To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

Seanergy

Seanergy wrote: »

A strict mask law to you is about locations, then? It's not about the quality of the mask or how the mask is worn/seals to the face.

There is a large difference between law, quality of mask and application. Until you stick your head down the rabbit hole of mask quality, every surgical mask just looks like every other surgical mask.

A strict mask law with poor quality of mask or poor application is not worth pot.

By application I mean seal to the face.

A strict mask law for me is one which requires that masks be worn at all times, both inside and outside, apart from when when eating or drinking. That is the law in Spain, Peru and the Philippines, as well as in other countries. In the Philippines the Department of Health even recommends that masks be worn at home: https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/3/15/dilg-doh-face-mask-at-home.html

But you said previously that all masks had value and put a line through what Dr Paul said about there being no value to cloth masks. But now you're saying a poor quality mask isn't worth pot. So was Dr Paul right when he said cloth masks were of no value?

Seanergy

Deleted User wrote: »

But you said previously that all masks had value and put a line through what Dr Paul said about there being no value to cloth masks. But now you're saying a poor quality mask isn't worth pot. So was Dr Paul right when he said cloth masks were of no value?

Yes, because he was wrong. Even a string has value as a seatbelt. No string, no value, get it?

Once again, doing what you do best, jumping to a wrong conclusion.

I did not say a poor quality mask isn't worth pot, I said

A strict mask law with poor quality of mask or poor application is not worth pot.

Sparkey84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Peru has the highest per capita death rate on the planet and has the strictest mask laws on the planet. Spain, France, Italy, the US (certain states), the Philippines et al all have extremely strict mask laws and have the huge case and death numbers. There are of course other factors, but we are told again and again that masks are extraordinarily effective.

Why is Germany talking about going back into lockdown soon after making FFP2 or FFP3 masks mandatory? If they're talking about going back into lockdown then can it be argued that those masks made no difference?

you have kinda answered your own question in that post, there are "other factors" and other variables. there is only two reasons i can think off why you would try to push a concrete link between one variable and outcome.

1 you are simply bias and want to push your agenda

2 you are simple, and do not understand the concept of multiple variable links to outcome

you are off course always miss representing the opposing argument so as to fit your narrative. who argued masks are "extraordinarily effective" ??? we are not taking about magical body armour in a video game we are taking about a multifaceted approach to respiratory hygiene that the research indicates will lower transmission.

if you believe lower transmission is not good enough reason for you to wear a mask then fine dont wear one, but be honest about your self obsessed arrogance rather than hiding behind an opinion that has been repeatedly shown to not hold water.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Peru has the highest per capita death rate on the planet and has the strictest mask laws on the planet. Spain, France, Italy, the US (certain states), the Philippines et al all have extremely strict mask laws and have the huge case and death numbers. There are of course other factors, but we are told again and again that masks are extraordinarily effective.

nonsense (again)

we're not told masks are "extraordinarily effective"

Away With The Fairies

So they tried to go back 7 days or so to track the most likely cause of community transmission. And they figured it could be shops.

How they do their tracking, I don't know because for some reason I don't think we're doing an Asian style tracking.

But sure we'll go with shops anyways because that's the only thing open. So can anyone tell me why they still haven't banned those stupid plastic visors? If shops are the most likely place to pick it up, why are some retail workers still wearing them?

We got around to hotel quarantining a year later, how long more will it take them to ban those visors. They're as useless as a chocolate teapot.

xhomelezz

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

So they tried to go back 7 days or so to track the most likely cause of community transmission. And they figured it could be shops.

How they do their tracking, I don't know because for some reason I don't think we're doing an Asian style tracking.

But sure we'll go with shops anyways because that's the only thing open. So can anyone tell me why they still haven't banned those stupid plastic visors? If shops are the most likely place to pick it up, why are some retail workers still wearing them?

We got around to hotel quarantining a year later, how long more will it take them to ban those visors. They're as useless as a chocolate teapot.

Tracking what we do is miles away from what Asian countries do. Tracking here relies on what people tell to trackers on the phone, porkies:pac:

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Dr Paul said about there being no value to cloth masks. But now you're saying a poor quality mask isn't worth pot. So was Dr Paul right when he said cloth masks were of no value?

Tell Dr Paul to come back when he manages to spit/spray through a cloth mask.

