To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Irish Stones

Graham wrote: »

Not now there isn't

I forgot to specify that I'm based abroad, and here in my country (Italy) this is possible to have indoor meals in bars and restaurants till 6 pm. As it is possible during the lunch break in workplaces canteens.

odyssey06

Irish Stones wrote: »

I'm sort of a "guest" here in Boards.ie, I'm not Irish and live abroad, and here in my country, Italy, some bars and restaurants are allowed to stay open till 6 pm serving meals indoors. Of course tables are arranged to keep people at a greater distance than before, but people are in an enclosed space, without mask for at least an hour, talking, laughing, maybe coughing, and all.
In workplaces, canteens are just the same.
That's why I say that it seems that virus gives customers a wide berth during meals.

I don't see how you can reasonably draw that conclusion at all.
Some activities of risk are allowed to continue as much out of economic and day to day essential necessity as anything, but to present that as the virus gives customers a wide berth? I don't know where you are getting that from.

Irish Stones

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't see how you can reasonably draw that conclusion at all.
Some activities of risk are allowed to continue as much out of economic and day to day essential necessity as anything, but to present that as the virus gives customers a wide berth? I don't know where you are getting that from.

It was sort of a joke, but on the serious side.
A few activities are allowed to continue though they pose some risks of exposition to the virus.

I mean, over here in Italy, when indoor meals are allowed, it is possible to sit at the table without masks for all the time needed for the meal, but as soon as you stand up from the table you have to wear the mask.
I understand the necessity of keeping part of the economy running, but if you look at it from a certain point of view, it may look incomprehensible why on certain times of the day we're allowed to run our life as usual.

odyssey06

Irish Stones wrote: »

It was sort of a joke, but on the serious side.
A few activities are allowed to continue though they pose some risks of exposition to the virus.
I mean, over here in Italy, when indoor meals are allowed, it is possible to sit at the table without masks for all the time needed for the meal, but as soon as you stand up from the table you have to wear the mask.
I understand the necessity of keeping part of the economy running, but if you look at it from a certain point of view, it may look incomprehensible why on certain times of the day we're allowed to run our life as usual.

It's only incomprehensible or inconsistent if you assume because something is permitted it is 'safe', rather than the reasons being down to politics, economics, necessity etc.
And it doesn't sound like business as usual in the restaurants if there's mask when moving around, distancing, time limits etc - well, assuming any of them are actually observed...

Seanergy

In 1999 the World Health Organisation (WHO) produced a detailed blueprint for an Influenza Pandemic Plan, setting out the issues that arise nationally and internationally in relation to a possible future influenza pandemic.

As Ireland did not have detailed plans to deal with an influenza pandemic the Minister for Health and Children, Micheál Martin, decided to establish an expert committee to oversee the preparation of a national Influenza Pandemic Plan, in accordance with WHO guidelines.

The committee borrowed heavily from an Australian draft report "An Influenza Pandemic Contingency Plan for Health Care Institutions” (Draft, 18 May 1999). This paragraph is copied, word for word.

Seanergy

PDF AUSTRALIAN: A Framework for an Australian Influenza Pandemic Plan 1999 LINK

PDF IRISH: A Model Plan for Influenza Pandemic Preparedness 2002 LINK

TERMS OF REFERENCE:
In 1999 the World Health Organisation (WHO) produced a detailed blueprint for an Influenza Pandemic Planemic...

As Ireland did not have detailed plans to deal with an influenza pandemic the Minister for Health and Children decided to establish an expert committee to oversee the preparation of a national Influenza Pandemic Plan, in accordance with WHO guidelines.

The entire Australian research paper was not copied word for word, some parts, example below, were omitted.

Seanergy

Somewhere between the 2002 Model Plan for Influenza Pandemic Preparedness report and the National Pandemic Influenza Plan of 2007 N95 masks were downgraded. Zero mention of them in the 2007 National plan. 500,000 surgical masks. What's the expected shelf life when stored correctly? 5-7 years? Where they renewed or destroyed before 2020?

Seanergy

Not only did the Expert Body downgrade n95's from the Influenza plan in 2007, they spewed the following, recognise it, word for word, anyone?



SOURCE IT ARTICLE 2007 Flu pandemic is inevitable, experts warn
LINK

Seanergy

Preparedness of Hospitals in the Republicof Ireland for an Influenza Pandemic, an Infection Control Perspective. 2015

One third of hospitals had stockpiled surgical masks (average of 5.1 days supply).

