So: face masks do help reduce infection

[Tony125]

Here is another reason to wear one:

 

[nausea]

There are shortages. Front line health carers need them. Anyone outside of the front line hogging face masks ain't helping.

[aboctok]

On 4/2/2020 at 12:14 AM, edwardandtubs said:

Hong Kong scientists recently put it very succinctly: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

 

The supposed lack of evidence is due to a lack of research. But countries where most people do wear face masks seem to be doing a better job of reducing infections than those where most people don't.

A bit too succinctly. Sometimes absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence; sometimes it doesn't. Just because it has a ring to it doesn't make it a law of nature.

[edwardandtubs]

53 minutes ago, nausea said:

There are shortages. Front line health carers need them. Anyone outside of the front line hogging face masks ain't helping.

It's better to let the relevant authorities in whatever country you're in make that call. Clearly in Thailand it's been judged that people should be wearing masks so that's what we should all be doing.

[RocketDog]

7 hours ago, nausea said:

There are shortages. Front line health carers need them. Anyone outside of the front line hogging face masks ain't helping.

Make your own. Anything is better than nothing. 

[RocketDog]

Note that in my original post I was not passing off hearsay as science or fact. Again, do your own research, don't depend on rumors. 

 

What I did state is my belief that anything is better than nothing, not that it is perfect protection. ANY attempt to reduce infection is better than nothing and proves, if nothing else, that you understand the risk and are willing to respect the sane effort by those around you. 

 

I also stated that each person must judge their own risks and respond appropriately. In fact nobody cares if the dissenters get infected, but they dont want them to spread it. That's fair. Take whatever risks you want but don't force risk on others. 

 

So after 5 pages of replies its clear that most folks see the obvious point of masks and a few continue to support their rejection of common sense. These people will not change their stance at this point and will therefore become easy targets for the pro-mask zealots. Is that also an acceptable risk? 

 

In the end a personal decision can be made to use a mask when in public simply because it is not a grievous burden. 

 

Why is this so difficult to understand?

[WhereIsMyRyeBread]

14 hours ago, johno49 said:

If you are a healthy human there is no need to wear a mask, the mask covers the nose and mouth if there is particulates in the air from a sneezing or infected person they will still get in the eyes, hair, clothes, hands arms etc yea!!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

 

You talk as if the virus is radioactive. it's not.

If a droplet lands on your body, clothes, hands, arms, hair etc it doesn't mean you instantly contract it rendering a mask a useless barrier.
You still have a window of opportunity to wash your hands, clothes etc before you touch your face to get rid of the particles before it enters your airways.

 

A mask helps reducing the risk but in your case I'd recommend:
1. Gently grab hold of your underlip.

2. Drag it out and upwards over your head.

3. Swallow.


 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by WhereIsMyRyeBread

[Farangwithaplan]

12 hours ago, fhickson said:

its better then nothing

And where are the facts to back up your statement?

 

How do you sanitize yourself after you touch the mask? How are you disposing of the mask and how often are you changing the mask?

[RocketDog]

3 hours ago, Farangwithaplan said:

And where are the facts to back up your statement?

 

How do you sanitize yourself after you touch the mask? How are you disposing of the mask and how often are you changing the mask?

No facts to quote. 

Common sense. You see it or you don't.  A dam with holes in it is better than no dam. 

 

Mask maintenance and use is another matter. Don't deflect the conversation. 

 

Do your thing, and good luck. 

[Farangwithaplan]

2 hours ago, RocketDog said:

No facts to quote. 

Common sense. You see it or you don't. 

What a naive response. You don't know, you just an inkling that masks are better. Many things in life are counter intuitive.

 

Until facts are out there people should follow professional advice.

 

 

2 hours ago, RocketDog said:

A dam with holes in it is better than no dam. 

 

Just like a chainsaw getting picked up by the wrong end is still better than not picking up a chainsaw at all, eh?

 

But your dam analogy is wrong. It is not taking into account the whole story. To have your dam analogy correct it would need to have the variable for the virus. How about:

 

A dam with holes in it that is also getting poison tipped into it in unknown quantities is better than no dam.

 

Now that is an apt analogy. Good luck to your farm animals drinking from that dam with holes in it.

 

2 hours ago, RocketDog said:

Mask maintenance and use is another matter. Don't deflect the conversation.

Of course how a mask gets used is central to the point of whether masks should be used or not. Because people need to put on an take off a mask. People need to be educated in how to do that correctly - or is that just common sense, too?

 

Because from the way I have seen people interact with their own mask over the years I have been in asia is very concerning. For you to simply ignore that and claim I am trying to deflect the subject is astounding.