Sparkey84

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6070b711c5b6616dcd7807e8

for all our disagreement at least our level of decency is still higher than this karen.

Fandymo

Seanergy wrote: »

A strict mask law to you is about locations, then? It's not about the quality of the mask or how the mask is worn/seals to the face.

There is a large difference between law, quality of mask and application. Until you stick your head down the rabbit hole of mask quality, every surgical mask just looks like every other surgical mask.

A strict mask law with poor quality of mask or poor application is not worth pot.

By application I mean seal to the face.

So why is there no EU or Irish minimum standard of face covering? If it is such an important thing?Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to put a CE standard on masks? And make all non-CE masks illegal? Yet, over a year into mask wearing this hasn’t happened, any oul nonsense over your gob is allowed. Would make you think masks aren’t as important as people in here want them to be.

Sparkey84

Fandymo wrote: »

So why is there no EU or Irish minimum standard of face covering? If it is such an important thing?Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to put a CE standard on masks? And make all non-CE masks illegal? Yet, over a year into mask wearing this hasn’t happened, any oul nonsense over your gob is allowed.

Would make you think masks aren’t as important as people in here want them to be.

as stated here many times social health policy not an exact science, there are plenty of home made masks up to a reasonable standard, with triple layers etx. and when the decision was made to use the term "face covering" supply of medical masks was uncertain and needed to be prioritised for health care professionals in direct patient contact.

by choosing "face covering" rather than specific masks, ffp2 / 3 / n95 etx the government empowered the people to go forward and make intelligent reasoned decisions as to how to use what was available to protect themselves best.

Seanergy

Fandymo wrote: »

So why is there no EU or Irish minimum standard of face covering? If it is such an important thing?Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to put a CE standard on masks? And make all non-CE masks illegal? Yet, over a year into mask wearing this hasn’t happened, any oul nonsense over your gob is allowed. Would make you think masks aren’t as important as people in here want them to be.

Fristly, there is both an EU and Irish standard for face covering/barrier mask.

The Irish specification SWiFT 19:2020 was published on the 18 May 2020 and was developed using existing specifications from France (AFNOR), published 27 March, 2020, Belgium (NBN) and Spain (UNE).

SWiFT PDF LINK

I have qouted post#1587 from MASKS PART1 below for you, note Irish Rail had a tender out for the production of Barrier masks using the French spec AFNOR SPEC S76-001 in April of last year.

The French standards organisation ANFOR have previously released a document on reusable barrier masks:
Barrier masks: Guide to minimum requirements, methods of testing, making & use (in English)

It's for industrial manufacture as well as DIY so it's not the most practical document for making a mask at home but they also have online resources available for their population: https://masques-barrieres.afnor.org/...masquebarriere (in French, Google translate will help).

At the very least it shows there are specifications out there that our own decision makers could use as a basis for production by Irish manufacturers, and which could then be made available to the general public.

Incidently Irish Rail have a contract up for tender for the supply of "reusable barrier masks" since last week based on that very same document.

The European specification S.R. CWA 17553:2020 was developed in CEN (the European Committee for Standardization). This new European publication (CEN Workshop Agreement) S.R. CWA 17553:2020 (Community face coverings - Guide to minimum requirements, methods of testing and use) was published on 2020-06-22.

CEN PDF LINK

Fandymo

Seanergy wrote: »

Fristly, there is both an EU and Irish standard for face covering/barrier mask.

The Irish specification SWiFT 19:2020 was published on the 18 May 2020 and was developed using existing specifications from France (AFNOR), published 27 March, 2020, Belgium (NBN) and Spain (UNE).

SWiFT PDF LINK

I have qouted post#1587 from MASKS PART1 below for you, note Irish Rail had a tender out for the production of Barrier masks using the French spec AFNOR SPEC S76-001 in April of last year.

The European specification S.R. CWA 17553:2020 was developed in CEN (the European Committee for Standardization). This new European publication (CEN Workshop Agreement) S.R. CWA 17553:2020 (Community face coverings - Guide to minimum requirements, methods of testing and use) was published on 2020-06-22.

CEN PDF LINK

That SWiFT link is minimum standards for Irish manufacturers to make masks.

I’ll say it again, there is NO legal standard of mask that you, me, anyone else, MUST wear.

