4 ms·

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that properly worn EN14683 IIR masks are not sufficient?

zaroth 6y ago
How about because it says so on the label? > Type I, I R, II and II R face masks are medical masks tested in the direction of exhalation (inside to outside) and take into account the efficiency of bacterial filtration. Surgical masks of this type stop the wearer from infecting the surrounding environment. They are not effective at protecting the wearer from airbourne diseases such as coronavirus. > Type IIR face masks EN14683 are medical face masks made up of a 4 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces. Type IIR Face masks include a splash resistant layer to protect against blood and other bodily fluids. Type IIR face masks are tested in the direction of exhalation (inside to outside) and take into account the efficiency of bacterial filtration. They are not designed or tested to stop inhaling large droplets, nor exhaling small droplets. There is no scientific evidence they prevent the transmission of COVID and they specifically disclaim as much. However, properly worn FFP2, FFP3, N95 and other respirator masks are effective at protecting the wearer from viral transmission. That’s just not what most people are wearing outside a health care environment. And you can’t simply take them off when you sit down. First hit on Google: 1. https://www.dental-nursing.co.uk/news/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks https://www.dental-nursing.co.uk/news/covid-19-a-guide-to-fa...
- kingnothing 6y ago
  The key point is "Surgical masks of this type stop the wearer from infecting the surrounding environment" Your mask protects me, my mask protects you.
- red0point 6y ago
  Well forgive me but I was hoping for more than a first hit from Google and apparent common knowledge. Since you mentioned having read studies about airborne transmission and aerosols, I was hoping you could point me to one where they examined the masks and found them to be significantly worse than FFP2. Because in this study presented, only the people in the direct path facing the infected person were infected, not everyone, so wearing even EN14683 IIR masks could seem effective. My guess, and this of many doctors in my area, is that EN14683IIR are, in fact, enough (if properly worn etc). If that is not true, I‘d like to know - from a reputable source.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    The thing is specifically not designed to stop coronavirus, and specifically disclaims providing any protection against coronavirus. That’s not an editorial, that’s the written scientific standard for the medical device. If you could get people to wear them without making people think they were a panacea then there wouldn’t be a problem (it would be a “can’t possibly hurt” situation). Unfortunately that’s not the equation that we’re faced with. I’m sure EN14683 IIR is somewhat better than nothing, perhaps shifting the odds of infection somewhat lower depending on the circumstance. But if people slap one on and then feel they can’t be infected while standing in a room with people outside their household, that’s a mistake. I think it’s blatantly obvious looking at flu vs. COVID numbers that it’s not that the precautions people are taking are not totally ineffective, they are just not nearly as effective as we need them to be against COVID.

How about because it says so on the label? > Type I, I R, II and II R face masks are medical masks tested in the direction of exhalation (inside to outside) and take into account the efficiency of bacterial filtration. Surgical masks of this type stop the wearer from infecting the surrounding environment. They are not effective at protecting the wearer from airbourne diseases such as coronavirus. > Type IIR face masks EN14683 are medical face masks made up of a 4 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces. Type IIR Face masks include a splash resistant layer to protect against blood and other bodily fluids. Type IIR face masks are tested in the direction of exhalation (inside to outside) and take into account the efficiency of bacterial filtration. They are not designed or tested to stop inhaling large droplets, nor exhaling small droplets. There is no scientific evidence they prevent the transmission of COVID and they specifically disclaim as much. However, properly worn FFP2, FFP3, N95 and other respirator masks are effective at protecting the wearer from viral transmission. That’s just not what most people are wearing outside a health care environment. And you can’t simply take them off when you sit down. First hit on Google: 1. https://www.dental-nursing.co.uk/news/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks https://www.dental-nursing.co.uk/news/covid-19-a-guide-to-fa...

kingnothing 6y ago
The key point is "Surgical masks of this type stop the wearer from infecting the surrounding environment" Your mask protects me, my mask protects you.
red0point 6y ago
Well forgive me but I was hoping for more than a first hit from Google and apparent common knowledge. Since you mentioned having read studies about airborne transmission and aerosols, I was hoping you could point me to one where they examined the masks and found them to be significantly worse than FFP2. Because in this study presented, only the people in the direct path facing the infected person were infected, not everyone, so wearing even EN14683 IIR masks could seem effective. My guess, and this of many doctors in my area, is that EN14683IIR are, in fact, enough (if properly worn etc). If that is not true, I‘d like to know - from a reputable source.
- zaroth 6y ago
  The thing is specifically not designed to stop coronavirus, and specifically disclaims providing any protection against coronavirus. That’s not an editorial, that’s the written scientific standard for the medical device. If you could get people to wear them without making people think they were a panacea then there wouldn’t be a problem (it would be a “can’t possibly hurt” situation). Unfortunately that’s not the equation that we’re faced with. I’m sure EN14683 IIR is somewhat better than nothing, perhaps shifting the odds of infection somewhat lower depending on the circumstance. But if people slap one on and then feel they can’t be infected while standing in a room with people outside their household, that’s a mistake. I think it’s blatantly obvious looking at flu vs. COVID numbers that it’s not that the precautions people are taking are not totally ineffective, they are just not nearly as effective as we need them to be against COVID.