 

Do you really believe Thais, who were already in tough economic times before this outbreak, will bother to continue buying fresh masks and replace them at designated times? Do you really think they will dispose of them in a safe manner or throw them on a table?

 

What will they do when they eat? Will they follow correct procedure by lifting the mask, sanitizing their hands, eat, then replace mask and sanitize again?

 

And what about when they want to pick their nose, which is a very common trait in Thailand?

 

By the way, without looking it up, can you tell me how long each of the different common masks should be worn before they are to be replaced?

 

I hope you are safe, too. I just hope for your sake, your blind assumptions don't get you sick inadvertently.

[jacob29]

10 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

Of course how a mask gets used is central to the point of whether masks should be used or not. Because people need to put on an take off a mask. People need to be educated in how to do that correctly - or is that just common sense, too?

I have a paper demonstrating the efficacy of masks, but before I post it - I want you to provide me a study demonstrating the efficacy of masks drops below 'no mask wearing' with incorrect use.

[richard_smith237]

On 4/2/2020 at 12:18 PM, Estrada said:

Even the N95 0.3 micron cut off masks do not prevent the 0.12 micron wide corona virus passing through and into your lungs. Seondly, the 2 metre distancing is too short considering that a sneeze travels at 44metres per second and a cough at 22metres per second. With a wind or in doors in shopping malls and offices with central airconditiong systems with forced air ventilation ducts, they can travel up to 200metres. Stands to reason when you consider if your friend passes wind you know you can smell the fragrance at the other end of the room. My data comes from the testing organisation plus my experience working with the Germ Warfare establishment and the UK Ministry of Health to solve the legionella outbreak that killed 16 % of patients infected. The masks should be worn by those who are sick or are sneezing and coughing, to act as a baffle to slow down the discharged air.

 

The 0.12 micron (sized) 2019-nCoV is floating around the air on its own, it is attached to particulate and aerosol - the mask can filter ‘most / some’ of that aerosol and thus can have an impact on minimising contraction of Covid-19 if worn correctly along side other preventative measures. 

Additionally, ‘baffle’ idea is precisely what the masks are for - in this debate alone (on this forum) its alarming how many people are not aware of this.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Farangwithaplan said:

ust like a chainsaw getting picked up by the wrong end is still better than not picking up a chainsaw at all, eh?

 

But your dam analogy is wrong. It is not taking into account the whole story. To have your dam analogy correct it would need to have the variable for the virus. How about:

 

A dam with holes in it that is also getting poison tipped into it in unknown quantities is better than no dam.

 

Now that is an apt analogy. Good luck to your farm animals drinking from that dam with holes in it.

Ok, you like analogies (I think you must to suggest the above)

 

How about an analogy for a mask that is guaranteed to block 95% of all particles the size of a virus  and up to 100% of all small droplets that contain the vast majority of the virus particles released by people.

 

Now you and a friend get into a frequently used lift and go up 20 stories breathing residual air from previous passengers. Your friend wears this mask and you don't.  On exiting the lift, you have roughly a 100 times or greater probability of getting COVID-19 that your friend. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

On 4/2/2020 at 4:15 PM, Farangwithaplan said:

 

You are a poster boy for the Dunning Krueger effect. And sadly by its very definition you are oblivious to it.

 

He may be able to spell it though 

[richard_smith237]

20 hours ago, samsensam said:

20 hours ago, Ketyo said:

In fact I can add some evidence to this debate.

 

Since my minimart requires shoppers to wear a mask I do it.

 

Last week I sneezed with the mask on. 

 

I can confirm that the snot that comes out gets captured by the mask. If you push the mask to your face after that, your face will get covered in snot.

 

This means that the person in front of you gets less snot on them.

 

Where is my nobel prize for science?

 

unless a mask is air tight its effectiveness is seriously compromised

It's [mask] effectiveness is that wearing one is more effective than not wearing a mask in the prevention of spread of respiratory viruses - any barrier will have some impact. 

 

The debatable issue is whether or not the prevention of spread of the virus through wearing a mask balanced by the increased spread due to the negative factors such as increased hand to face contact with the mask etc, or poor disposal, or not changing the mask frequently. 

 

There are viable arguments on both sides of this debate, the issue is not as black and white as many are arguing.

 

Yet, when a mask is worn by someone who is contagious the spread is reduced, i don’t think there is any valid argument against this. 

 

And you [yes you reading this] do not know with any degree of certainty if you are contagious or not. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by richard_smith237

[rabas]

On 4/2/2020 at 3:18 PM, Estrada said:

Even the N95 0.3 micron cut off masks do not prevent the 0.12 micron wide corona virus passing through and into your lungs.

