11 ms·

The most interesting bit of misinformation that I've seen develop is the claim that N95 masks do not help when you are in public, despite the fact that they fac

The most interesting bit of misinformation that I've seen develop is the claim that N95 masks do not help when you are in public, despite the fact that they factually do help. The chain of events: 1. Concerns arise that respirator inventories will be depleted, leaving few or none available for medical personel. Media outlets spread this news. 2a. Thorough and factual news outlets spread the news that respirators have some effectiveness but are not a silver bullet. They may be used among other preventative measures. They talk about the differences between levels of effectiveness of dust masks and respirators. 2b. Sloppy outlets, and the ones more interested in helping the greater good (preventing hording), start lying, claiming that the dust masks do not work and respirators do not work. They often conflate the two. They go to the effort to shame hoarders and praise other people who practice washing and sanitizing hands, not touching your face, etc. It's been fun and terrifying to watch. News outlets do not have an interest in giving a nuanced message. They are willing to lie if they think it helps. It's a good case study of when you should explicitly not trust a claim made by the media. Meanwhile, I have a stack of 20 N95 respirators I bought for woodworking a year ago that I've been offering to friends and family. I've had no takers yet.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jbob2000 7y ago
Here's why masks are useless: You are going to take your mask off with your dirty hands. You're going to wear your mask dutifully while outside, then you're going to walk inside your house and the first thing you will do is take your mask off - with your dirty hands. There are so many gotchas with wearing masks that it's best to just leave them for the people who are closest to the crisis. They're the ones with the greatest need and they have the training to make them effective. And besides... the coronavirus is not airborne, you need to be hit with a droplet from an infected person's cough or sneeze. There's such a small chance of that happening while you're out-and-about that it's not worth it to wear these things. The real solution is to wash your hands because that's the main vector of infection.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >You are going to take your mask off with your dirty hands. You're going to wear your mask dutifully while outside, then you're going to walk inside your house and the first thing you will do is take your mask off - with your dirty hands. Now that you've warned me not to do that, won't masks work? I can access the same training materials as hospital workers. Also, what if I get a little cough? If I'm walking by your house, I'm sure you would like me to be wearing a mask.
  - jbob2000 7y ago
    Reading training materials does not mean that you are trained. Who is going to slap your hand away from your face when you reach inside your mask to scratch an itch? What if you wash your hands, take of your mask, and then touch the door handle you touched with your dirty hands? I can come up with these scenarios all day. The point I'm making is that the real way to protect yourself is to wash your hands. That's it. The mask does nothing unless you're literally being coughed on by someone who is infected.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      >Reading training materials does not mean that you are trained. Who is going to slap your hand away from your face when you reach inside your mask to scratch an itch? What if you wash your hands, take of your mask, and then touch the door handle you touched with your dirty hands? These same caveats apply to medical workers, who occasionally get sick while treating cases. Risk reduction isn't risk elimination but that doesn't make it pointless. >The point I'm making is that the real way to protect yourself is to wash your hands. You could also come up with scenarios where someone who was insufficiently trained would fail to protect themselves with hand washing. Here are some: - Insufficient washing time. - Touching handle before and after. - Only using water. No measure is perfect, and I think we can all agree that a measure with a less-than-100% chance of working (whether hand-washing or mask wearing) is better than nothing.
      - jbob2000 7y ago
notacoward 7y ago
Is that really misinformation, or just people having different information (or understanding of information) than you have? I have talked to actual front-line doctors who have mentioned running out of medical-use-approved masks and have had to get emergency exemptions allowing them to use other N95s wherever they can find any. The shortage is already real, and likely to get worse since we're likely still in the early stages of this outbreak. So yes, it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are. The question is what allocation best serves our public-health interest. People - even people much better informed and closer to the issue than either of us - can reasonably disagree without slinging the "misinformation" label. If that belongs anywhere, it's with people who present only one side of the story and then follow up by attributing motives they couldn't possibly know. ;)
