3 ms·

PSA: This infographic applies to regular surgical masks. If you wear a properly fitted n95+, the mask will protect you, even if others are not wearing masks. Si

PSA: This infographic applies to regular surgical masks. If you wear a properly fitted n95+, the mask will protect you, even if others are not wearing masks. Since n95s are in short supply, if you can get your hands on one they can be sterilize for re-use by leaving them out to dry for 3-4 days. https://www.acoi.org/covid-19/n95reuse https://www.acoi.org/covid-19/n95reuse

_-___________-_ 6y ago
While all of this may be true, the science around all of this is much less settled than the tone of your comment makes it sound.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  Could you link to some evidence for your medical claims? here is mine: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Here's my link, from people working to promote evidence-based medicine: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... From your link: > (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty That "low certainty" comes from GRADE. Low certainty in GRADE means "The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect". Masks may be very much better, or very much worse, than they estimate. The Interpretation section says this: > Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Which suggests to me that they want more and better evidence. The end of the paper says this: > Our comprehensive systematic review provides the best available information on three simple and common interventions to combat the immediate threat of COVID-19, while new evidence on pharmacological treatments, vaccines, and other personal protective strategies is being generated. Physical distancing of at least 1 m is strongly associated with protection, but distances of up to 2 m might be more effective. Although direct evidence is limited, the optimum use of face masks, in particular N95 or similar respirators in health-care settings and 12–16-layer cotton or surgical masks in the community, could depend on contextual factors; action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence. Eye protection might provide additional benefits. Globally collaborative and well conducted studies, including randomised trials, of different personal protective strategies are needed regardless of the challenges, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence could be considered to inform interim guidance. These sentences make me think the evidence isn't as strong as lots of people claim it is: > while new evidence on [...] other personal protective strategies is being generated. > Although direct evidence is limited > action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence.
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      Even in the 'evidence' the poster you're responding to says there's low evidence of effectiveness of mask usage.
      - DanBC 6y ago
        Please re-read my post. That's what I'm saying: that masks may work, but we have low quality evidence. We need more evidence, we need better evidence. dougmwne appears to be saying that masks work and that we know they work, but the link they provided doesn't support that claim.
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
        No I was agreeing with you. Was pointing out that 'evidence' that the person you were replying to presented, said the certainty was 'low'.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    You clearly didn't read this paper because it literally says there's low certainty of mask usage being effective in table 2 and in the findings section.
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    The article you linked doesn't provide any evidence for your medical claims -- in fact, it provides support for my position. Furthermore, the claim I'm making (masks may work, but there's very little good-quality evidence that they do) is much softer than the claim you're making (masks work, even though there's very little good-quality evidence that they do). It really bothers me that a medical device has become something so political and so disconnected from evidence-based science that I need to say this, but: for what it's worth, I wear a mask when near other people, both because they may be effective, and because the people I'm near may believe that they are and may thus feel safer seeing me wear it. I can feel that the evidence is very weak and yet still do that.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Your linked article specifically warns against subjecting the mask to prolonged sunlight exposure. In other words, don't set it out in the sun to dry. The reasoning is that the electrostatic charges of polypropylene are damaged by UV rays, which apparently makes the mask less effective. Yet, UV rays kill the virus. In fact, a few minutes in the sun is enough to kill the virus in vapor, or on surfaces. Maybe we need masks that are not vulnerable to UV, and thus could more easily sterilized.
- bognition 6y ago
  A few minutes of UV light kill the virus? This is the first I’ve heard, can you link to a citation?
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    I don't have a citation. But it should be noted that COVID19 is an RNA virus. Its a stray piece of RNA floating around in the air, without any cell walls, cell membranes, or other apparatus for protection. As such, any environmental effect: heat, dryness, humidity, UV-light, or chemicals, will kill the virus extremely quickly. ---------- With that being said: E. Coli can still grow on a mask, and I would recommend proper sanitation of your masks. A "standard" bacterial infection would still suck, even if it isn't COVID19. So even IF COVID19 dies in minutes to sunlight (a fact that I find plausible, given the very low levels of protections viruses have vs the environment), its a bad idea to aim at "only disinfecting COVID19". There's many fungus, bacteria, AND viruses that can get stuck on a mask. -------- Hydrogen Peroxide has been shown to be a strong anti-viral, anti-bacterial, and anti-fungal agent. Or, toasting your N95 masks in ~180F ovens for 30 minutes also would do the trick. (Again: the higher temperature and time is NOT for the easily killed virus, but for the harder to kill bacteria and fungus) I know that aerosolized H2O2 has been used to recycle / reuse masks in hospitals. I don't know if liquid H2O2 is safe for masks. So I guess the oven-toast methodology is the best I've heard so far. Aerosol H2O2 is toxic however. And unfortunately, I don't recall the percentage that they used for the study (3% is common household grade. But hospitals are known to use 7% or 10% grade for disinfection purposes). H2O2 is also highly reactive, so its possible it damages the mask somehow. But as a cleaning agent, its both cheap and effective (as long as the base material can survive). ---------- For your cloth masks: your standard laundry detergent is a good anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, anti-viral soap. The issue with N95 masks is that they can't survive the laundry or other, more rigorous forms of cleaning. Throw some chlorine bleach into the wash if you want to be extra sure (a 2nd, independent anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, anti-viral chemical for good measure). EDIT: Can someone please explain the downvotes? We have a classic A/B question here. We should NOT only be aiming to kill viruses (which is extremely easy). If we want to protect ourselves while using masks, we should aim at killing viruses, bacteria, AND fungus. That is, all the different micro-organisms that can be found on a mask.

