4 ms·

> Cloth and non-medical disposable masks are not considered protective > anti-maskers threw enough of a fit about fairly comfortable ones How's this for a sol

> Cloth and non-medical disposable masks are not considered protective > anti-maskers threw enough of a fit about fairly comfortable ones How's this for a solution? Make masks with inhalation valves. You can find masks for dusty work with exhalation valves. It wouldn't be too big a change to reverse those valves. The lost protection against inbound particles isn't much, and the gain would be near elimination of the inherent discomfort of re-breathing CO2. I'm not an anti-masker, but I notice I'm a lot more comfortable with my mask off.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> The lost protection against inbound particles isn't much... Why would it not be impacted? You'd be breathing in unfiltered air, and that's the main method of transmission. > the gain would be near elimination of the inherent discomfort of re-breathing CO2 Which isn't really the comfort problem with N95s; they're just tight and hot.
- brlewis 6y ago
  > The lost protection against inbound particles isn't much... Why would it not be impacted? You'd be breathing in unfiltered air, and that's the main method of transmission. It would be impacted. You'd lose 100% of that benefit. But 100% is still not much.
  - VectorLock 6y ago
    >You'd lose 100% of that benefit. But 100% is still not much. What would even be the point then? That'd just be reduced to obstinate anti-maskers wearing lace 'masks.'
    - jlokier 6y ago
      The GPP describes an inhalation value. The mask still protects other people from transmission by you. Anti-maskers wearing lace 'masks' does not protect other people. They are completely different, and that is the main point of mask wearing for the general public - to protect each other by reducing the chance of ourselves transmitting it if we have it.
      - VectorLock 6y ago
        Protecting others is the main point but protecting yourself is still very important and shouldn't be discarded. You're pretty much back at ubiquitous and widely available surgical style masks at that point.
Aeolun 6y ago
That’s uh. Silly. It defeats the entire purpose of a (nearly) sealed mask. If you want to do that you can just wear a surgical mask instead.
- brlewis 6y ago
  Your comment assumes the entire purpose of a (nearly) sealed mask is to protect the wearer from incoming droplets or particles. I don't understand where this ignorance comes from; it's been widely known and repeated for some time that masks do much more to protect others from infection from the wearer. There's only a small amount of protection for the wearer from infection from others. An inhalation valve preserves the mask's primary purpose by closing off during exhalation. It gives up a small amount of protection for the wearer, but obviously a lot of people aren't interested in that anyway and refuse to wear masks. With an inhalation valve they could at least protect others.
  - donor20 6y ago
    Where is this coming from that only a small amount of protection is provided to wearer. For a while I kept on posting studies showing the effectiveness of masks in protection infection by wearer, but it's hopeless - somehow public health authorities have gotten everything so muddled in folks minds.
    - brlewis 6y ago
      You answered your own question. > Where is this coming from that only a small amount of protection is provided to wearer [...] public health authorities I clicked the HN link to your comments. I couldn't quickly find studies, just a mention of Korea having success with KN94 masks. I think it's safe to repost them now without being repetitive.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    > Your comment assumes the entire purpose of a (nearly) sealed mask is to protect the wearer from incoming droplets or particles It doesn’t just assume it. It’s the whole point of the masks. If your aim is just to prevent making people sick, a surgical mask is just fine (exhibit A, normal doctors). If your aim is to prevent getting sick yourself, a N95 respirator is a better choice (exhibit B, doctors treating COVID patients). An inhalation valve does less to protect other people, because the expelled air still has to go somewhere, and will just blow out of the sides of the mask. It could theoretically go through the mask material if it was thin enough, but there’s probably too much pressure inside and it’ll burst out the sides. That in reverse is the whole idea for masks with an exhalation valve. Breathing in creates negative pressure inside the mask, so air gets pulled inside through the mask. When breathing out the valve opens and releases the extra pressure without blowing out the sides (not really a problem per-se, but would compromise your protection).

ceejayoz 6y ago

> The lost protection against inbound particles isn't much... Why would it not be impacted? You'd be breathing in unfiltered air, and that's the main method of transmission. > the gain would be near elimination of the inherent discomfort of re-breathing CO2 Which isn't really the comfort problem with N95s; they're just tight and hot.

brlewis 6y ago
> The lost protection against inbound particles isn't much... Why would it not be impacted? You'd be breathing in unfiltered air, and that's the main method of transmission. It would be impacted. You'd lose 100% of that benefit. But 100% is still not much.
- VectorLock 6y ago
  >You'd lose 100% of that benefit. But 100% is still not much. What would even be the point then? That'd just be reduced to obstinate anti-maskers wearing lace 'masks.'
  - jlokier 6y ago
    The GPP describes an inhalation value. The mask still protects other people from transmission by you. Anti-maskers wearing lace 'masks' does not protect other people. They are completely different, and that is the main point of mask wearing for the general public - to protect each other by reducing the chance of ourselves transmitting it if we have it.
    - VectorLock 6y ago
      Protecting others is the main point but protecting yourself is still very important and shouldn't be discarded. You're pretty much back at ubiquitous and widely available surgical style masks at that point.

Aeolun 6y ago

That’s uh. Silly. It defeats the entire purpose of a (nearly) sealed mask. If you want to do that you can just wear a surgical mask instead.

brlewis 6y ago
Your comment assumes the entire purpose of a (nearly) sealed mask is to protect the wearer from incoming droplets or particles. I don't understand where this ignorance comes from; it's been widely known and repeated for some time that masks do much more to protect others from infection from the wearer. There's only a small amount of protection for the wearer from infection from others. An inhalation valve preserves the mask's primary purpose by closing off during exhalation. It gives up a small amount of protection for the wearer, but obviously a lot of people aren't interested in that anyway and refuse to wear masks. With an inhalation valve they could at least protect others.
- donor20 6y ago
  Where is this coming from that only a small amount of protection is provided to wearer. For a while I kept on posting studies showing the effectiveness of masks in protection infection by wearer, but it's hopeless - somehow public health authorities have gotten everything so muddled in folks minds.
  - brlewis 6y ago
    You answered your own question. > Where is this coming from that only a small amount of protection is provided to wearer [...] public health authorities I clicked the HN link to your comments. I couldn't quickly find studies, just a mention of Korea having success with KN94 masks. I think it's safe to repost them now without being repetitive.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  > Your comment assumes the entire purpose of a (nearly) sealed mask is to protect the wearer from incoming droplets or particles It doesn’t just assume it. It’s the whole point of the masks. If your aim is just to prevent making people sick, a surgical mask is just fine (exhibit A, normal doctors). If your aim is to prevent getting sick yourself, a N95 respirator is a better choice (exhibit B, doctors treating COVID patients). An inhalation valve does less to protect other people, because the expelled air still has to go somewhere, and will just blow out of the sides of the mask. It could theoretically go through the mask material if it was thin enough, but there’s probably too much pressure inside and it’ll burst out the sides. That in reverse is the whole idea for masks with an exhalation valve. Breathing in creates negative pressure inside the mask, so air gets pulled inside through the mask. When breathing out the valve opens and releases the extra pressure without blowing out the sides (not really a problem per-se, but would compromise your protection).