Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Hobbit]

I’m asked to wear a mask so I do so. I don’t believe if them and the science is very much split with regards their efficacy, it’s not black or white.

There’s more than enough hard data on nuclei size, including when the virus is carried on droplets from coughs and sneezes, to indicate the efficacy of different masks. using the data below, if you walked into a Covid rich environment the mask could filter over 90% of the virus. You could still catch it but, importantly, the viral load would be massively reduced.

You choose not to believe the data because it suits what you want to believe. That’s absolutely your choice. I prefer to wear a seat belt because it might save my life. It’s not guaranteed but it’s better then chancing it, and the data supports that choice.

N95 masks are designed to remove more than 95% of all particles that are at least 0.3 microns (µm) in diameter. In fact, measurements of the particle filtration efficiency of N95 masks show that they are capable of filtering ≈99.8% of particles with a diameter of ≈0.1 μm (Rengasamy et al., 2017). SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ≈0.1 μm in diameter, so N95 masks are capable of filtering most free virions, but they do more than that. How so? Viruses are often transmitted through respiratory droplets produced by coughing and sneezing. Respiratory droplets are usually divided into two size bins, large droplets (>5 μm in diameter) that fall rapidly to the ground and are thus transmitted only over short distances, and small droplets (≤5 μm in diameter). Small droplets can evaporate into 'droplet nuclei', remain suspended in air for significant periods of time and could be inhaled. Some viruses, such as measles, can be transmitted by droplet nuclei (Tellier et al., 2019). Larger droplets are also known to transmit viruses, usually by settling onto surfaces that are touched and transported by hands onto mucosal membranes such as the eyes, nose and mouth (CDC, 2020). The characteristic diameter of large droplets produced by sneezing is ~100 μm (Han et al., 2013), while the diameter of droplet nuclei produced by coughing is on the order of ~1 μm (Yang et al., 2007). At present, it is unclear whether surfaces or air are the dominant mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but N95 masks should provide some protection against both (Jefferson et al., 2009; Leung et al., 2020).

 

[Kellfire]

Well I got pinged for the first time by the app so I’m working from home until Thursday as well as doing daily LFTs. Can’t say I’m too sad about that in this mini heat wave.

 

[Ethan]

There’s more than enough hard data on nuclei size, including when the virus is carried on droplets from coughs and sneezes, to indicate the efficacy of different masks. using the data below, if you walked into a Covid rich environment the mask could filter over 90% of the virus. You could still catch it but, importantly, the viral load would be massively reduced.

You choose not to believe the data because it suits what you want to believe. That’s absolutely your choice. I prefer to wear a seat belt because it might save my life. It’s not guaranteed but it’s better then chancing it, and the data supports that choice.

N95 masks are designed to remove more than 95% of all particles that are at least 0.3 microns (µm) in diameter. In fact, measurements of the particle filtration efficiency of N95 masks show that they are capable of filtering ≈99.8% of particles with a diameter of ≈0.1 μm (Rengasamy et al., 2017). SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ≈0.1 μm in diameter, so N95 masks are capable of filtering most free virions, but they do more than that. How so? Viruses are often transmitted through respiratory droplets produced by coughing and sneezing. Respiratory droplets are usually divided into two size bins, large droplets (>5 μm in diameter) that fall rapidly to the ground and are thus transmitted only over short distances, and small droplets (≤5 μm in diameter). Small droplets can evaporate into 'droplet nuclei', remain suspended in air for significant periods of time and could be inhaled. Some viruses, such as measles, can be transmitted by droplet nuclei (Tellier et al., 2019). Larger droplets are also known to transmit viruses, usually by settling onto surfaces that are touched and transported by hands onto mucosal membranes such as the eyes, nose and mouth (CDC, 2020). The characteristic diameter of large droplets produced by sneezing is ~100 μm (Han et al., 2013), while the diameter of droplet nuclei produced by coughing is on the order of ~1 μm (Yang et al., 2007). At present, it is unclear whether surfaces or air are the dominant mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but N95 masks should provide some protection against both (Jefferson et al., 2009; Leung et al., 2020).

Excellent post. I hope, although wouldn't bet my lunch money on it, that should put this matter to rest now.

 

[road2ruin]

There’s more than enough hard data on nuclei size, including when the virus is carried on droplets from coughs and sneezes, to indicate the efficacy of different masks. using the data below, if you walked into a Covid rich environment the mask could filter over 90% of the virus. You could still catch it but, importantly, the viral load would be massively reduced.