A common misconception. In truth, an N95 mask blocks 0.12μm particles better than it blocks 0.3μm particles.

 

In fact, 0.3μm particles have the highest penetrating power of any size, which is why masks are often rated with 0.3μm particles. If it blocks 0.3μm, it will surely block 1.0μm and 0.1μm particles. 

 

Why? Air flow and Brownian motion of very small particles. Particles the size of viruses are so small that air molecules push them back and forth so they travel like a wobbly drunk allowing them to get caught it the mask's fibres more easily.

 

IOW, mask work well when used properly.

Edited April 3, 2020 by rabas

[RocketDog]

2 hours ago, Farangwithaplan said:

What a naive response. You don't know, you just an inkling that masks are better. Many things in life are counter intuitive.

 

Until facts are out there people should follow professional advice.

 

 

Just like a chainsaw getting picked up by the wrong end is still better than not picking up a chainsaw at all, eh?

 

But your dam analogy is wrong. It is not taking into account the whole story. To have your dam analogy correct it would need to have the variable for the virus. How about:

 

A dam with holes in it that is also getting poison tipped into it in unknown quantities is better than no dam.

 

Now that is an apt analogy. Good luck to your farm animals drinking from that dam with holes in it.

 

Of course how a mask gets used is central to the point of whether masks should be used or not. Because people need to put on an take off a mask. People need to be educated in how to do that correctly - or is that just common sense, too?

 

Because from the way I have seen people interact with their own mask over the years I have been in asia is very concerning. For you to simply ignore that and claim I am trying to deflect the subject is astounding.

 

Do you really believe Thais, who were already in tough economic times before this outbreak, will bother to continue buying fresh masks and replace them at designated times? Do you really think they will dispose of them in a safe manner or throw them on a table?

 

What will they do when they eat? Will they follow correct procedure by lifting the mask, sanitizing their hands, eat, then replace mask and sanitize again?

 

And what about when they want to pick their nose, which is a very common trait in Thailand?

 

By the way, without looking it up, can you tell me how long each of the different common masks should be worn before they are to be replaced?

 

I hope you are safe, too. I just hope for your sake, your blind assumptions don't get you sick inadvertently.

You're right and I was wrong.

[Farangwithaplan]

10 hours ago, jacob29 said:

I have a paper demonstrating the efficacy of masks, but before I post it - I want you to provide me a study demonstrating the efficacy of masks drops below 'no mask wearing' with incorrect use.

Not a paper but guidance from WHO. Who I tend to trust over certain Health ministers of certain Asian countries based on what I have seen so far. Are you suggesting WHO is wrong and have read literature incorrectly? If so, this is a very important thing indeed.

 

You seem to avoided countering my concerns of sanitary mask usage amongst the population? Is that because you agree with my concerns or not?

 

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

 

8 hours ago, rabas said:

Ok, you like analogies (I think you must to suggest the above)

 

How about an analogy for a mask that is guaranteed to block 95% of all particles the size of a virus  and up to 100% of all small droplets that contain the vast majority of the virus particles released by people.

 

Now you and a friend get into a frequently used lift and go up 20 stories breathing residual air from previous passengers. Your friend wears this mask and you don't.  On exiting the lift, you have roughly a 100 times or greater probability of getting COVID-19 that your friend. 

 

 

I wasn't aware it was proven that residual air was so dangerous. As I have already stated, if the leading experts such as WHO suggest to wear masks, I'm all for it. Until then, I am not going to be a burden on the health supplies.

 

So you have made that point, great. Are you confident the friend will safely sanitize after taking off the mask?

 

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

He may be able to spell it though 

Yes, I do tend to make errors when typing on a phone. Good of you to notice.

 

[Tony125]

On 4/3/2020 at 2:08 AM, nausea said:

There are shortages. Front line health carers need them. Anyone outside of the front line hogging face masks ain't helping.

More masks are being made an available so health care workers  should have enough. Also CDC has changed course and recomends some type of face covering. Doesn't have to be surgical or N95 but some type of covering even hand made. Before they didn't want to sugest everyone wear  and cause a panic and hording of surgical and N95 masks , article below.

New face mask guidance comes after battle between White House and CDC

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-face-mask-guidance-comes-after-battle-between-white-house-and-cdc/ar-BB128LUw?li=BBnb7Kz

 

 

How to make a face mask out of fabric — with or without sewing

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/how-to-make-a-face-mask-out-of-fabric-—-with-or-without-sewing/ar-BB128EZY?li=BBnbfcL

Edited April 4, 2020 by Tony125

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, Farangwithaplan said:

Not a paper but guidance from WHO. Who I tend to trust over certain Health ministers of certain Asian countries based on what I have seen so far. Are you suggesting WHO is wrong and have read literature incorrectly? If so, this is a very important thing indeed.