Conclusion:

This is the first study in the Republic of Ireland investi- gating preparedness of Irish acute hospitals for an influ- enza pandemic from an infection control perspective, acute hospitals in the Republic of Ireland have deficits regarding emergency planning committees, testing of emergency plans, airborne isolation facilities and incen- tives to encourage HCW’s to come to work in line with the literature. The Republic of Ireland needs to address gaps in influenza pandemic preparedness.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-015-2025-6.pdf

Seanergy

Browsing through Oireachtas debates, Tuesday, 5 Dec 2006

Dr. Mary Upton asked the Minister for Health and Children the scientific basis used to underpin the decision not to stockpile face masks for use by members of the general public in the event of an outbreak of avian flu related human influenza in view of the fact that droplet and aerosol transmission are the most effective ways of spreading influenza and only face masks are capable of preventing such transmissions.

Mary Harney's response was; Influenza is spread mainly by droplet transmission, but can also be spread by direct and indirect contact. Airborne, or fine droplet, transmission can also occur. The Expert Group considers that the two most important public health messages to convey are the importance of respiratory etiquette and hand washing in the prevention of infection. Campaigns to promote these messages are being developed as part of pandemic planning.

The Expert Group has found that there is very little evidence on the effect of the use of face masks in public in preventing influenza transmission. The WHO has recommended that mask use by the public should be based on risk, including frequency of exposure and closeness of contact with potentially infectious persons. The ECDC has issued interim recommendations on personal public health measures for reducing transmission of human influenza. With regard to mask use in public, it has adopted the same position as the WHO. The ECDC cannot recommend general mask wearing during an influenza pandemic: however it notes that there is little or no evidence against people wearing simple masks if they wish to do so and do so properly.

LINK

Away With The Fairies

Seanergy wrote: »

Browsing through Oireachtas debates, Tuesday, 5 Dec 2006

Dr. Mary Upton asked the Minister for Health and Children the scientific basis used to underpin the decision not to stockpile face masks for use by members of the general public in the event of an outbreak of avian flu related human influenza in view of the fact that droplet and aerosol transmission are the most effective ways of spreading influenza and only face masks are capable of preventing such transmissions.

Mary Harney's response was; Influenza is spread mainly by droplet transmission, but can also be spread by direct and indirect contact. Airborne, or fine droplet, transmission can also occur. The Expert Group considers that the two most important public health messages to convey are the importance of respiratory etiquette and hand washing in the prevention of infection. Campaigns to promote these messages are being developed as part of pandemic planning.

The Expert Group has found that there is very little evidence on the effect of the use of face masks in public in preventing influenza transmission. The WHO has recommended that mask use by the public should be based on risk, including frequency of exposure and closeness of contact with potentially infectious persons. The ECDC has issued interim recommendations on personal public health measures for reducing transmission of human influenza. With regard to mask use in public, it has adopted the same position as the WHO. The ECDC cannot recommend general mask wearing during an influenza pandemic: however it notes that there is little or no evidence against people wearing simple masks if they wish to do so and do so properly.

LINK

So the advice given was for a flu pandemic. It never occurred to them that we might get another virus. Shower of incompetent fückers.

Seanergy

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

So the advice given was for a flu pandemic. It never occurred to them that we might get another virus. Shower of incompetent fückers.

Ireland's pandemic 'Expert Group' only prepared and wrote guidance on the assumption that the next pandemic mode of transmission would be droplet.

Seanergy

Seanergy wrote: »

Ireland's pandemic 'Expert Group' only prepared and wrote guidance on the assumption that the next pandemic mode of transmission would be droplet.

Extract below from thePandemic Influenza Expert Group Supplement 10 Infection Control November 2008.

Executive Summary

Guidance for Pandemic Influenza: Infection Control in Hospitals, Community and Primary Care Settings has been developed to facilitate planning by the Health Service Executive in advance of the emergence of the next influenza pandemic.

For planning purposes it is assumed that a pandemic strain of influenza will have similar transmission, communicability, and inactivation properties as “routine” seasonal influenza. Influenza is well established to be transmitted from person-to-person through close contact. The balance of evidence points to large droplet and direct and indirect contact as the most important routes of transmission. Airborne, or fine droplet transmission, may also occur. In view of this, Standard Infection Control Precautions and Droplet Precautions are the principal infection control strategies, which should be rigorously followed. In certain circumstances these control measures may need to be augmented with higher levels of respiratory protection. Scrupulous attention to handwashing and containment of respiratory secretions produced by coughing and sneezing are the cornerstones of effective infection control.

