A DIY face mask and other ways to fight the Corona virus

  • 03 Apr 2020 18:42
    Reply # 8877594 on 8855224

    Trump's mother comes from Scotland, which may cast some doubts on the efficacy of Scottish judgement. :-)


    Aach, I know ye Scots are a canny lot.  The Donald obviously hasn't got his mother's genes.


    Advice here in Ireland at the moment is not to wear a mask, though they are starting to lean that way a little. 

    Reasons;. Ordinary people, unlike medical professionals, are likely to use the mask more than once due to lack of supply increasing risk of infection if exposed to several infected persons.

    Civilians buying PPE make it harder for the medics to get their hands the PPE they need as manufacturers sell to all and sundry.

    Here in Ireland the current advice is that, as  long you stay at least 2 metres away and are not close to an infected person for more than 15 minutes, you should be ok.

    If they are coughing and sneezing, that's a different story.

    IF they are , RUN LIKE BLAZES!!!


  • 03 Apr 2020 13:33
    Reply # 8876831 on 8855224

    This is really difficult:

    Trump says you should wear one.

    The Chief Medical Officer in Scotland says not.

    ......just who should I believe! 

  • 02 Apr 2020 17:59
    Reply # 8875175 on 8873987
    Deleted user
    Anonymous wrote:


    David,
    now, it appears that WHO and others are approaching the same way of thinking as  was my motive for using a mask:
    They write;

    • “One or two days before symptoms develop, it seems [people] may be shedding virus at that time and it may be that if they’re talking and spewing droplets around they may be spreading the virus.”

     

    That’s how I have been reasoning. I may be infected without knowing, so better protect others from me. Can’t hurt...

    Arne

    PS:
    CNN reports from a corona-test made on Iceland. Half of those who were infected, notice no symptoms. In other words, they may walk around infecting others. Now, that’s why I am advocating the use of masks.
    Better safe than sorry.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/
    europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html




    Arne, if you could provide me with a link to a scientific resource that supports talking as way of spreading infectious droplets I would appreciate it.  Coughing and sneezing are known to do this, but everyone who is coughing and sneezing are supposed to stay home.

    Last modified: 02 Apr 2020 18:00 | Deleted user
  • 02 Apr 2020 17:56
    Reply # 8875167 on 8873800
    Deleted user
    Anonymous wrote:

    WHO considers changing guidance on wearing face masks

    "The World Health Organization is considering changing its guidance on whether people should wear face masks in public, prompted by new evidence that suggests doing so could help contain the pandemic.

    The WHO, and the UK government, currently advise that face masks do not play a major role in protecting people from infection outside healthcare settings. But there are growing calls for this stance to be reviewed, with suggestions that the widespread use of face masks may have played a role in containing outbreaks in some Asian countries."

    If you look across the countries that have done well containing COVID-19, they all share the common thread of starting physical distancing earlier, and having aggressive programs for testing and tracing contacts.  Both Hong Kong and South Korea were hard hit by SARS and thus had the experience and emotional reaction to know how important it was to react quickly.  Other countries failed to react quickly and the virus become widespread before they started trying to contain it.  Some countries really didn't have effective testing until the virus was widespread.  The countries that had good testing and started physical distancing earlier happen to be places where people tend to wear face masks (in part because many areas of those countries can be crowded).  I've yet to see an analysis that parses the data so that the effect of effective testing an early action is separated from wearing face masks.  There is good evidence that testing (to trace contacts and isolate) and social distancing work.  The available evidence just doesn't support that facemasks help when worn by the general public.
  • 02 Apr 2020 17:13
    Reply # 8875046 on 8855224
    Deleted user


    Here is one of number of  interesting pieces on VIRAL DOSE.   The text below is incomplete, the heading is to the original NYT article.    In another article there was a discussion of how in India during the smallpox epidemic,  local "doctors" were using a needle to capture some of the pus from smallpox sores... in very small quantities and only at specific stages, and using it to "inoculate" people.  The result was a very minor illness if done properly, which would then create an immunity.  This was one of the first documented uses of inoculation, and it's thought to have originated .... guess where...China!!    Thus by the same token, being exposed to a small a mount of Wuhan virus, you are likely to suffer minimal symptoms, and develop immunity.   Essentially your immune system can outpace the virus faster.   Thus the use of face masks and hand washing, while it may NOT shield you 100%, may block enough virus to result in a minor illness only.  In the end, I'd rather have minor flu like symptoms for several days or a week and then an immunity, than avoid it entirely and get hit full force a year from now!