A pair of old underpants, a thirty year old T-shirt, an industrial dust mask, a scarf, all currently 100% acceptable by law as a face covering to enter a shop or travel on public transport. Any oul shyte can be worn. Which leads me to believe that the govt know the use of masks makes zero difference, but can be used as a placebo to stop people whinging.

Seanergy

Fandymo wrote: »

So why is there no EU or Irish minimum standard of face covering? If it is such an important thing?Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to put a CE standard on masks? And make all non-CE masks illegal? Yet, over a year into mask wearing this hasn’t happened, any oul nonsense over your gob is allowed. Would make you think masks aren’t as important as people in here want them to be.

Secondly, we are not over a year into mask wearing. Many things haven't happened, do you want this to happen?

Graham

Fandymo wrote: »

A pair of old underpants, a thirty year old T-shirt, an industrial dust mask, a scarf, all currently 100% acceptable by law as a face covering

To understand why, try spitting/spraying through a pair of old underpants, a thirty year old T-shirt, an industrial dust mask, a scarf

Seanergy

Fandymo wrote: »

That SWiFT link is minimum standards for Irish manufacturers to make masks.

I’ll say it again, there is NO legal standard of mask that you, me, anyone else, MUST wear.

A pair of old underpants, a thirty year old T-shirt, an industrial dust mask, a scarf, all currently 100% acceptable by law as a face covering to enter a shop or travel on public transport. Any oul shyte can be worn. Which leads me to believe that the govt know the use of masks makes zero difference,but can be used as a placebo to stop people whinging.

YET.

CP.

Sparkey84

Fandymo wrote: »

That SWiFT link is minimum standards for Irish manufacturers to make masks.

I’ll say it again, there is NO legal standard of mask that you, me, anyone else, MUST wear.

A pair of old underpants, a thirty year old T-shirt, an industrial dust mask, a scarf, all currently 100% acceptable by law as a face covering to enter a shop or travel on public transport. Any oul shyte can be worn. Which leads me to believe that the govt know the use of masks makes zero difference, but can be used as a placebo to stop people whinging.

that has been your inference all along, that if the quality of the mask is open for interpretation then then the quality of the outcome must be poor.

that may be an acceptable opinion in other situations;

like if my builder has no standards for the steel beam replacing the weight bearing wall the outcome of the job must be poor.

that logic may work in some specific situations but this is absolutely not one of them.

stop harping on about it, the view has been discredited from multiple angles.

as you have already been told, go cough/spit/sneeze through 3 layers of an old t shirt. then come back with video

Sparkey84

there is a sneeze without a face covering for reference

xhomelezz

Sparkey84 wrote: »

as stated here many times social health policy not an exact science, there are plenty of home made masks up to a reasonable standard, with triple layers etx. and when the decision was made to use the term "face covering" supply of medical masks was uncertain and needed to be prioritised for health care professionals in direct patient contact.

by choosing "face covering" rather than specific masks, ffp2 / 3 / n95 etx the government empowered the people to go forward and make intelligent reasoned decisions as to how to use what was available to protect themselves best.

Exactly that. Anyone can Google how to improve their face coverings and there's plenty info available since the start of this. If some tools decide to wear wife's knickers oh well... Fandymo might put some standards up online himself.

xhomelezz

Fandymo wrote: »

That SWiFT link is minimum standards for Irish manufacturers to make masks.

I’ll say it again, there is NO legal standard of mask that you, me, anyone else, MUST wear.

A pair of old underpants, a thirty year old T-shirt, an industrial dust mask, a scarf, all currently 100% acceptable by law as a face covering to enter a shop or travel on public transport. Any oul shyte can be worn. Which leads me to believe that the govt know the use of masks makes zero difference, but can be used as a placebo to stop people whinging.

Industrial dust masks have actually nice specs. Not that you bothered to find out before comparing them to any oul whatever.

That believe of yours is a bit simple, to say it nice way..

xhomelezz

Sparkey84 wrote: »

there is a sneeze without a face covering for reference

Or this one

Fandymo

Sparkey84 wrote: »

there is a sneeze without a face covering for reference

Ah back to the nonsense visuals that were ten a penny in the first thread. What size is a Covid particle? What size particle is visible to the human eye?? The cartoon with one person without a mask, then 2 people with masks will be rolled out next. Hahahaha. Round and round we go.

saneman

Fandymo wrote: »

Ah back to the nonsense visuals that were ten a penny in the first thread. What size is a Covid particle? What size particle is visible to the human eye?? The cartoon with one person without a mask, then 2 people with masks will be rolled out next. Hahahaha. Round and round we go.

