Masks

Class MayDresser

I have two 3m 9332 masks I wore while doing DIY six months ago, are they OK to use? They would have been used against wood dust so are a bit dirty, could I wash them?

krissovo

Class MayDresser wrote: »

I have two 3m 9332 masks I wore while doing DIY six months ago, are they OK to use? They would have been used against wood dust so are a bit dirty, could I wash them?

They are FFP3 with an outlet so are probably the best out there, rated higher than the n95’s touted over the TV. Its the same model I have, an American medical institute has also issued guideline to sterilise these by placing in the oven at 70 degrees for 20 minutes.

GreeBo

Yes: other

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Right back at you. This was what was stated. If there are comprehension issues - I'd suggest the use of a good dictionary to start.




That should help a little.

"are more risk embracing"
"Risk.....Embracing"
"Risk-Embracing"
"embracing risk"


You used the word "comprehension". I'm not trying to argue with you about your use of the word "hen", so I have no idea why you are picking individual words in my post and trying to build an argument around them.


/edit
Perhaps you are reading it as "are more willing to risk an embrace"?
If so, again, your are mis-comprehending what I have actually written and I suggest you go read it again!

Wibbs

Yes: other

2u2me wrote: »

They also mention that the WHO will update its guidance IF the US does. Does this mean they are just parrotting the US line?

I think at this stage 2 it's pretty clear the WHO are running around like headless chickens through much of this crisis.

dublin99

Finally the tide is changing:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/asia/coronavirus-mask-messaging-intl-hnk/index.html

Wibbs

Yes: other

khalessi wrote: »

Primetime from last night

https://www.rte.ie/player/series/prime-time/SI0000000825?epguid=IH000382974

I can't believe that Cormican guy. IMHO he is a bullheaded fool. No matter what is said to him, he sticks to script. Even when he posits the idea of everybody wearing a mask perfectly he frames it in terms of "it wouldn't heighten risk". He's allergic to even suggesting it would lower risk. Would he say that in a clinical setting? Of course not. And of course he keeps rattling on about imperfect use and doesn't consider asymptomatic transmission as much of an issue. What the actual fcuk. Wash yer hands and all that. Well let's take that advice. Clearly good advice, but how many are washing their hands correctly and how many are reinfecting their hands immediately after? Loads are. But imperfect use with that advice doesn't make it useless advice.

He sounds like just another one of that types of academic completely out of their depth on a practical front. His logic is faulty as hell too. To be ignored. This needs to be a grassroots effort, because too many like that muppet are refusing to acknowledge avenues of risk reduction in the community. Well until the WHO change their tune(after being told to) and then they'll be cheerleaders for it.

gozunda

Yes: surgical

GreeBo wrote: »

"are more risk embracing"
"Risk.....Embracing"
"Risk-Embracing"
"embracing risk"
You used the word "comprehension". I'm not trying to argue with you about your use of the word "hen", so I have no idea why you are picking individual words in my post and trying to build an argument around them.
/edit
Perhaps you are reading it as "are more willing to risk an embrace"?
If so, again, your are mis-comprehending what I have actually written and I suggest you go read it again!

Christ almighty. What you on about? What you wrote is exactly this and in context.

GreeBo wrote:

...There are studies that show people are more risk embracing when they are wearing protective equipment than otherwise.

These are your words - strung together in a sentence supposedly

And yes the correct spelling of comprehension is "comprehension"

I gather from your latter ramblings you are referring to potentially increasing levels of 'risk taking' where people use PPE.

I'd disagree. In my experience - people become more conscious of what they are doing whilst wearing PPE.

So put down the shovel and step away from the hole you've just dug for yourself before you fall head first into it ...

:rolleyes:

gozunda

Yes: surgical

Wibbs. Question for you.

Which type of filters are you using with your respirator?

the.red.baron

whats the point in getting people to wear masks when you can't get masks in the first place

Wibbs

Yes: other

PP3. That's what it came with G. At the time I just wanted the best filtration I could get. That it could filter pathogens didn't even occur to me.

the.red.baron

Wibbs wrote: »

I can't believe that Cormican guy. IMHO he is a bullheaded fool. No matter what is said to him, he sticks to script. Even when he posits the idea of everybody wearing a mask perfectly he frames it in terms of "it wouldn't heighten risk". He's allergic to even suggesting it would lower risk. Would he say that in a clinical setting? Of course not. And of course he keeps rattling on about imperfect use and doesn't consider asymptomatic transmission as much of an issue. What the actual fcuk. Wash yer hands and all that. Well let's take that advice. Clearly good advice, but how many are washing their hands correctly and how many are reinfecting their hands immediately after? Loads are. But imperfect use with that advice doesn't make it useless advice.