Irish Stones

Seanergy wrote: »

The Expert Group has found that there is very little evidence on the effect of the use of face masks in public in preventing influenza transmission. The WHO has recommended that mask use by the public should be based on risk, including frequency of exposure and closeness of contact with potentially infectious persons. The ECDC has issued interim recommendations on personal public health measures for reducing transmission of human influenza. With regard to mask use in public, it has adopted the same position as the WHO. The ECDC cannot recommend general mask wearing during an influenza pandemic: however it notes that there is little or no evidence against people wearing simple masks if they wish to do so and do so properly.

This was said in the first days/weeks of the pandemic. WHO didn't say that masks were useful. At the very beginning it was even said that masks were discouraged, because, the experts said, masks give a false sense of protection and lead people to think they can act as usual and take less precautions.

odyssey06

Irish Stones wrote: »

This was said in the first days/weeks of the pandemic. WHO didn't say that masks were useful. At the very beginning it was even said that masks were discouraged, because, the experts said, masks give a false sense of protection and lead people to think they can act as usual and take less precautions.

They were thinking of masks as PPE when they should also have been considering them as barriers. Plus they were more concerned about fomite transmission from surface contact (because the Chinese authorities spread mis-information in the early stages that it wasn't being spread person to person).

Seanergy

Irish Stones wrote: »

This was said in the first days/weeks of the pandemic. WHO didn't say that masks were useful. At the very beginning it was even said that masks were discouraged, because, the experts said, masks give a false sense of protection and lead people to think they can act as usual and take less precautions.

You are just adding more noise to the original question that was posed to the Minister for Health in 2006 and what my post was about.

The Minister for Health and Children was asked what was the scientific basis used to underpin the decision not to stockpile face masks for use by members of the general public in the event of an outbreak of avian flu related human influenza in view of the fact that droplet and aerosol transmission are the most effective ways of spreading influenza and only face masks are capable of preventing such transmissions.

Her opening reply was: The Expert Group has found that there is very little evidence on the effect of the use of face masks in public in preventing influenza transmission.

When in fact, what was known prior to the Minister's reply(dec 2006) is what the Pandemic Influenza 'Expert Group' (PIEG) said in their first report in 2002, which says:

Infection control measures may include isolation, temporary closure of schools and businesses, use of masks etc.

Seanergy

odyssey06 wrote: »

They were thinking of masks as PPE when they should also have been considering them as barriers. Plus they were more concerned about fomite transmission from surface contact (because the Chinese authorities spread mis-information in the early stages that it wasn't being spread person to person).

They being the PIEG or the WHO? The 'mis-information' may have been requested due to the state of mask supply, currently an unknown, IMHO.

It was understood that surgical masks could act as barriers by PIEG way back in 2008.

PIEG's 2008 Guidance for Pandemic Influenza: Infection Control in Hospitals, Community and Primary Care Settings.

5.3.2 Surgical masks
The main purpose of a surgical mask is to prevent particles being expelled into the environment by the wearer. They also provide some protection (depending on the type of mask worn) against splashes of blood and body fluids. Surgical masks are also recommended for protection against droplet borne illness such as influenza. A surgical mask should be worn by health care workers for close patient contact (e.g., within 3 feet /1 metre). This will provide a physical barrier and minimise contamination of facial mucosa by large particle droplets, one of the principal ways influenza is transmitted.

If pandemic influenza patients are cohorted in one area and multiple patients must be visited over a short time or in rapid sequence (e.g., cohorted areas of a hospital or nursing home, an “influenza clinic,” or GP surgery session for influenza patients), it may be practical to wear a single surgical mask upon entry to the area and to keep it on for the duration of the activity or until the surgical mask requires replacement. There are no limitations to the wearing time according to EU Standards Surgical Masks requirements and test methods. (5)

7.4.3.1 Patient masking:
As waiting rooms can become crowded, it is preferable that symptomatic persons wear surgical masks. This will assist with the containment of respiratory secretions and minimise environmental contamination.

odyssey06

Seanergy wrote: »

They being the PIEG or the WHO? The 'mis-information' may have been requested due to the state of mask supply, currently an unknown, IMHO.