You choose not to believe the data because it suits what you want to believe. That’s absolutely your choice. I prefer to wear a seat belt because it might save my life. It’s not guaranteed but it’s better then chancing it, and the data supports that choice.

N95 masks are designed to remove more than 95% of all particles that are at least 0.3 microns (µm) in diameter. In fact, measurements of the particle filtration efficiency of N95 masks show that they are capable of filtering ≈99.8% of particles with a diameter of ≈0.1 μm (Rengasamy et al., 2017). SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ≈0.1 μm in diameter, so N95 masks are capable of filtering most free virions, but they do more than that. How so? Viruses are often transmitted through respiratory droplets produced by coughing and sneezing. Respiratory droplets are usually divided into two size bins, large droplets (>5 μm in diameter) that fall rapidly to the ground and are thus transmitted only over short distances, and small droplets (≤5 μm in diameter). Small droplets can evaporate into 'droplet nuclei', remain suspended in air for significant periods of time and could be inhaled. Some viruses, such as measles, can be transmitted by droplet nuclei (Tellier et al., 2019). Larger droplets are also known to transmit viruses, usually by settling onto surfaces that are touched and transported by hands onto mucosal membranes such as the eyes, nose and mouth (CDC, 2020). The characteristic diameter of large droplets produced by sneezing is ~100 μm (Han et al., 2013), while the diameter of droplet nuclei produced by coughing is on the order of ~1 μm (Yang et al., 2007). At present, it is unclear whether surfaces or air are the dominant mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but N95 masks should provide some protection against both (Jefferson et al., 2009; Leung et al., 2020).

I'm not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether it's just an early start on a Monday morning however you are completely missing my point. If you take a moment to go back and have a read you will see that I have, at no point, said that all masks do not work. I have said that CLOTH MASKS do not work and this was based on SAGE adviser Colin Axon:

Standard face coverings are just "comfort blankets" that do little to reduce the spread of Covid particles, a scientist advising Sage on ventilation has said.

Dr Colin Axon, who has advised the government on minimising the risk of cross-infection in supermarkets, accused medics of presenting a "cartoonish" view of how how tiny particles travel through the air.

He warned some cloth masks have gaps which are invisible to the naked eye, but are 500,000 times the size of viral Covid particles.

As you can see, this isn't Dr Steve from Facebook this is from someone qualified to comment.

Your post giving the information on N95 mask is all very interesting and is probably correct but again it is completely irrelevant in proving me wrong as your using a different mask and it's efficacy as a completely different example, some might say to suit your argument and point of view.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether it's just an early start on a Monday morning however you are completely missing my point. If you take a moment to go back and have a read you will see that I have, at no point, said that all masks do not work. I have said that CLOTH MASKS do not work and this was based on SAGE adviser Colin Axon:

Standard face coverings are just "comfort blankets" that do little to reduce the spread of Covid particles, a scientist advising Sage on ventilation has said.

Dr Colin Axon, who has advised the government on minimising the risk of cross-infection in supermarkets, accused medics of presenting a "cartoonish" view of how how tiny particles travel through the air.

He warned some cloth masks have gaps which are invisible to the naked eye, but are 500,000 times the size of viral Covid particles.

As you can see, this isn't Dr Steve from Facebook this is from someone qualified to comment.

Your post giving the information on N95 mask is all very interesting and is probably correct but again it is completely irrelevant in proving me wrong as your using a different mask and it's efficacy as a completely different example, some might say to suit your argument and point of view.

And to go back to my first post in the discussion with you, you choose a cloth mask, which you admit is useless, when there’s clear data showing the difference a decent mask makes. So just who is being obtuse?

My choice, proven right by the mountains of qualified data, helps protect you. Your choice puts people at risk. Obtuse and selfish?

 

[Ethan]

Can we agree that useless masks are useless, decent ones are better and high quality ones better still, and therefore people should be encouraged to wear at least decent ones?

 

[RichA]

Just finished my commute to work. Train from Herts into Liverpool Street then Central Line into east London.
Purely anecdotal, but the vast majority were wearing masks. In fact, about the same as last week.

 

[Fade and Die]

Can we agree that useless masks are useless, decent ones are better and high quality ones better still, and therefore people should be encouraged to wear at least decent ones?