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are. But the misinformation at issue is the idea that masks don't help, not the idea that they do help.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    That might be an weakness in phrasing, not actual misinformation. Masks are (arguably) not effective enough to justify the risk to supply for those with suspected/expected exposure, but the "enough" part is easily lost as information gets passed through many people who all mean well. Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking. When someone's hypothetical sloppy wording changes their statement from true to false, it's fair to call that "misinformation". Telling people false things is spreading misinformation. Spreading misinformation with a pure heart is still spreading misinformation. The state of your heart doesn't matter.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
scarejunba 7y ago
I too, have a box N95 and some P100 I bought in preparation for California fire season way before this crisis. On the Internet, everyone is super concerned with insight porn style stuff. So "actually X won't" or "actually Y will". Well, they're welcome to that. If the masks were useless healthcare workers wouldn't wear them because they do hinder working. So that leaves me, with my stack of masks from before the crisis. Yeah, I'm not going to throw them away. EDIT: I'm rate-limited but I feel the same as user lvturner below. Here's a fit test video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqcKHSIrrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqcKHSIrrM The following things are true: * Masks are fantastic * If you have them, use them * The distribution of masks should prioritize healthcare workers for public health reasons * Healthcare workers will not take a half-opened box of N95s and P100s. There is precisely one conclusion: If you have masks, use the masks. They are great.
- maccard 7y ago
  > If the masks were useless healthcare workers wouldn't wear them That's not how that works. The masks are less effective when used outside of a clinical setting, must be changed regularly (pretty much every time you take it off), and may prevent the transfer of disease from an infected healthcare worker to an otherwise vulnerable person. Just because they're not effective for one situation doesn't mean all the advice is moot
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Well, less effective isn't ineffective. The physical properties of the device don't change, so maybe the cost/benefit doesn't lie in buying them now, but I have my stack so it looks like it's worthwhile to use them.
- lvturner 7y ago
  Around 90% of the population of Hong Kong is wearing a mask right now. Despite the proximity to China, it's use as a transit hub and it's densely packed population - there are only 115 cases there. While it's far from conclusive, I'd suggest this as valid evidence that the use of masks is helpful in reducing the spread of the virus.
Aeolun 7y ago
A while ago I saw some research that came out of China. One department consistently used N95 when dealing with Corona patients daily, and one department used no protection when dealing with patients occasionally. The department with masks had zero personnel infections, the department without masks had 20. I don’t know, but until someone proves to me otherwise, the N95 and up rated masks are super effective.
- notacoward 7y ago
  Which side of the debate were you trying to support? I don't think anyone disagrees that medical personnel should have masks. Some might say that's all the more reason that a finite supply should be allocated to them first.
  - trhway 7y ago
    >a finite supply should be allocated to them first. i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage. Such things like masks cost nothing in normal times and anyway is expected to be bought in bulk. The medical industry is highly consolidated and even without a pandemic there is always a risk of a supplier going off-line and anybody without enough supplies in stores is going to hang dry. Speaking anecdotally - several years ago a Novartis factory went off-line for whatever reason and we were scrambling to find the vet medicine we needed - normal vets quickly run out, and only one online pharmacy happened to fortunately still have it.
    - zamfi 7y ago
      > i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage They might have several months' supply under normal circumstances in storage -- but when suddenly all their staff need one 24/7 and they're overwhelmed with patients, that supply lasts days. The supply needed to handle every possible contingency might not be reasonable to store.
      - PeterisP 7y ago
otterley 7y ago
The question isn't whether N95 masks are/are not effective against transmission of the COVID-19 virus as a boolean yes/no answer. The question is who should be supplied with the masks in a time of extreme shortage in a way that is most effective for the public at large, in terms of maximum effectiveness and lifesaving. It's all about ranking - what's the priority ordering for distribution? The CDC and other well-educated organizations believe they should go to hospitals and other health care providers first, infected people second, vulnerable populations third, and others last. Popular greed combined with ineffective controls are upsetting this logical ordering, and increase the overall risk for the population as a whole.
- petre 7y ago
  In France, president Macron signed an presidential order last week requisitioning surgical masks and their production for healthcare use. Why isn't this possible in the US? Japan's prime minister, Abe Shinzo, altered the law to be able to declare formal state of emergency. He came under fire for poorly handling the outbreak.
  - otterley 7y ago