It was understood that surgical masks could act as barriers by PIEG way back in 2008.

PIEG's 2008 Guidance for Pandemic Influenza: Infection Control in Hospitals, Community and Primary Care Settings.

5.3.2 Surgical masks
The main purpose of a surgical mask is to prevent particles being expelled into the environment by the wearer. They also provide some protection (depending on the type of mask worn) against splashes of blood and body fluids. Surgical masks are also recommended for protection against droplet borne illness such as influenza. A surgical mask should be worn by health care workers for close patient contact (e.g., within 3 feet /1 metre). This will provide a physical barrier and minimise contamination of facial mucosa by large particle droplets, one of the principal ways influenza is transmitted.

If pandemic influenza patients are cohorted in one area and multiple patients must be visited over a short time or in rapid sequence (e.g., cohorted areas of a hospital or nursing home, an “influenza clinic,” or GP surgery session for influenza patients), it may be practical to wear a single surgical mask upon entry to the area and to keep it on for the duration of the activity or until the surgical mask requires replacement. There are no limitations to the wearing time according to EU Standards Surgical Masks requirements and test methods. (5)

7.4.3.1 Patient masking:
As waiting rooms can become crowded, it is preferable that symptomatic persons wear surgical masks. This will assist with the containment of respiratory secretions and minimise environmental contamination.

When you point out that information from 2008, well that makes a strong case that it was deliberately forgotten last spring based on supply.
But I think the Chinese in the early stages of the pandemic were very much playing down possibility of person to person droplet transmission and really pushing the surface \ contact aspect.

Seanergy

odyssey06 wrote: »

When you point out that information from 2008, well that makes a strong case that it was deliberately forgotten last spring based on supply.
But I think the Chinese in the early stages of the pandemic were very much playing down possibility of person to person droplet transmission and really pushing the surface \ contact aspect.

Indeed it does. More from PIEG 2008.

8.5.2.4 Public use of facemasks
The aim of this intervention is the reduction of transmission in public places, the workplace and schools. There is very little evidence on the effect of use of facemasks in public (e.g. when in close contact with others on crowded public transport, cities etc) in preventing influenza transmission. There is some limited evidence of their effectiveness from two case-control studies carried out in Beijing and Hong Kong during SARS. In these studies, wearing masks in public was independently associated with protection from SARS in a multivariate analysis.(6;7) WHO has recommended that mask use by the public should be based on risk, including frequency of exposure and closeness of contact with potentially infectious persons. This could be interpreted as supporting mask use in crowded settings such as public transport. Although the unit cost is low, if used for the duration of the pandemic, the supply costs would be huge, and security of supply might be an issue. There would also need to be training in the proper use of masks.


Starting to think this why the 15 minute 'rule' got introduced.

Seanergy

In the PIEG 2008 publication, when speaking about infection control and masking there is a reference to the ECDC 2007 TECHNICAL REPORT Guide to public health measures to reduce the impact of influenza pandemics in Europe. Here is an extract, loads more to read about masks in this PDF, LINK.

6. General mask-wearing outside the home
See discussion on masks (page 21) and General considerations N (General versus selective measures).

Objective and rationale:
To generally reduce the transmission in public places, workplaces and schools.

Evidence of effectiveness:
There have been no trials. Mask-wearing in public is common in some societies in Asia. It has not been remarked that infection rates are any lower there. There are some authorities who argue that there could be perverse effects because people may reuse contaminated masks and the constant adjustment of masks may result in more contamination of hands with virus.

Direct costs: Massive
Even though the unit cost (the cost per mask) is low, considering two or more masks per citizen a day when they are outside home, over the three to five month period of a pandemic the supply costs are huge. There would also need to be considerable planning to ensure supplies.

Secondary effects: Small These are few.

Likely acceptability and expectations:
This is unknown. There is little tradition of mask-wearing in the EU. However, one or two European countries have announced they would purchase masks for their residents, which is likely to be raising expectations.

Practicalities and experience:
Proper use of masks is not that easy, so there are massive implications for training and communication. It is unclear whether simple masks should be seen as something that the authorities or health providers should supply along with some instructions, or a commodity that residents would purchase commercially. Supply will be a major problem. Early attempts at marketing masks during influenza seasons have not proved easy in Europe. While there is no evidence of effectiveness, it would be fair to point out that there is also no evidence that masks would be ineffective. It is possible to conceive a risk-based approach identifying people at special risk (e.g. workers with high frequency of face-to-face contact with unselected public) or higher risk settings (e.g. public transport). It is hard to declare that masks must not be worn in those circumstances.