He sounds like just another one of that types of academic completely out of their depth on a practical front. His logic is faulty as hell too. To be ignored. This needs to be a grassroots effort, because too many like that muppet are refusing to acknowledge avenues of risk reduction in the community. Well until the WHO change their tune(after being told to) and then they'll be cheerleaders for it.

the lockdown seems to be affecting some people worse than others

farmchoice

i haven't read this whole thread so i'm sure this has been mentioned already but anyway just to reiterate.


masks dont really PROTECT you from catching the virus (in general they increase your chances of getting it) they help STOP you from spreading the virus.


so if you can get everyone to wear a mask then those with the virus will not be such effective spreaders as their coughs and sneezes will be caught in the mask, scarf, old t-shirt, bin bag ect.

now none of these devices will totally stop the spread but it will help, but only if those who have it wear the masks, we dont know who has it so everyone needs to wear one. thats the mask theory anyway.

Wibbs

Yes: other

the.red.baron wrote: »

whats the point in getting people to wear masks when you can't get masks in the first place

They're easy to make at home and supplies are increasing.

Kivaro

Yes: valved

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm kinda not K. I'm as much use as tits on a bull as I'm not a mod in this forum so can't put up a stickie. Though I think it's a good idea. I've had a couple of PM's from folks who could help in practical terms with tooling and the like, so a one stop shop stickie would defo help for such folks to be able to get things running. real community effort. Boards.ie Now You're Masking.

Good one.
And I know you don't have the 'power' to stickie this important information, so was hoping someone else might.

Thinking about our situation in Ireland, I believe that the biggest risk to our population now are supermarkets and shops. We need a different process put in place to manage these outlets, as all of us are seeing that physical distancing is not really happening universally and the procedure for the handling of goods/foods needs to change.
Maybe public service announcements from the government would be a good start.

Our government seems to be way off around these issues and protecting its citizens like other countries are doing with masks, PPE, and guidelines. Don't get me wrong, they should be praised for some actions, but they shouldn't be 'immune' from criticism just because of the country's current low Covid-19 numbers. They need to step up in other areas.

GreeBo

Yes: other

gozunda wrote: »

Christ almighty. What you on about? What you wrote is exactly this and in context.



These are your words - strung together in a sentence supposedly

So put down the shovel and step away from the hole you've just dug for yourself before you fall head first into it ...

:rolleyes:

Mate you made a mistake, move on.
I wrote "risk embracing" and you started off on a rant about people hugging each other.:rolleyes:

gozunda wrote: »

De fuk? Who is "embracing" who whilst wearing ppe???

The advisory is not to shake hands etc - hugging random strangers or otherwise is also out afaik

Class MayDresser

krissovo wrote: »

They are FFP3 with an outlet so are probably the best out there, rated higher than the n95’s touted over the TV. Its the same model I have, an American medical institute has also issued guideline to sterilise these by placing in the oven at 70 degrees for 20 minutes.

Just back from the supermarket after sterilising and wearing one. Got a fair amount of looks but couldn't give a toss, great peace of mind. Thanks for the tip.

farmchoice

Class MayDresser wrote: »

Just back from the supermarket after sterilising and wearing one. Got a fair amount of looks but couldn't give a toss, great peace of mind. Thanks for the tip.

in some ways this post is the essence of the argument against masks.
if everybody in the supermarket and the streets ect was wearing a mask then you would have reason to fell better.
if however it was only you or only a few people then you have probably increased your chances of actually getting it ( incredibly low to start with anyway but still probably a tiny bit higer).

khalessi

Yes: surgical

farmchoice wrote: »

i haven't read this whole thread so i'm sure this has been mentioned already but anyway just to reiterate.

/QUOTE]

You should consider it before posing a pov

Wibbs

Yes: other

farmchoice wrote: »

in some ways this post is the essence of the argument against masks.
if everybody in the supermarket and the streets ect was wearing a mask then you would have reason to fell better.
if however it was only you or only a few people then you have probably increased your chances of actually getting it ( incredibly low to start with anyway but still probably a tiny bit higer).

No they will not increase their risk. Why do people keep peddling this illogical nonsense. Yes you're dead right, if everyone was wearing a mask the community risks go right down. However if someone on their own in a crowd is wearing a FFP3 rated mask their risks of contracting the disease from droplets in the air are much lower than those not wearing one. This is why these masks exist and are worn in potentially dangerous environments.

GreeBo

Yes: other

farmchoice wrote: »

in some ways this post is the essence of the argument against masks.
if everybody in the supermarket and the streets ect was wearing a mask then you would have reason to fell better.
if however it was only you or only a few people then you have probably increased your chances of actually getting it ( incredibly low to start with anyway but still probably a tiny bit higer).

Can I ask why you think masks exist as a thing at all if they are so useless?

cnocbui

Wibbs wrote: »

I think at this stage 2 it's pretty clear the WHO are running around like headless chickens through much of this crisis.