    The Department of Health and Human Services is doing just that: > Late Wednesday night, HHS announced it would be buying 500 million N95 respirators over the next 18 months for the stockpile, “part of a broader effort to maximize the availability of personal protective equipment for health care workers who are on the front lines” fighting spread of the virus... https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/05/washington-state-asked-us-stockpile-coronavirus-masks-response-raises-concerns/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/05/washington-...
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    The whole topic is a red herring. The production is going to the hospitals and the government also has a stockpile, which they are partially distributing. http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-dispense-21-million-masks-to-help-hospitals-combat-covid-19/ http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-di... http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-dispense-21-million-masks-to-help-hospitals-combat-covid-19/ http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-di...
nnq 7y ago
Masks ALWAY help, a little or more, in one way or other. Any masks. Period. If you have them or you can get them easily, use them! They help because: 1. you have a significant chance of being already infected with a mild form and contagious even if you don't know it - wear a damn mask to protect the really vulnerable people around from your viruses! 2. any masks reduces even by a tiny amount the chance of infection - you eat more veggie fibers to reduce your chance of colon cancer by a single digit percent ...wear a goddam mask to reduce even if by very little the risk of catching (and then spreading) COVID-19! 3. by wearing a mask you'll be imitated by a few others and make it socially more acceptable for others to wear too - some of the people who end up wearing makes because of you are probably already infected and don't know it, so you'll have limited spread by promoting the "fashion"! (also, a few are probably immunodepressed or otherwise sensitive and might not even know it so simply copying a "fashion" could save their lives) PLEASE, wear a mask, any masks, even wear it badly, but do! Do it for others and to slow the spread of disease worldwide enough to allow healthcare systems to have a chance of coping with it, and to give vulnerable or unlucky people developing the rare severe cases a decent chance of survival! And wash your hands! (Yeah, 50-70% of the human population will get this, eventually. But it's incredibly stupid if we get it all at fucking once! Unless you're shorting some stocks or pursuing a dubious political agenda, you don't want this to happen.) EDIT+: ...but don't go the other extreme, buying them at exorbitant prices despite being healthy and not at high risk, or hoarding them.
- yellowstuff 7y ago
  I read something saying that people with masks had been observed to take them off to eat, put them down on a dirty table, and then put them back on their face. So you should add the caveat that properly used masks always help, all else equal.
  - stubish 7y ago
    Putting a mask on a dirty table and putting it back on again does not render using the mask completely useless. It just lowers the risk reduction a bit.
  - nnq 7y ago
bad_user 7y ago
> "Meanwhile, I have a stack of 20 N95 respirators I bought for woodworking a year ago that I've been offering to friends and family. I've had no takers yet." In absence of a sterilization method, they are going to last for only 20 days at most — since you can only use them once, for 8 hours max. I'd sell them for a premium actually to people thinking those 20 masks will save them. Prevention methods need to be economically sustainable and practical. N95 masks are not only expensive and with an unreliable supply, but they are also pretty uncomfortable and most people don't wear them or dispose of them correctly.
- allovernow 7y ago
  The idea is to stay at home and only wear a mask when you have to go outside, say, for groceries.
PeterCorless 7y ago
The virus itself is too small to be stopped by an N95 mask. An N95 mask stops 95% of 0.3 micron particles. But the virus itself is far smaller. Healthcare workers exposed to SARS-CoV got the disease even wearing N95s. https://www.apsf.org/news-updates/perioperative-considerations-for-the-2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19/ https://www.apsf.org/news-updates/perioperative-consideratio...
- wskinner 7y ago
  The article you shared directly contradicts your claim. > N95 masks fulfill the filtering efficiency criteria of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and are approved for protection against droplet and airborne transmission of 95% of particles greater than 0.3 microns in size. N95 masks, which must be fit tested, are believed to offer protection against the contact and droplet spread of the coronavirus. At a minimum, N95 masks should be used for all known or suspected cases of 2019-nCoV, as well as for any asymptomatic “open airway’’ cases...
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Masks stop droplets, and reduce the spread by coughs and sneezes. If everyone on your bus who's coughing is wearing a mask - even a simple 'surgical' mask not an N95 one - that means less chances of getting infected from them.
- ajross 7y ago
