FACE MASKS

[PhotoJunkie 17]

I am not going to get into an argument about PPE, but I came across this and want to share.

masks4all.co

My wife uses a head band when she dives and I thought it would make a good home-made mask.  The brand she uses is ‘Buff’.  A folded paper towel between the layers, wash when you get back home after grocery shopping.

We can’t get N95 masks, but if you listen to what is on this site, we can reduce the spread.

Brant Emery

[PhotoJunkie 17]

I guess some images my help.

[String 17]

On 4/3/2020 at 10:02 PM, PhotoJunkie said:

I am not going to get into an argument about PPE, but I came across this and want to share.

masks4all.co

My wife uses a head band when she dives and I thought it would make a good home-made mask.  The brand she uses is ‘Buff’.  A folded paper towel between the layers, wash when you get back home after grocery shopping.

We can’t get N95 masks, but if you listen to what is on this site, we can reduce the spread.

Brant Emery

I would caution that nothing on that site seems to list ANY scientific evidence at all yet claims "scientific evidence".  Alarm bells should be flashing.

I uses a chart claiming "MASK USE!!" for some countries that have controlled this while ignoring (i) they embarked on mass testing, rapid tracing and isolation and (ii) some of the countries there actually had big fines FOR wearing a mask in public without being sick.

Its misleading at best, deliberately deceiving would be another term....

When you dig around the mainstream media stuff it cites, it leads to NO peer reviewed articles on it.

It's also worth noting in its change of policy the CDC itself admitted there is no research on mask efficiency.  There are some (unreviewed studies) on distance of droplets travelling but crucially *none* showing the efficacy of masks to reduce or change this. They admit this - its a recommendation based more on a hunch and guess than actual evidence.

All the research that HAS been done is in a clinical environment.  Thats very different to average people on the street.

There is evidence that masks, especially cloth masks can INCREASE the risk of infections due to moisture and pathogen trapping, this combined by a non clinical (untrained people touching them, sliding them on and off etc) can transfer infections.

From the ECDC tehnical report 26/3:-

There is limited guidance and clinical research to inform on the use of reusable cloth face masks for protection against respiratory viruses. Available evidence shows that they are less protective than surgical masks and may even increase the risk of infection due to moisture, liquid diffusion and retention of the virus. Penetration of particles through cloth is reported to be high. In one study, 40–90% of particles penetrated the mask. In a cluster randomised controlled trial, cases of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral illness were significantly higher among healthcare workers using cloth masks compared to the ones using surgical masks [1,2]. Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged.

NCBI paper in 2015 found:

n a randomized trial in Vietnam, healthcare workers who wore cloth masks acquired more respiratory infections and influenza-like illnesses than their colleagues who wore surgical masks. Lab tests showed that 97 percent of particles got through the cloth masks, compared to 44 percent with surgical masks.

 

There are 20+ references off this and a further 40 from the ECDC on about this.  Actually, peer reviewed data.

So i'd be VERY cautious of this website as it contains *no* scientific validation, cherry picks outcomes from charts whilst (i) invented things about mask use and (ii) ignoring ACTUAL mitigation factors performed.

 

A few mistruths from that site:-

We now know that masks slash transmission of COVID-19.

There is no data what-so-ever anywhere to suggest we "know" that.

Modeling suggests if 80% of people wear a mask, we’ll stop the spread of the disease.

No verified peer review model published out there suggests anything of the sort.

 Countries with mask laws have 100x lower COVID-19 rates than other countries.

Is demonstrably untrue using the data on their own site!

I could go on tearing apart each claim but you get the point, in normal times this website would be banned for unaccirate or misleading medical claims and advertising in many countries.

 

Ultimately if you do decide to wear a cloth mask, be aware that you could easily increase the risk of infections generally so it should be sterilised and washed certainly after each and every use, ideally every time you touch it bare hands.  Otherwise you maybe creating a bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve.

[PhotoJunkie 17]

FYI,  please check www.cdc.gov

 

Just sayin’

 

[String 17]

8 hours ago, PhotoJunkie said:

FYI,  please check www.cdc.gov

 

Just sayin’

 

...which actually admits there is no evidence or studies to the efficacy of masks at all.  They're honest enough about it.  (Its surprising to see a recommendation based on no peer reviewed evidence into (i) bemefit and (ii) potentially harmful unexpected effects from a major world body though.  This puts them massively out of step with just about everywhere else).

CDC is basically saying "We know asymptomatic carriers are everywhere due to new research" (this much is true) but then says wear a cloth mask where no studies at all have been done to see if they have any positive effects or if so outweigh the actual negative effects.

 

[Captain Fathom 8]

The intended purpose of the home fabricated masks being recommended by the CDC is not to prevent the wearer from inhaling virus particles but instead to knock down/trap droplets/material being exhaled by the wearer. My mask protects you, your mask protects me. They are trying to conserve the N95 masks and similar for medical use and first responders since they are still in short supply. 

 

You will get your peer reviewed, factually proven and supported, double blind, control groups studies about a year from now, about the time we get a vaccine. At some point in the interim, those of us who are not in one of the vulnerable groups, using the recommended precautions, are going to have to OO's up and get about our lives.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Captain Fathom

[String 17]

12 hours ago, Captain Fathom said:

My mask protects you, your mask protects me. They are trying to conserve the N95 masks and similar for medical use and first responders since they are still in short supply. 

 

You will get your peer reviewed, factually proven and supported, double blind, control groups studies about a year from now, about the time we get a vaccine. At some point in the interim, those of us who are not in one of the vulnerable groups, using the recommended precautions, are going to have to OO's up and get about our lives.

Quote

The intended purpose of the home fabricated masks being recommended by the CDC is not to prevent the wearer from inhaling virus particles but instead to knock down/trap droplets/material being exhaled by the wearer.

This is the problem, as they themselves admitted, its not based on any evidence the masks actually do that at all (and no research into harmful unexpected results such as potentially increased risk of infection due to incorrect use and adhering).

The CDC is a massive outlier here, i dont know another major body recommending masks (nor making recommendations that aren't based on any science what-so-ever).  Its very odd for them to do such a thing and does hint a bit of desperation.

In short, there is no data to suggest "my mask protects you" and also no data showing "my mask doesn't make me more prone to disease than no mask".  Both of which are pretty important.

 

...and getting back to the original point.  The website that is ultimately "fake news".  Ultimately it makes claims that are demonstrably untrue, selectively edits the data to try to fit its conclusion and offers no scientific backing.

Its worth than nothing.  Its possible to have sensible debate of the actual science but that website is nothing of the sort.  Its a screaming hysteria site with absolutely no basis in science or fact.  Its misleading and potentially dangerous.

Edited April 10, 2020 by String