                                                                             H.W.




    These Coronavirus Exposures Might Be the Most Dangerous

    As with any other poison, viruses are usually deadlier in larger amounts.

    By Joshua D. Rabinowitz and Caroline R. Bartman

    Dr. Rabinowitz is a professor of chemistry and genomics. Dr. Bartman is a genomic researcher.

    The importance of viral dose is being overlooked in discussions of the coronavirus. As with any other poison, viruses are usually more dangerous in larger amounts. Small initial exposures tend to lead to mild or asymptomatic infections, while larger doses can be lethal.

    From a policy perspective, we need to consider that not all exposures to the coronavirus may be the same. Stepping into an office building that once had someone with the coronavirus in it is not as dangerous as sitting next to that infected person for an hourlong train commute.

    This may seem obvious, but many people are not making this distinction. We need to focus more on preventing high-dose infection.

    Both small and large amounts of virus can replicate within our cells and cause severe disease in vulnerable individuals such as the immunocompromised. In healthy people, however, immune systems respond as soon as they sense a virus growing inside. Recovery depends on which wins the race: viral spread or immune activation.

    Virus experts know that viral dose affects illness severity. In the lab, mice receiving a low dose of virus clear it and recover, while the same virus at a higher dose kills them. Dose sensitivity has been observed for every common acute viral infection that has been studied in lab animals, including coronaviruses.

    People should take particular care against high-dose exposures, which are most likely to occur in close in-person interactions — such as coffee meetings, crowded bars and quiet time in a room with Grandma — and from touching our faces after getting substantial amounts of virus on our hands. In-person interactions are more dangerous in enclosed spaces and at short distances, with dose escalating with exposure time. For transient interactions that violate the rule of maintaining six feet between you and others, such as paying a cashier at the grocery store, keep them brief — aim for “within six feet, only six seconds.”

    Because dose matters, medical personnel face an extreme risk, since they deal with the sickest, highest-viral-load patients. We must prioritize protective gear for them.

    At the same time, we need to avoid a panicked overreaction to low-dose exposures. Clothing and food packaging that have been exposed to someone with the virus seem to present a low risk. Healthy people who are together in the grocery store or workplace experience a tolerable risk — so long as they take precautions like wearing surgical masks and spacing themselves out.

    A complete lockdown of society is the most effective way to stop spread of the virus, but it is costly both economically and psychologically. When society eventually reopens, risk-reduction measures like maintaining personal space and practicing proper hand-washing will be essential to reducing high-dose infections. High-risk sites for high-dose exposure, like stadiums and convention venues, should remain shuttered. Risky but essential services like public transportation should be allowed to operate — but people must follow safety measures such as wearing masks, maintaining physical spacing and never commuting with a fever.

  • 02 Apr 2020 16:57
    Reply # 8874991 on 8855224
    Deleted user

    The cruise ships that have been held offshore are excellent petri dishes for studying the behavior of this virus.  I read some  numbers recently on a study done of the passengers on one of them.... mostly older people, and the percentage of asymptomatic carriers was shockingly high, leading to the conclusion that in the broader population including younger people it may be as high as 40+%   This is the reason it  is so difficult to contain... along with stupidly irresponsible people.   Thanks to Faux News, and president tRump, many people are still not taking this seriously here, believing it is "no worse than flu".   "Experts" keep changing their tune...no face masks, face masks, 2M distance is "safe", only coughing and sneezing created droplets are the problem.... now even micro droplets from mere breathing are recognized to be the real threat... as they stay in the air as aerosols longer.   It is probable that this will run through the entire world over the next couple of years. Vaccines will likely be too little too late. 

         

  • 02 Apr 2020 11:48
    Reply # 8873987 on 8855224
    Anonymous member (Administrator)


    David,
    now, it appears that WHO and others are approaching the same way of thinking as  was my motive for using a mask:
    They write;

    • “One or two days before symptoms develop, it seems [people] may be shedding virus at that time and it may be that if they’re talking and spewing droplets around they may be spreading the virus.”

     

    That’s how I have been reasoning. I may be infected without knowing, so better protect others from me. Can’t hurt...