  ARRGH, NO, STOP, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Sorry for the caps, but this stuff is important, and you are spreading exactly the kind of misinformation that the linked article complains about. The study you link absolutely does not say that masks do not work. Here's what it ACTUALLY SAYS: > N95 masks fulfill the filtering efficiency criteria of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and are approved for protection against droplet and airborne transmission of 95% of particles greater than 0.3 microns in size. N95 masks, which must be fit tested, are believed to offer protection against the contact and droplet spread of the coronavirus. At a minimum, N95 masks should be used for all known or suspected cases of 2019-nCoV, as well as for any asymptomatic “open airway’’ cases, e.g.: interventional pulmonology procedures Basically: masks work. They don't work perfectly. You should use them if you are at risk. Your nonsense about the virus itself being small is irrelevant. Respiratory transfer doesn't happen by virus molecules flying through the air, it happens on water droplets. The masks stop droplets. That's what they're for. (They also prevent you from touching your nose and mouth, which is another preventative mechanism.)
m3kw9 7y ago
There is disinformation about n95s. N95 is generally not useful for the public because they need to be fit tested to be effective. Front line workers needs them and use them properly and they are short of them because of the public. The public should use level 1-3 masks so they don’t spread viruses
newtoday 7y ago
As others have corrected you on point 1 below, I know from a first hand account of 1 medical supply company in the US Midwest that is out of stock of surgical masks.
- piinthesky 7y ago
  You will see in the coming weeks that medical services across country's simply can not cope and have not had the foresight to stockpile medical resources apart from FEMA who have stockpiled many many coffins as viewers of Prison Planet will no doubt know about. It seems the lessons of the 1918 Spanish Flu have been forgotten yet this infected 27% of the planets population 100 years ago. Sure only 2billion people were on the planet back then unlike now where in just 100years the population has increased 4 times, but they didnt have planes or cars to move around more quickly or easily to spread the virus like today. Spanish Flu also went on for 3 years back then, so all our Just In Time manufacturing and supply chains with high efficiency means little spare slack. How quickly increased demand can be met will be interesting to watch, but in Italy in some hospitals its reported that those with best chances of survival are being put on respirators and others are being left to die, and in the UK they are only testing for Covid-19 once someone has developed pneumonia so many people could be infected and transmitting it. The reason is that the test needs a certain viral load before it will register so its possible for people to be infected and a subclinical result ie tests negative is returned when in fact they are not negative so it wastes a test. The UK also only has 25% of the accident and emergency beds that Germany has despite having similar population levels which probably explains why they want people to self isolate at home. I am reminded of the Denver airport murals though.
blackflame7000 7y ago
> News outlets do not have an interest in giving a nuanced message. They are willing to lie if they think it helps. Too many journalists today believe the ends justify the means.
Reedx 7y ago
Saying "they don't work" followed with "we need them" is especially blatant. It cancels itself out. After all, no one would need them if they didn't work. Another recent example was this on CNN and others: "38% of Americans wouldn't buy Corona beer "under any circumstances" because of the coronavirus, according to a recent survey." This spread like... well, a virus. Even after it was debunked[1], CNN didn't remove or correct it[2]. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/about-corona-poll/607240/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/about-coro... 2. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1233406525491814400 https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1233406525491814400 https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/business/corona-beer-marketing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/business/corona-beer-marketin...
- waterhouse 7y ago
  I was finally able to get access to the full questions asked in the poll. These make clear that the survey was a fishing expedition designed to elicit viral stats. The questions asked in the poll include “Is Corona related to the coronavirus?” and “In light of the coronavirus, do you plan to stop drinking Corona?” Those presumably didn't get interesting answers, so they omitted them from the report, and instead published on the question of whether people "would not buy Corona under any circumstances now" and made it sound like the first questions. Good lord, it really is like the "Yes, Prime Minister" clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&t=28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&t=28s
  - 0-_-0 7y ago
    I like the quote under the video: Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts — for support rather than illumination. -- Andrew Lang
- xiphias2 7y ago
  > Saying "they don't work" followed with "we need them" is especially blatant. It cancels itself out. I have seen this lie/conflict of interest being told by Harvard medical board by the leaders of the disease fighting squad and I realized that I can't even know what other information I should believe from them.
jogundas 7y ago
The most extensive writeup with references that I have seen so far is at https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp/ https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp/ . Not sure if this is an original summary, or ripped off from some other site though.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jbob2000 7y ago