Sounds reasonable but a decent mask without face fit testing renders them pretty useless, so I would say almost all masks worn by the general public must be considered ineffective.

 

[jim8flog]

.[/QUOTE]

Two g’children, one 8 months old and one 6 months old that we’ve not seen yet.

Is the mum sure they are all out

 

[jim8flog]

And with hard work, eradicated smallpox. It didn’t happen overnight and, sadly, there will be casualties but learn to live with it we will.

One of the things I remember about small pox was that we were not allowed to holiday in Spain unless we had a small pox vaccination.

Maybe just a slightly poor child hood memory but I was vaccinated before travelling there at 8 years old.

 

[larmen]

Just finished my commute to work. Train from Herts into Liverpool Street then Central Line into east London.
Purely anecdotal, but the vast majority were wearing masks. In fact, about the same as last week.

How full was the train, also compared to last week?

 

[jim8flog]

What about the member of SAGE who came out and said that cloth masks are a complete waste of time a ‘safety blanket’ as the size of the virus are far smaller than the size of the holes in a cloth mask which the vast majority wear. Surely if masks are to be kept then at least have people wearing something that will do some sort of job.

This was the advice from the start of this pandemic. The reason behind wearing ordinary cloth and simple 3 layer paper masks for Mr Average is to protect other by stopping how far droplets etc will travel.

I doubt that many would wear the type of masks that protect themselves simply on the basis of cost.

 

[BTatHome]

I'm pretty sure the issue with everybody's conflicting views on face masks is the huge variation in masks, and the terminology used by some. The views of experts is much summed up by the words used, and terms like "some cloth masks" just don't get through to most people, and they remember only small parts of what has been read.

Masks that are considered useless are surely not 100% useless, and if it stops a lot of the droplets then it is performing some function.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Things change from today, whatever your thoughts, feelings etc, stay safe and fingers crossed nobody we know is affected badly.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

This was the advice from the start of this pandemic. The reason behind wearing ordinary cloth and simple 3 layer paper masks for Mr Average is to protect other by stopping how far droplets etc will travel.

I doubt that many would wear the type of masks that protect themselves simply on the basis of cost.

Yes, IIRC, I think it was Prof Whitty , in one of the first briefings,explaining that masks weren't necessary because they stop only droplets, and if people kept to 2 metres apart the droplets don't travel beyond that distance.
So, what about aerosol transmission? Hobbits post explains that (some?) present day masks filter the virus particle. The blue ones I have- straightforward bought online- claim to be to a standard PM 2.5, which when I looked it up says it will filter particles of Covid size.
If that is correct, and subject to the "fitting" argument, then it seems they help protect.
But a number of claims need to be correct and accurate!

 

[Imurg]

Its not much of a change for me.
Still have to wear masks during lessons and I'll still, probably, wear one in the shops.
Only real difference is that we won't have to wear masks whilst walking through the changing rooms and other parts of the clubhouse to get to the bar.
Which, as you took your mask off as soon as you sat down, always seemed a bit bizarre anyway.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Can we agree that useless masks are useless, decent ones are better and high quality ones better still, and therefore people should be encouraged to wear at least decent ones?

This has never been raised though has it? Worldwide people are wearing similar masks to here on the whole, we are not unique in the mask style that we wear.

What's a decent mask? Industrial level? People were just told to wear any form of covering, nothing more than that.

What you write makes total sense but it just didn't happen.

 

[D-S]

Is the only material difference between the ‘this is the right approach’ camp and the ‘whoah we are being far too reckless‘ camp the mandatory versus recommended use of face masks in public indoor spaces? Or are there other fundamental splits?

 

[Ethan]

This has never been raised though has it? Worldwide people are wearing similar masks to here on the whole, we are not unique in the mask style that we wear.

What's a decent mask? Industrial level? People were just told to wear any form of covering, nothing more than that.

What you write makes total sense but it just didn't happen.

Well, the one I use, bought on the net, has disposable PM2.5 filters in it.

 

[DanFST]

Is the only material difference between the ‘this is the right approach’ camp and the ‘whoah we are being far too reckless‘ camp the mandatory versus recommended use of face masks in public indoor spaces? Or are there other fundamental splits?

I think it's also based on what you think the long term future is. If you think we can control it, or trust the vaccine and better treatment options.