    Arne

    PS:
    CNN reports from a corona-test made on Iceland. Half of those who were infected, notice no symptoms. In other words, they may walk around infecting others. Now, that’s why I am advocating the use of masks.
    Better safe than sorry.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/
    europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl/index.html




    Last modified: 02 Apr 2020 16:34 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 02 Apr 2020 08:21
    Reply # 8873800 on 8855224

    WHO considers changing guidance on wearing face masks

    "The World Health Organization is considering changing its guidance on whether people should wear face masks in public, prompted by new evidence that suggests doing so could help contain the pandemic.

    The WHO, and the UK government, currently advise that face masks do not play a major role in protecting people from infection outside healthcare settings. But there are growing calls for this stance to be reviewed, with suggestions that the widespread use of face masks may have played a role in containing outbreaks in some Asian countries."

  • 01 Apr 2020 23:33
    Reply # 8873259 on 8855224
    Deleted user

    Graeme, 

    I think what you are seeing in the US has nothing to do with science.  There is no new data about the efficacy of masks (both how they help in hospitals and how they have little or no effect when worn by the general public).  What is new is that there is a president that wants America back to work in a couple of weeks and that would mean ending physical distancing.  That, coupled with people becoming increasingly worried about the outbreak and wanting to wear masks because they see other people wearing masks, means the use of masks by the general public will likely continue to increase.  I think this will be a disaster in the US where there are already shortages of masks for hospital staff.   The stupidity of the decision is staggering.

    That said, if you're in a country that chooses to end social isolation then wearing a mask might make sense if you have to be in close proximity to others.  This video and this webpage do a pretty good job of covering the basics.  I think if you watch people with masks in public you'll see that the vast majority are doing it wrong.  If you are using a disposable mask, they're meant to be thrown away anytime you touch them with your hands (exempting when you put it on with sterilised hands).  If you make a cloth mask, make a bunch so you can change them, when you take it off realise everything it touches is contaminated with everything from you and anything the mask might of filtered from the air, as such the mask is great for spreading disease anytime you touch or remove it.   In other words, it is still all about your hands.

    It's also important to be careful if you experiment with home protective solutions, even if you're an astrophysicist it can all go terribly wrong  :-)



    Last modified: 01 Apr 2020 23:43 | Deleted user
  • 01 Apr 2020 22:48
    Reply # 8873191 on 8855224
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    There seems to be much debate in the media on this subject, these days.I have come partly around to Darren's point of view on this issue, and remain neutral now. I've got a supply of masks and also plenty of materials for making DIY masks too - but as I no longer go out I have realised I don't really need them anyway.

    I got an email from an American friend of mine whose wife is has been sewing for 3 different hospitals: gowns (waterproof), masks and hats. He wrote:

    "There were 2 designs she has worked on. The first was for Salem Hospital and was simple. She did 32 practically overnight. The second design was for Santiam Hospital. She got the kits yesterday. They are much more complicated.

    She sews to the requested design and does not design them herself. The Samtiam Hospital design uses pipe cleaners to stiffen the area around the nose.

    The CDC reversed their mask ruling after some items came out. MIT found droplets could travel 27 ft and the N65 (or maybe it is N95) masks were droplet capturing and very useful."

    He sent a couple of images, you can click on them to enlarge


    We were being told that New Zealand has a large supply of safety equipment in reserve for the health service and front line workers. Certain recent public government utterances about the amount of protective equipment which is now on order from China and not yet delivered makes me a little sceptical of what we were initially told, so I intend to just wait and see.

    Initially I felt pleased with our Government’s early moves towards lock-down and isolation – before the country even had its first death form the virus. Recently I am beginning to feel doubts. Returnees are still entering the country, and at the border a statistical approach is being taken to the question of testing and isolation. Those who are asymptomatic are released at the border to return to their homes and voluntarily self-isolate. Only those who show symptoms are put into compulsory isolation.

    Border control, the Police and Customs (and probably all Government Departments) have a strongly entrenched culture of “targeting” based on probability, and an acceptance that 100% success is never a practical proposition. This is motivated by simple economics and in the normal situation is the most pragmatic approach. But smuggling is not an infectious disease, and the accidental import of unwanted pests is an economic problem, not a problem of human life and death.

    IMHO dealing with a lethal virus requires a different paradigm – more akin to a “no tolerance” policy. Discriminating between symptomatic and asymptomatic people is an irrational basis for policy decision, in the case of a virus where transmission is evidently not dependent of whether the client is showing symptoms. I fear our Government is now making a fundamental policy mistake which may undo the advantages we gained from the early precautionary approach which was taken.



       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software