Here's why masks are useless: You are going to take your mask off with your dirty hands. You're going to wear your mask dutifully while outside, then you're going to walk inside your house and the first thing you will do is take your mask off - with your dirty hands. There are so many gotchas with wearing masks that it's best to just leave them for the people who are closest to the crisis. They're the ones with the greatest need and they have the training to make them effective. And besides... the coronavirus is not airborne, you need to be hit with a droplet from an infected person's cough or sneeze. There's such a small chance of that happening while you're out-and-about that it's not worth it to wear these things. The real solution is to wash your hands because that's the main vector of infection.

whatshisface 7y ago
>You are going to take your mask off with your dirty hands. You're going to wear your mask dutifully while outside, then you're going to walk inside your house and the first thing you will do is take your mask off - with your dirty hands. Now that you've warned me not to do that, won't masks work? I can access the same training materials as hospital workers. Also, what if I get a little cough? If I'm walking by your house, I'm sure you would like me to be wearing a mask.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  Reading training materials does not mean that you are trained. Who is going to slap your hand away from your face when you reach inside your mask to scratch an itch? What if you wash your hands, take of your mask, and then touch the door handle you touched with your dirty hands? I can come up with these scenarios all day. The point I'm making is that the real way to protect yourself is to wash your hands. That's it. The mask does nothing unless you're literally being coughed on by someone who is infected.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >Reading training materials does not mean that you are trained. Who is going to slap your hand away from your face when you reach inside your mask to scratch an itch? What if you wash your hands, take of your mask, and then touch the door handle you touched with your dirty hands? These same caveats apply to medical workers, who occasionally get sick while treating cases. Risk reduction isn't risk elimination but that doesn't make it pointless. >The point I'm making is that the real way to protect yourself is to wash your hands. You could also come up with scenarios where someone who was insufficiently trained would fail to protect themselves with hand washing. Here are some: - Insufficient washing time. - Touching handle before and after. - Only using water. No measure is perfect, and I think we can all agree that a measure with a less-than-100% chance of working (whether hand-washing or mask wearing) is better than nothing.
    - jbob2000 7y ago

