Masks Work & How To Make Your Own Face Masks

Also don't be an insufferable cunt.

This, but also this thread was closed for good reasons.

It was not responsible to advocate mask wearing then because the chronic shortage of PPE meant healthcare and other front line workers had to improvise with what they could get. Your 3M mask sounds exactly like the sort of thing these front line workers were having to buy at the time, so I don't think you can lay claim to any high horse.

I agree with you about irresponsible runners and cyclists, but I don't think asking people to wear masks while doing intense exercise is practical. I think these runners just need to give people space and slow down sometimes to do that, but for some reason a lot of runners seem to have a problem with slowing down. Just like a lot of cyclists don't seem to realise that pulling up way less than 2m from someone panting at the lights is a good look.

Nobody has mentioned the huge amount of disposable mask wearing yet. Drives me nuts when there are so many reusable options...

-

Mate this country is willing to let asylum seekers drown in the channel, what fucking planet are you on with ..

Everyone got involved to help one-another. I wish it could have been the same here.
I don't think people now are remembering and respecting all those who died. I think still people are behaving recklessly and with little care for others.

There is no one approach fits all. UK government has failed in their response to the crisis causing the highest deaths in western Europe, its Boris to blame not some runner not wearing a mask.

As fox said there was a good reason for masks not to be a thing back then.

-

Fair point. I did say comeback rather than insult but I agree with your sentiment. It’s more the comparison of the strong ‘macho’ male with a child, and we just happen to have a small girl come by our work often; if she were instead a boy with a cartoon mask, I would use that.

I think the kind I have is less-commonly used in healthcare. More often they use the disposable N95/N99 masks.

The point is that especially during the peak of the pandemic healthcare workers were having to make do, improvise and order their own masks from the internet - just like you did. They weren't necessarily using masks deemed appropriate. And it's not just healthcare workers either, it's key workers more widely.

This is why we were asked to use face coverings, not masks. And according to these stories the PPE problem hasn't gone away and key workers are being warned about discussing the shortages publicly:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12307044/uk-ppe-shortage-laid-bare/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-surgery-nhs-ppe-hospital-supplies-shortages-a9661916.html

I've cycled with a standard disposable surgical style mask and although not pleasant it is possible.

I'm sure it is literally possible to wear a mask while cycling, but if you cycle at a decent pace and actually train you will be panting and breathing very heavily which wouldn't work well with a mask. More importantly though cycling is ideal socially distanced exercise - I went out and did 40 miles last night and I was nowhere near anyone at any point - so why would you need to wear one?

Any glasses wearers found a good mask that doesn't make their glasses mist up?

These are the best I've found for avoiding misting. The nose clip is decent and if you've got it fitted well with hardly any gap at the top it's not too much of an issue. The adjustable straps are decent for avoiding your specs slipping off your ears as well.

I just got some of these off the back of your recommendation and can confirm they’re very easy to adjust to get a very good fit.

May have been posted here before.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.instructables.com/Face-Mask-Pleating-Machine/%3famp_page=true

1 Attachment

The question of mask effectiveness is still open. There is no hard evidence that they do work, only some hard evidence that they don't. The article below is from july 2020 and lists all known post-Covid randomized control studies. Note that the Danish study is complete as of october 2020, but the results were refused publication from Lancet and two other major journals. Presumably because the results were not politically correct.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

btw: the findings of the last study (2015) were that paper masks or non masks make no difference ultimately, to the spread of disease - presumably because so few people wear the things correctly and it's almost impossible to do ALL the time - BUT wearing a CLOTH mask doubles your chances of infection. I figure that's because you're incubating all kinds of shit on there, fungus, bacteria, etc. Like a whole viral load.

Note that the Danish study is complete as of october 2020, but the results were refused publication from Lancet and two other major journals.
Presumably because the results were not politically correct.

Unlikely. It’s because the study isn’t good enough. Doesn’t mean it’s without merit though.

Presumably it has been published elsewhere? There are plenty of other journals with less exacting standards.

I just read that it's being peer reviewed at another prestigious journal. IMO the Lancet is way too political at the moment. Hardly qualifies as scientific.

One journal rejecting it might be due to 'political correctness' (though the use of that phrase as an excuse would set my spidey-senses tingling), but Lancet, JAMA, and NJEM?

Yes. Hopefully NOT because of political correctness (spidey senses jangling all the time these days!!!!). we'll see.

Please consider amending your comment to avoid spreading frankly dangerous disinfo. The 2015 study focuses on healthcare workers in a hospital setting wearing cloth masks, particularly in comparison to surgical grade masks; it does not analyse the effect of generalised use of cloth masks in a non-hospital setting. Suggesting that using a cloth mask in the latter scenario increases one’s chance of COVID-19 infection is unscientific, and IMO reckless.