We know what size the covid virus is. But do you believe it has wings and flies about of its own accord? It requires a respiratory droplet for transmission.

And as for that image, well yes, some of those droplets are large enough to be visible as discrete particles but the rest... well, you know the way you can see a rain cloud but you wouldn't be able to see a single water droplet at the same distance.. it's kinda like that...

Sparkey84

Fandymo wrote: »

Ah back to the nonsense visuals that were ten a penny in the first thread. What size is a Covid particle? What size particle is visible to the human eye?? The cartoon with one person without a mask, then 2 people with masks will be rolled out next. Hahahaha. Round and round we go.

yeah round and round is right.
a covid molecule is 120nm and not visible to the naked eye.

if you were to make an intelligent argument like "some" covid might make it around a homemade mask then that would be reasonable. the end result would still most likely prove a homemade mask is at worst, still better than no face covering at all.

you seem to be making an argument "all covid molecules will get through the face covering" that is, as with all your posts, illogical and baseless.

unless you could offer some proof, be my guest.

patnor1011

I cant wait till people finally realize that there is no magic mask or jab and we will not get rid of covid no matter what.
Maybe then we can move on and start addressing real issues which caused most of the death with covid.

Sparkey84

patnor1011 wrote: »

I cant wait till people finally realize that there is no magic mask or jab and we will not get rid of covid no matter what.
Maybe then we can move on and start addressing real issues which caused most of the death with covid.

magic jab, any substantial advanced science is indistinguishable from magic to the ignorant.

Sparkey84

if the sarcasam did not get go through, it is not magic it is science, jab is complex science the mask is really simple science, to most of us.

AlekSmart

Fandymo wrote: »

Ah back to the nonsense visuals that were ten a penny in the first thread. What size is a Covid particle? What size particle is visible to the human eye?? The cartoon with one person without a mask, then 2 people with masks will be rolled out next. Hahahaha. Round and round we go.

So,how may particles are required to infect an otherwise healthy adult.
What amount of such particles will be released in normal non-Coughing,Non Sneezing interaction between two normal human beings ?

NovemberWren

Sparkey84 wrote: »

there is a sneeze without a face covering for reference

that's why the west have the Best invention, .... Kleenex.

Sparkey84

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/

Transmission of COVID-19 virus by droplets and aerosols: A critical review on the unresolved dichotomy
Mahesh Jayaweera, Hasini Perera, [...], and Jagath

massive detail about droplets, coughs vs nasal breathing etx. also shows an amount of transmission from no2's. always wash hands after toilet. goes into good detail about vectors and fomites.

Sparkey84

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/


The facemasks play a major role in preventing both droplets and aerosols from transmitting the disease from an infected person to a host. Facemasks are popular in controlling and preventing virus transmission,


With the unexpected escalation of the COVID-19 cases worldwide, there has been a dearth in supply of masks, and consequently, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, USA, has modified its guidelines on masks with the inclusion of homemade cloth or fabric masks to be worn in public areas. Use of masks can be 2-fold: control the penetration of droplets from an infectious person into the respiratory tract of a susceptible host, and control the droplets going out from an infected patient. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the use of masks for the control of SARS-CoV-2-laden aerosol transmission from an infected person to a susceptible host is uncertain and not fully conceivable. It has been a known fact that different commercial masks have different efficiencies in controlling the transmission of infectious agents. In general, N95 respirators are provided to prevent users from inhaling small airborne particles (aerosols) and need to fit tightly to the user's face. Surgical masks are often used to protect people from larger droplets transmission and fit loosely to the user's face (Lawrence et al., 2006; Zhiqing et al., 2018).


that article is a great read for those who are that way inclined. bottom line masks help, better masks help more.

some idiot will come back and say "sure if they don't do airborne and only do droplet they arn't worth it"

ill get my reply in advance to be efficient, would a motorcyclist refuse to wear a helmet on the basis it will not protect his chest? no even though they only help with some crashes those awkward heavy uncomfortable helmets must be worn, its the law.