notacoward 7y ago

Is that really misinformation, or just people having different information (or understanding of information) than you have? I have talked to actual front-line doctors who have mentioned running out of medical-use-approved masks and have had to get emergency exemptions allowing them to use other N95s wherever they can find any. The shortage is already real, and likely to get worse since we're likely still in the early stages of this outbreak. So yes, it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are. The question is what allocation best serves our public-health interest. People - even people much better informed and closer to the issue than either of us - can reasonably disagree without slinging the "misinformation" label. If that belongs anywhere, it's with people who present only one side of the story and then follow up by attributing motives they couldn't possibly know. ;)

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are. But the misinformation at issue is the idea that masks don't help, not the idea that they do help.
- notacoward 7y ago
  That might be an weakness in phrasing, not actual misinformation. Masks are (arguably) not effective enough to justify the risk to supply for those with suspected/expected exposure, but the "enough" part is easily lost as information gets passed through many people who all mean well. Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > Does that make it misinformation? I think it's a terrible idea to start using that label any time someone's wording isn't clear enough for our liking. When someone's hypothetical sloppy wording changes their statement from true to false, it's fair to call that "misinformation". Telling people false things is spreading misinformation. Spreading misinformation with a pure heart is still spreading misinformation. The state of your heart doesn't matter.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

scarejunba 7y ago

I too, have a box N95 and some P100 I bought in preparation for California fire season way before this crisis. On the Internet, everyone is super concerned with insight porn style stuff. So "actually X won't" or "actually Y will". Well, they're welcome to that. If the masks were useless healthcare workers wouldn't wear them because they do hinder working. So that leaves me, with my stack of masks from before the crisis. Yeah, I'm not going to throw them away. EDIT: I'm rate-limited but I feel the same as user lvturner below. Here's a fit test video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqcKHSIrrM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqcKHSIrrM The following things are true: * Masks are fantastic * If you have them, use them * The distribution of masks should prioritize healthcare workers for public health reasons * Healthcare workers will not take a half-opened box of N95s and P100s. There is precisely one conclusion: If you have masks, use the masks. They are great.

maccard 7y ago
> If the masks were useless healthcare workers wouldn't wear them That's not how that works. The masks are less effective when used outside of a clinical setting, must be changed regularly (pretty much every time you take it off), and may prevent the transfer of disease from an infected healthcare worker to an otherwise vulnerable person. Just because they're not effective for one situation doesn't mean all the advice is moot
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Well, less effective isn't ineffective. The physical properties of the device don't change, so maybe the cost/benefit doesn't lie in buying them now, but I have my stack so it looks like it's worthwhile to use them.
lvturner 7y ago
Around 90% of the population of Hong Kong is wearing a mask right now. Despite the proximity to China, it's use as a transit hub and it's densely packed population - there are only 115 cases there. While it's far from conclusive, I'd suggest this as valid evidence that the use of masks is helpful in reducing the spread of the virus.

Aeolun 7y ago

A while ago I saw some research that came out of China. One department consistently used N95 when dealing with Corona patients daily, and one department used no protection when dealing with patients occasionally. The department with masks had zero personnel infections, the department without masks had 20. I don’t know, but until someone proves to me otherwise, the N95 and up rated masks are super effective.

notacoward 7y ago
Which side of the debate were you trying to support? I don't think anyone disagrees that medical personnel should have masks. Some might say that's all the more reason that a finite supply should be allocated to them first.
- trhway 7y ago
  >a finite supply should be allocated to them first. i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage. Such things like masks cost nothing in normal times and anyway is expected to be bought in bulk. The medical industry is highly consolidated and even without a pandemic there is always a risk of a supplier going off-line and anybody without enough supplies in stores is going to hang dry. Speaking anecdotally - several years ago a Novartis factory went off-line for whatever reason and we were scrambling to find the vet medicine we needed - normal vets quickly run out, and only one online pharmacy happened to fortunately still have it.
  - zamfi 7y ago
    > i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage They might have several months' supply under normal circumstances in storage -- but when suddenly all their staff need one 24/7 and they're overwhelmed with patients, that supply lasts days. The supply needed to handle every possible contingency might not be reasonable to store.
    - PeterisP 7y ago

otterley 7y ago

The question isn't whether N95 masks are/are not effective against transmission of the COVID-19 virus as a boolean yes/no answer. The question is who should be supplied with the masks in a time of extreme shortage in a way that is most effective for the public at large, in terms of maximum effectiveness and lifesaving. It's all about ranking - what's the priority ordering for distribution? The CDC and other well-educated organizations believe they should go to hospitals and other health care providers first, infected people second, vulnerable populations third, and others last. Popular greed combined with ineffective controls are upsetting this logical ordering, and increase the overall risk for the population as a whole.

petre 7y ago
In France, president Macron signed an presidential order last week requisitioning surgical masks and their production for healthcare use. Why isn't this possible in the US? Japan's prime minister, Abe Shinzo, altered the law to be able to declare formal state of emergency. He came under fire for poorly handling the outbreak.
- otterley 7y ago
  The Department of Health and Human Services is doing just that: > Late Wednesday night, HHS announced it would be buying 500 million N95 respirators over the next 18 months for the stockpile, “part of a broader effort to maximize the availability of personal protective equipment for health care workers who are on the front lines” fighting spread of the virus... https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/05/washington-state-asked-us-stockpile-coronavirus-masks-response-raises-concerns/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/05/washington-...
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  The whole topic is a red herring. The production is going to the hospitals and the government also has a stockpile, which they are partially distributing. http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-dispense-21-million-masks-to-help-hospitals-combat-covid-19/ http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-di... http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-dispense-21-million-masks-to-help-hospitals-combat-covid-19/ http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/03/03/california-to-di...