 

 

 

 

There seems to be a ‘turn around on this issue’.

 

Wearing a facemark is obviously not a perfect solution - as discussed and mentioned many times (on this and other threads as well as publications) wearing facemark involves ‘additional’ risks, mostly associated with increased habit (face touching), reuse of used masks, poor disposal of masks. The debate has also involved discussion regarding the hoarding of masks so that those on the ‘front lines’ don’t ready access to frequent replacement. 

 

The aggregate benefits of wearing a mask has also been debated. They offer incomplete protection for the wearer and are more of a limiting measure limiting the spread of aerosol from unwitting carriers rather than actually being an absolute preventative measure. 

 

So the question begs: Do the pro’s of wearing a mask outweigh the cons. 

 

The WHO have advised against mask use, this may have been to prevent ‘panic buying’ and ‘hoarding’ of N95 masks which were otherwise needed more urgently by those on the front lines. 

 

Now that manufacturing is catching up general consensus is becoming more uniform in the advice to wear a mask to prevent spread (not to prevent contraction) and thus the ‘barrier’ idea has become more prevalent as the population begin to understand why masks, along with many other important methods such as washing hands are vital in the reduction of spread. 

[edwardandtubs]

Here is that new CDC guidance recommending wearing face masks:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html

 

Soon it'll just be our little band of angry Thaivisa posters arguing against the obvious.

[Farangwithaplan]

4 hours ago, edwardandtubs said:

Here is that new CDC guidance recommending wearing face masks:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html

 

Soon it'll just be our little band of angry Thaivisa posters arguing against the obvious.

Are you suggesting me being angry? Not at all. And I have said from the very start that if and when WHO change their stance, I will be straight onto following them.

 

But some people have been saying that it is just 'common sense' that masks are better. But it not just common sense. There are much deeper aspects of wearing masks, that I have previously noted and Richard_Smith237 again noted in his post prior to yours.

 

Blind faith without education can be harmful. There are always unintended consequences. If Who change their stance, it will prove right some people despite their blind ignorance. I would like you to play the ball and comment on the negatives of mask wearing instead of copping out and playing the man. Do you have that capacity instead of just offering cop out sound bites?

[Tony125]

6 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

Are you suggesting me being angry? Not at all. And I have said from the very start that if and when WHO change their stance, I will be straight onto following them.

 

But some people have been saying that it is just 'common sense' that masks are better. But it not just common sense. There are much deeper aspects of wearing masks, that I have previously noted and Richard_Smith237 again noted in his post prior to yours.

 

Blind faith without education can be harmful. There are always unintended consequences. If Who change their stance, it will prove right some people despite their blind ignorance. I would like you to play the ball and comment on the negatives of mask wearing instead of copping out and playing the man. Do you have that capacity instead of just offering cop out sound bites?

Your the one who had  blind faith (with out education) in the WHO ---who most of us knew were lying because they didn't want a run on masks deleting the supply for health workers and others who needed them. Thje rest of us are educated and do know what the masks do and did not blindly follow the recomendations of the WHO or CDC that now  prove to have been false. You blindly followed their  recomendations but now said you will change if they recomend masks. Don't always be so quick to follow even Gov recomendations---some time ou need to think for yourself.

 

[jacob29]

 

 

12 hours ago, Farangwithaplan said:

Not a paper but guidance from WHO. Who I tend to trust over certain Health ministers of certain Asian countries based on what I have seen so far. Are you suggesting WHO is wrong and have read literature incorrectly? If so, this is a very important thing indeed.

 

You seem to avoided countering my concerns of sanitary mask usage amongst the population? Is that because you agree with my concerns or not?

It's pretty clear by now the WHO has got a lot wrong. Remember their advice 'no need to avoid travel', issued early February? Whoops.

 

The short answer for sanitary re-use is don't re-use. Single use, else boil in water for the cloth type masks. Since masks aren't in sufficient supply, single use is not practical. In practice, assuming you don't touch all over the inside of the mask, why would removing it safely and hanging it somewhere, increase odds of transmission later? You can re-use with a bit of care, without increasing the odds of viral transmission greatly - to suggest otherwise flies in the face of logic. What's the mechanical difference between wearing it for 8 hours, versus wearing it 2 hours daily with correct donning.. unless you think something magical happens when it is removed? Which is to say, leave it in sun for 2-3 days and your odds of it still being a transmission vector are likely to be very, very low. It survives less than 24 hours on cardboard, and less than 72 hours on pretty much all surface types. That's not very robust scientific guidance, and you would be right to say that's not good enough in the absence of superior alternatives - but there are no superior alternatives. 'Nothing' has not been demonstrated to be a superior alternative, that's why I'm asking for your evidence to demonstrate it's worse than nothing, as it would seem that's where the burden of proof lies.