Seanergy

Reading the UK's 2007 THE USE OF FACE MASKS DURING AN INFLUENZA PANDMIC: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BASE. It's another masky read, LINK


Some European authorities suggested that a person who was developing influenza might be tempted to wear a mask and take medication and continue working rather than go home. Or that poor use of a wet mask by an infectious person would be more dangerous than good use of disposable tissues.

Would not suprise me in the slightest if 'Some European Authorities' was referring to us.

Away With The Fairies

I've heard of a workplace that brought in face masks for the workers a few months ago.

Well, they done away with face masks because official advice is still distancing. They have space between each other but it gets ignored. But because the space is there, the company gets away with it.

I know it's airborne and the surgical masks aren't the best with the gaps but aren't you breathing into a mask so the mask contains some/most of your germs? How do people not see this a year into this pandemic and still going on about distancing?

ddarcy

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I know it's airborne and the surgical masks aren't the best with the gaps but aren't you breathing into a mask so the mask contains some/most of your germs? How do people not see this a year into this pandemic and still going on about distancing?

Well surgical / n95 and above do as you say. What people are wearing offers nowhere near the same protection.

The social distancing is still paramount and in my view the most important thing to be doing. If we do that and add in masks then this will be beat. Unfortunately the poor masks being used give people the belief they’re protected and social distancing is out the window. Anyone who ventured outside sees this!

So masks are doing more harm than good as social distancing is being completely ignored. That’s what has been posted above by the WHO, people believe (and it will be argued, but let’s be frank, this opinion is rampant here in this forum and evidenced out in the real world) masks are the sole solution.

Away With The Fairies

ddarcy wrote: »

Well surgical / n95 and above do as you say. What people are wearing offers nowhere near the same protection.

The social distancing is still paramount and in my view the most important thing to be doing. If we do that and add in masks then this will be beat. Unfortunately the poor masks being used give people the belief they’re protected and social distancing is out the window. Anyone who ventured outside sees this!

So masks are doing more harm than good as social distancing is being completely ignored. That’s what has been posted above by the WHO, people believe (and it will be argued, but let’s be frank, this opinion is rampant here in this forum and evidenced out in the real world) masks are the sole solution.

I wrote about a workplace with social distancing being ignored anyways. And the advice is if you can't social distance to wear a mask! People are ignoring social distancing regardless, with or without masks! So I think masks are important. I'd rather someone wearing a mask if they're coming up anywhere near me.

I said it from the beginning, one simple rule: face masks indoors with other people. But instead they made a list of places where masks are mandatory. Yet left out other places.

Seanergy

ddarcy wrote: »

So masks are doing more harm than good as social distancing is being completely ignored. That’s what has been posted above by the WHO, people believe (and it will be argued, but let’s be frank, this opinion is rampant here in this forum and evidenced out in the real world) masks are the sole solution.

Hardly, in fact I would like you to find one post in the past eleven months in this thread that says that you don't need to or should not social distance if your wearing a mask, because your protected.

Seanergy

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I've heard of a workplace that brought in face masks for the workers a few months ago.

Well, they done away with face masks because official advice is still distancing. They have space between each other but it gets ignored. But because the space is there, the company gets away with it.

I know it's airborne and the surgical masks aren't the best with the gaps but aren't you breathing into a mask so the mask contains some/most of your germs? How do people not see this a year into this pandemic and still going on about distancing?

That would be down to the way the HSE worded the guidance back in May. What industry is this in?

Away With The Fairies

Seanergy wrote: »

That would be down to the way the HSE worded the guidance back in May. What industry is this in?

It's in manufacturing.

pottokblue

I forgot how uncomfortable it is to wear the mask outdoors in sunny weather. I have a fine growing collection of 20+ facecoverings so if anybody needs a mask dm me and I'll see what I can do...

Away With The Fairies

Saw an ambulance today with two workers in the front, one of them wearing a mask over mouth and nose and another under their chin and not a window open.

Being ambulance workers, I thought they would have more cop on.

Seanergy

Country it full of people taking shortcuts, when they feel like it, snowball effect since May, IMHO.