nnq 7y ago

Masks ALWAY help, a little or more, in one way or other. Any masks. Period. If you have them or you can get them easily, use them! They help because: 1. you have a significant chance of being already infected with a mild form and contagious even if you don't know it - wear a damn mask to protect the really vulnerable people around from your viruses! 2. any masks reduces even by a tiny amount the chance of infection - you eat more veggie fibers to reduce your chance of colon cancer by a single digit percent ...wear a goddam mask to reduce even if by very little the risk of catching (and then spreading) COVID-19! 3. by wearing a mask you'll be imitated by a few others and make it socially more acceptable for others to wear too - some of the people who end up wearing makes because of you are probably already infected and don't know it, so you'll have limited spread by promoting the "fashion"! (also, a few are probably immunodepressed or otherwise sensitive and might not even know it so simply copying a "fashion" could save their lives) PLEASE, wear a mask, any masks, even wear it badly, but do! Do it for others and to slow the spread of disease worldwide enough to allow healthcare systems to have a chance of coping with it, and to give vulnerable or unlucky people developing the rare severe cases a decent chance of survival! And wash your hands! (Yeah, 50-70% of the human population will get this, eventually. But it's incredibly stupid if we get it all at fucking once! Unless you're shorting some stocks or pursuing a dubious political agenda, you don't want this to happen.) EDIT+: ...but don't go the other extreme, buying them at exorbitant prices despite being healthy and not at high risk, or hoarding them.

yellowstuff 7y ago
I read something saying that people with masks had been observed to take them off to eat, put them down on a dirty table, and then put them back on their face. So you should add the caveat that properly used masks always help, all else equal.
- stubish 7y ago
  Putting a mask on a dirty table and putting it back on again does not render using the mask completely useless. It just lowers the risk reduction a bit.
- nnq 7y ago

bad_user 7y ago

> "Meanwhile, I have a stack of 20 N95 respirators I bought for woodworking a year ago that I've been offering to friends and family. I've had no takers yet." In absence of a sterilization method, they are going to last for only 20 days at most — since you can only use them once, for 8 hours max. I'd sell them for a premium actually to people thinking those 20 masks will save them. Prevention methods need to be economically sustainable and practical. N95 masks are not only expensive and with an unreliable supply, but they are also pretty uncomfortable and most people don't wear them or dispose of them correctly.

allovernow 7y ago
The idea is to stay at home and only wear a mask when you have to go outside, say, for groceries.

PeterCorless 7y ago

The virus itself is too small to be stopped by an N95 mask. An N95 mask stops 95% of 0.3 micron particles. But the virus itself is far smaller. Healthcare workers exposed to SARS-CoV got the disease even wearing N95s. https://www.apsf.org/news-updates/perioperative-considerations-for-the-2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19/ https://www.apsf.org/news-updates/perioperative-consideratio...

wskinner 7y ago
The article you shared directly contradicts your claim. > N95 masks fulfill the filtering efficiency criteria of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and are approved for protection against droplet and airborne transmission of 95% of particles greater than 0.3 microns in size. N95 masks, which must be fit tested, are believed to offer protection against the contact and droplet spread of the coronavirus. At a minimum, N95 masks should be used for all known or suspected cases of 2019-nCoV, as well as for any asymptomatic “open airway’’ cases...
PeterisP 7y ago
Masks stop droplets, and reduce the spread by coughs and sneezes. If everyone on your bus who's coughing is wearing a mask - even a simple 'surgical' mask not an N95 one - that means less chances of getting infected from them.
ajross 7y ago
ARRGH, NO, STOP, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. Sorry for the caps, but this stuff is important, and you are spreading exactly the kind of misinformation that the linked article complains about. The study you link absolutely does not say that masks do not work. Here's what it ACTUALLY SAYS: > N95 masks fulfill the filtering efficiency criteria of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and are approved for protection against droplet and airborne transmission of 95% of particles greater than 0.3 microns in size. N95 masks, which must be fit tested, are believed to offer protection against the contact and droplet spread of the coronavirus. At a minimum, N95 masks should be used for all known or suspected cases of 2019-nCoV, as well as for any asymptomatic “open airway’’ cases, e.g.: interventional pulmonology procedures Basically: masks work. They don't work perfectly. You should use them if you are at risk. Your nonsense about the virus itself being small is irrelevant. Respiratory transfer doesn't happen by virus molecules flying through the air, it happens on water droplets. The masks stop droplets. That's what they're for. (They also prevent you from touching your nose and mouth, which is another preventative mechanism.)