 

[Farangwithaplan]

1 hour ago, Tony125 said:

Your the one who had  blind faith (with out education) in the WHO ---who most of us knew were lying

 

You had no idea they were or are lying. That is your pure bias. If It wasn't bias you would give facts to back your statement.

 

[Farangwithaplan]

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

 

 

It's pretty clear by now the WHO has got a lot wrong. Remember their advice 'no need to avoid travel', issued early February? Whoops.

 

The short answer for sanitary re-use is don't re-use. Single use, else boil in water for the cloth type masks. Since masks aren't in sufficient supply, single use is not practical. In practice, assuming you don't touch all over the inside of the mask, why would removing it safely and hanging it somewhere, increase odds of transmission later? You can re-use with a bit of care, without increasing the odds of viral transmission greatly - to suggest otherwise flies in the face of logic. What's the mechanical difference between wearing it for 8 hours, versus wearing it 2 hours daily with correct donning.. unless you think something magical happens when it is removed? Which is to say, leave it in sun for 2-3 days and your odds of it still being a transmission vector are likely to be very, very low. It survives less than 24 hours on cardboard, and less than 72 hours on pretty much all surface types. That's not very robust scientific guidance, and you would be right to say that's not good enough in the absence of superior alternatives - but there are no superior alternatives. 'Nothing' has not been demonstrated to be a superior alternative, that's why I'm asking for your evidence to demonstrate it's worse than nothing, as it would seem that's where the burden of proof lies.

 

So you believe the majority of Thais are actually doing that? That is the whole premise of my point.

[jacob29]

5 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

So you believe the majority of Thais are actually doing that? That is the whole premise of my point.

I can only guess as to how less effective the masks are if not handled properly. The thing is, the objective is to reduce transmission to others, not to protect the wearer. So even if the wearer has increased risk of getting infected, they will continue to minimize the risk of transmission to others, which is likely to be a net win.

 

The WHO guidance seems to keep making the point, that the reason for their guidance is because they're not sure it's worth the cost of medical shortages to medical staff, and uncertainty over how many asymptomatic people there are. They don't seem to be saying it's because mask usage is inherently worse than no mask.

[Tony125]

2 hours ago, Farangwithaplan said:

You had no idea they were or are lying. That is your pure bias. If It wasn't bias you would give facts to back your statement.

 

I have stated  in many posts my reasons not going to go thru them again with you.

US coronavirus: CDC recommends Americans wear face masks voluntarily in public

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-coronavirus-cdc-recommends-americans-wear-face-masks-voluntarily-in-puB126TGU?li=BBnb7Kz

 

After  9:18 of this vid this Dr will explai why everyone should wear a mask

 

 

[sirineou]

On 4/1/2020 at 10:08 PM, Berkshire said:

Agree.  I am a late adopter myself, believing the initial western commentary that those healthy need not wear one.  Regardless of whether you're protecting yourself, it's always been clear that you're protecting others by not exposing them to your ills. 

 

And that's the point now: Wearing a mask today tells everyone else that you respect them enough to not want to expose what you may have to them.  Conversely, not wearing a mask tells them you don't give a freak about them or their health.  Remember that one can have COVID and be asymptomatic, i.e., not even know that you have it.  Just consider why surgeons always were a mask when they're operating on a patient.

 

There are still some farangs in Thailand clinging to their beliefs about freedom of choice and all that.  Personally, I'd much prefer to be in room full of strangers where everyone donned a mask, as opposed to being in a room with those not wearing masks. 

Not entirely altruism but also a healthy dose of self preservation. Less people infected is good for all of as, it decreases the chances of our infection, and free up resources to be applied to us if we were to get infected.

At this point not wearing a mask in public,  not only exposes one's selfishness but also one's stupidity.

You might as well wear a big L on your forehead for Loser. 

[Why Me]

On 4/2/2020 at 9:08 AM, Berkshire said:

Wearing a mask today tells everyone else that you respect them enough to not want to expose what you may have to them.

Well said. That is exactly the reason to wear a mask whether one agrees or not that it a health benefit. I was going out without a mask per WHO guidelines (which actually might be wrong) until I sensed few days ago I was making people uncomfortable. 

 

So got a 35b. mask right away and wear it now. Hardly a burden to mask up for the occasional foray outside.