets, which we're not -- droplets entering via the eyes (we're not all wearing goggles), getting elsewhere on the face to touch and move later after you've washed your hands and think you're safe, or getting on other surfaces to be touched.

I admit I grabbed a few N95s with valves (on the front) at the beginning of all this, before realizing the valve is great when all you're worried about is inhaling smoke/paint fumes/etc, but are useless for protecting others. If someone here gets sick we might use them for the rest of us if we have to be nearby, but won't use them in public and I absolutely think they should be disallowed wherever masks are required, unless covered by another cloth mask.

rustykettel

They're also more comfortable. I use that type for woodworking and other dust producing stuff and much prefer them over ones without a valve.

estnet

And they're good for that - and were okay for use during high pollution (smoke after fires near me - air pollution in Bangkok) but not for protecting us from asymptomatic spreaders.

narvik

Re: "Exhaust valves" on N95+ masks

I wrote this back on March 1st, 2020:
"Also: the recommendation to wear a mask if you are sick should probably include the important distinction between N95 masks with a valve and those without. If you exhale whilst wearing a N95/N99/N100 mask that has a valve, the droplets get spewed out "unfiltered"!"

My concern at the time was that there was absolutely no distinction made when the CDC/W.H.O. was promoting the idea of only sick people having to wear masks.
If only infected/symptomatic people wear masks the need for non-vented types is/was MUCH more important than if everyone wears masks.
This apparently 'newly' discovered issue with the masks' exhaust valve seems to be rather late!

narvik

This is a great suggestion.