m3kw9 7y ago

There is disinformation about n95s. N95 is generally not useful for the public because they need to be fit tested to be effective. Front line workers needs them and use them properly and they are short of them because of the public. The public should use level 1-3 masks so they don’t spread viruses

newtoday 7y ago

As others have corrected you on point 1 below, I know from a first hand account of 1 medical supply company in the US Midwest that is out of stock of surgical masks.

piinthesky 7y ago
You will see in the coming weeks that medical services across country's simply can not cope and have not had the foresight to stockpile medical resources apart from FEMA who have stockpiled many many coffins as viewers of Prison Planet will no doubt know about. It seems the lessons of the 1918 Spanish Flu have been forgotten yet this infected 27% of the planets population 100 years ago. Sure only 2billion people were on the planet back then unlike now where in just 100years the population has increased 4 times, but they didnt have planes or cars to move around more quickly or easily to spread the virus like today. Spanish Flu also went on for 3 years back then, so all our Just In Time manufacturing and supply chains with high efficiency means little spare slack. How quickly increased demand can be met will be interesting to watch, but in Italy in some hospitals its reported that those with best chances of survival are being put on respirators and others are being left to die, and in the UK they are only testing for Covid-19 once someone has developed pneumonia so many people could be infected and transmitting it. The reason is that the test needs a certain viral load before it will register so its possible for people to be infected and a subclinical result ie tests negative is returned when in fact they are not negative so it wastes a test. The UK also only has 25% of the accident and emergency beds that Germany has despite having similar population levels which probably explains why they want people to self isolate at home. I am reminded of the Denver airport murals though.

blackflame7000 7y ago

> News outlets do not have an interest in giving a nuanced message. They are willing to lie if they think it helps. Too many journalists today believe the ends justify the means.

Reedx 7y ago

Saying "they don't work" followed with "we need them" is especially blatant. It cancels itself out. After all, no one would need them if they didn't work. Another recent example was this on CNN and others: "38% of Americans wouldn't buy Corona beer "under any circumstances" because of the coronavirus, according to a recent survey." This spread like... well, a virus. Even after it was debunked[1], CNN didn't remove or correct it[2]. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/about-corona-poll/607240/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/about-coro... 2. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1233406525491814400 https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1233406525491814400 https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/business/corona-beer-marketing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/business/corona-beer-marketin...

waterhouse 7y ago
I was finally able to get access to the full questions asked in the poll. These make clear that the survey was a fishing expedition designed to elicit viral stats. The questions asked in the poll include “Is Corona related to the coronavirus?” and “In light of the coronavirus, do you plan to stop drinking Corona?” Those presumably didn't get interesting answers, so they omitted them from the report, and instead published on the question of whether people "would not buy Corona under any circumstances now" and made it sound like the first questions. Good lord, it really is like the "Yes, Prime Minister" clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&t=28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&t=28s
- 0-_-0 7y ago
  I like the quote under the video: Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts — for support rather than illumination. -- Andrew Lang
xiphias2 7y ago
> Saying "they don't work" followed with "we need them" is especially blatant. It cancels itself out. I have seen this lie/conflict of interest being told by Harvard medical board by the leaders of the disease fighting squad and I realized that I can't even know what other information I should believe from them.

jogundas 7y ago

The most extensive writeup with references that I have seen so far is at https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp/ https://fastlifehacks.com/n95-vs-ffp/ . Not sure if this is an original summary, or ripped off from some other site though.