The authors of that very study published a letter about cloth mask use to address C19 in March this year:

COVID-19, shortages of masks and the use of cloth masks as a last resort
Chandini R MacIntyre, Academic physician The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales
Other Contributors:
Chi Dung Tham, Academic physician
Holly Seale, Academic
Abrar Chughtai, Academic physician

Critical shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) have resulted in the US Centers for Disease Control downgrading their recommendations for health workers treating COVID-19 patients from respirators to surgical masks and finally to home-made cloth masks. As authors of the only published randomised controlled clinical trial of cloth masks, we have been getting daily emails about this from health workers concerned about using cloth masks. The study found that cloth mask wearers had higher rates of infection than even the standard practice control group of health workers, and the filtration provided by cloth masks was poor compared to surgical masks. At the time of the study, there had been very little work done in this space, and so little thought into how to improve the protective value of the cloth masks. Until now, most guidelines on PPE did not even mention cloth masks, despite many health workers in Asia using them.

Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected. We recommend that health workers should not work during the COVID-19 pandemic without respiratory protection as a matter of work health and safety. In addition, if health workers get infected, high rates of staff absenteeism from illness may also affect health system capacity to respond. Some health workers may still choose to work in inadequate PPE. In this case, the physical barrier provided by a cloth mask may afford some protection, but likely much less than a surgical mask or a respirator.

It is important to note that some subjects in the control arm wore surgical masks, which could explain why cloth masks performed poorly compared to the control group. We also did an analysis of all mask wearers, and the higher infection rate in cloth mask group persisted. The cloth masks may have been worse in our study because they were not washed well enough – they may become damp and contaminated. The cloth masks used in our study were products manufactured locally, and fabrics can vary in quality. This and other limitations were also discussed.

There are now numerous reports of health workers wearing home made cloth masks, or re-using disposable mask and respirators, and asking for guidance. If health workers choose to work in these circumstances, guidance should be given around the use.

There have been a number of laboratory studies looking at the effectiveness of different types of cloth materials, single versus multiple layers and about the role that filters can play. However, none have been tested in a clinical trial for efficacy. If health workers choose to work using cloth masks, we suggest that they have at least two and cycle them, so that each one can be washed and dried after daily use. Sanitizer spray or UV disinfection boxes can be used to clean them during breaks in a single day. These are pragmatic, rather than evidence-based suggestions, given the situation.

Finally for COVID-19, wearing a mask is not enough to protect healthcare workers – use of gloves and goggles are also required as a minimum, as SARS-CoV-2 may infect not only through the respiratory route, but also through contact with contaminated surfaces and self-contamination.

Hey. it's a discussion forum. we're discussing. People can read what you just wrote, and look at the links we both put up. And then make up their own minds. Besides accusing me of disinformation, you made a good contribution to the discussion. My only point is that the efficacy of mandated face masks is far from settled, scientifically. If it were then you wouldn't have a debate about it.

https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19-evidence-service/

Some say it works, some say it doesn't. Make up your own mind.

I think the problem is that you are politicising mask wearing by suggesting that academic studies of their efficacy have been censored because of ‘political correctness’. Most people on here understand how the charge of ‘political correctness’ has become weaponised in alt-right discourse. I think the uk would do well not to emulate A US style culture wars along a mask/no mask divide.

Debate all you’d like, I’m a lawyer, I live for it, but if you’re going to misrepresent something you’re using as evidence, don’t be surprised when you’re called out on it.

Specifically:

btw: the findings of the last study (2015) were that paper masks or non masks make no difference ultimately, (...) BUT wearing a CLOTH mask doubles your chances of infection. (...)

Emphasis mine.

The study does not prove this, unless you’re talking to Vietnamese healthcare workers in hospital settings. Scientists could take this as a starting point for further investigation, but you’re wrong in saying that using a cloth mask is more dangerous than not using a mask. Given that people die from getting these decisions wrong, I find it reckless.

I had assumed good faith, so I suggested you amend your post and explained why. You didn’t address my point that your post included disinformation, you only took issue with my ‘accusation’. I’ve explained my point in further detail, and hopefully you can explain how your statement isn’t disinformation, as part of the discussion.

Edited to lower my word count.

good point and i hope the mask thing is not politicized.

well put. The study i mentioned takes place in a hospital environment, yes. Due to a lack of like studies that's the relevent one at the moment. Hopefully the Danish study will have its findings released soon.

I'm not a lawyer. I am writing in good faith.

I'm not a lawyer.

We all have flaws, being a lawyer happens to be one of mine.

hopefully you can explain how your statement isn’t disinformation, as part of the discussion

I think this term gets banded around as a means to disqualify discussion that isn't fitting into a broad consensus. I think that's really dangerous. Disinfo is when one party purposely (in bad faith) manipulates information to achieve an interested end. For example, operation mincemeat in ww2. British spies planted disinformation about the allied attack on Sicily. Brilliant disinformation campaign.

BUT wearing a CLOTH mask doubles your chances of infection.

My guess is you wrote that to start a discussion, and you haven’t changed it even though you’ve agreed it’s an unfounded statement. Is your aim to start a discussion about a highly political topic? (Sadly, this issue has become political, like you said in your first post.) If that is your aim, then you’re using incorrect info to achieve an aim, that’s disinformation.

Since you bring up WW2, I’ll mention that there’s been a few articles written recently about how we’re in the middle of WW3: Humanity against Covid. We need coordinated, society-wide efforts in order to beat this thing. Right now, Britain is losing this war. Right now, Britain is divided against a common enemy. Let’s definitely discuss what strategies and tools are useful, but let’s do it rationally, using correct information to do so.