_-___________-_ 6y ago

While all of this may be true, the science around all of this is much less settled than the tone of your comment makes it sound.

dougmwne 6y ago
Could you link to some evidence for your medical claims? here is mine: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- DanBC 6y ago
  Here's my link, from people working to promote evidence-based medicine: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... From your link: > (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty That "low certainty" comes from GRADE. Low certainty in GRADE means "The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect". Masks may be very much better, or very much worse, than they estimate. The Interpretation section says this: > Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Which suggests to me that they want more and better evidence. The end of the paper says this: > Our comprehensive systematic review provides the best available information on three simple and common interventions to combat the immediate threat of COVID-19, while new evidence on pharmacological treatments, vaccines, and other personal protective strategies is being generated. Physical distancing of at least 1 m is strongly associated with protection, but distances of up to 2 m might be more effective. Although direct evidence is limited, the optimum use of face masks, in particular N95 or similar respirators in health-care settings and 12–16-layer cotton or surgical masks in the community, could depend on contextual factors; action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence. Eye protection might provide additional benefits. Globally collaborative and well conducted studies, including randomised trials, of different personal protective strategies are needed regardless of the challenges, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence could be considered to inform interim guidance. These sentences make me think the evidence isn't as strong as lots of people claim it is: > while new evidence on [...] other personal protective strategies is being generated. > Although direct evidence is limited > action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Even in the 'evidence' the poster you're responding to says there's low evidence of effectiveness of mask usage.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Please re-read my post. That's what I'm saying: that masks may work, but we have low quality evidence. We need more evidence, we need better evidence. dougmwne appears to be saying that masks work and that we know they work, but the link they provided doesn't support that claim.
      - nickthemagicman 6y ago
        No I was agreeing with you. Was pointing out that 'evidence' that the person you were replying to presented, said the certainty was 'low'.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  You clearly didn't read this paper because it literally says there's low certainty of mask usage being effective in table 2 and in the findings section.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  The article you linked doesn't provide any evidence for your medical claims -- in fact, it provides support for my position. Furthermore, the claim I'm making (masks may work, but there's very little good-quality evidence that they do) is much softer than the claim you're making (masks work, even though there's very little good-quality evidence that they do). It really bothers me that a medical device has become something so political and so disconnected from evidence-based science that I need to say this, but: for what it's worth, I wear a mask when near other people, both because they may be effective, and because the people I'm near may believe that they are and may thus feel safer seeing me wear it. I can feel that the evidence is very weak and yet still do that.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago

Your linked article specifically warns against subjecting the mask to prolonged sunlight exposure. In other words, don't set it out in the sun to dry. The reasoning is that the electrostatic charges of polypropylene are damaged by UV rays, which apparently makes the mask less effective. Yet, UV rays kill the virus. In fact, a few minutes in the sun is enough to kill the virus in vapor, or on surfaces. Maybe we need masks that are not vulnerable to UV, and thus could more easily sterilized.

bognition 6y ago
A few minutes of UV light kill the virus? This is the first I’ve heard, can you link to a citation?
- dragontamer 6y ago
  I don't have a citation. But it should be noted that COVID19 is an RNA virus. Its a stray piece of RNA floating around in the air, without any cell walls, cell membranes, or other apparatus for protection. As such, any environmental effect: heat, dryness, humidity, UV-light, or chemicals, will kill the virus extremely quickly. ---------- With that being said: E. Coli can still grow on a mask, and I would recommend proper sanitation of your masks. A "standard" bacterial infection would still suck, even if it isn't COVID19. So even IF COVID19 dies in minutes to sunlight (a fact that I find plausible, given the very low levels of protections viruses have vs the environment), its a bad idea to aim at "only disinfecting COVID19". There's many fungus, bacteria, AND viruses that can get stuck on a mask. -------- Hydrogen Peroxide has been shown to be a strong anti-viral, anti-bacterial, and anti-fungal agent. Or, toasting your N95 masks in ~180F ovens for 30 minutes also would do the trick. (Again: the higher temperature and time is NOT for the easily killed virus, but for the harder to kill bacteria and fungus) I know that aerosolized H2O2 has been used to recycle / reuse masks in hospitals. I don't know if liquid H2O2 is safe for masks. So I guess the oven-toast methodology is the best I've heard so far. Aerosol H2O2 is toxic however. And unfortunately, I don't recall the percentage that they used for the study (3% is common household grade. But hospitals are known to use 7% or 10% grade for disinfection purposes). H2O2 is also highly reactive, so its possible it damages the mask somehow. But as a cleaning agent, its both cheap and effective (as long as the base material can survive). ---------- For your cloth masks: your standard laundry detergent is a good anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, anti-viral soap. The issue with N95 masks is that they can't survive the laundry or other, more rigorous forms of cleaning. Throw some chlorine bleach into the wash if you want to be extra sure (a 2nd, independent anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, anti-viral chemical for good measure). EDIT: Can someone please explain the downvotes? We have a classic A/B question here. We should NOT only be aiming to kill viruses (which is extremely easy). If we want to protect ourselves while using masks, we should aim at killing viruses, bacteria, AND fungus. That is, all the different micro-organisms that can be found on a mask.