More like answering to their Chinese masters. It wouldn't surprise me if China wanted the West to get this as badly as possible, noting the way they come down on information leakers and other behaviours like ransacking the west of PPE gear before we caught on to how we would need it and how badly it was actually going over there. They have been unhelpful at every turn in almost every way imaginable. Remember the Ethiopian head of the Who, Tedros Adhanom, going to China and then urging the West to not stop flights too and from China? I hope he gets investigated for financial ties to China soon. Even some of the PPE gear purchased from them has been faulty on a large scale.

farmchoice

Wibbs wrote: »

No they will not increase their risk. Why do people keep peddling this illogical nonsense. Yes you're dead right, if everyone was wearing a mask the community risks go right down. However if someone on their own in a crowd is wearing a FFP3 rated mask their risks of contracting the disease from droplets in the air are much lower than those not wearing one. This is why these masks exist and are worn in potentially dangerous environments.

across the population as a whole chances are there will be more people fiddling with second rate or badly fitting masks then there will be people wearing the correct masks properly. so whilst the chances of contacting it from be airborne droplets whilst out shopping is minuscule to start with there is more of a chance of the fiddling around your mouth with dirty hands actually contributing to getting it.

farmchoice

GreeBo wrote: »

Can I ask why you think masks exist as a thing at all if they are so useless?

masks are super useful in certain situations and personally i would support an order that the whole population should wear one when out and about.
beacause it would reduce the spread.


across the population as a whole masks will help to stop the contagious spreading it.

cnocbui

farmchoice wrote: »

in some ways this post is the essence of the argument against masks.
if everybody in the supermarket and the streets ect was wearing a mask then you would have reason to fell better.
if however it was only you or only a few people then you have probably increased your chances of actually getting it ( incredibly low to start with anyway but still probably a tiny bit higer).

Most likely one asymptomatic infected person at a choir practice in the USA, infected 45 out of 60 people. It's now believed that people who are just breathing or talking are shedding virus that can float in the air for hours. This thing is extremely contagious and is airborne - the worst possible type of transmission for a us, but the best for the virus.

That stuff about masks not reducing a persons chances of becoming infected is months out of date. The authorities issuing 'official' advise are out of date and wrong. They are going to have a really hard time later, after their ineptitude becomes apparent to all, urging people to heed their advice and not Social Media/The Internet.

farmchoice

cnocbui wrote: »

Most likely one asymptomatic infected person at a choir practice in the USA, infected 45 out of 60 people. It's now believed that people who are just breathing or talking are shedding virus that can float in the air for hours. This thing is extremely contagious and is airborne - the worst possible type of transmission for a us, but the best for the virus.

That stuff about masks not reducing a persons chances of becoming infected is months out of date. The authorities issuing 'official' advise are out of date and wrong. They are going to have a really hard time later, after their ineptitude becomes apparent to all, urging people to heed their advice and not Social Media/The Internet.

Ok, could you direct the world population to the particular social media source or internet site you (whoever you are!!)feel they should rely on.

whiskeyman

Yes: valved

the.red.baron wrote: »

whats the point in getting people to wear masks when you can't get masks in the first place

Make your own.

It hasn't stop the Czechs, and their rates of cases / deaths looks like one many would wish to replicate.

I'm making mine now.
We all probably should have been doing this much much earlier, but no doubt the Governments wanted to ensure healthcare workers got supplies first.

https://masks4all.co/

Boggles

Coronavirus: US set to recommend wearing of masks

Wibbs

Yes: other

farmchoice wrote: »

so whilst the chances of contacting it from be airborne droplets whilst out shopping is minuscule to start with there is more of a chance of the fiddling around your mouth with dirty hands actually contributing to getting it.

Actually the jury is most certainly still out on the risks of airborne transmission when in enclosed spaces. Results of studies the Chinese have done on both this virus and SARS shows quite the risk. I mean we started off with the Chinese saying it person to person transmission was very low risk, then they backed off on that, but the WHO continued to peddle that for a few weeks when it was clear it was going person to person.

cnocbui wrote: »

More like answering to their Chinese masters.

I always look to ineptitude rather than conspiracy as the former is a near constant across the world. It's much more likely that the WHO took a softly softly let's not panic here approach than any persuasion from anyone. After all when China were stating that this thing was spreading and they went into a full lockdown and cruise ships were becoming infection points the WHO were still saying that the risks of a pandemic were overblown and nothing really to see here. Whatever about China's role in all this, and they do have questions to answer, the WHO have just as many.

gozunda

Yes: surgical

GreeBo wrote: »

Mate you made a mistake, move on.
I wrote "risk embracing" and you started off on a rant about people hugging each other.:rolleyes:

You did indeed. Whether English is your first language or otherwise (and frankly I dont know) what you wrote about people "embracing" in that sentence makes no sense whatsover. Not anyone else's fault for your extremely strange phraseology.

The standard phrase is 'risk taking' btw.

iamwhoiam

whiskeyman wrote: »

Make your own.

It hasn't stop the Czechs, and their rates of cases / deaths looks like one many would wish to replicate.

I'm making mine now.
We all probably should have been doing this much much earlier, but no doubt the Governments wanted to ensure healthcare workers got supplies first.

https://masks4all.co/

Thanks for the link
We are going to make our own over the weekend here