Coffee filters as face masks?

[dimreepr]

Just now, zapatos said:

Not everyone in first world countries are rich and not everyone in third world countries are poor. Your statement remains inaccurate.

Only semantically, the syntax remains valid. 

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The poor have more important things to consider.

That won't stop them getting seriously ill and dying, unfortunately.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

That won't stop them getting seriously ill and dying, unfortunately.

No it won't, but if you're facing problems that transcends "who might die today" with "which family member do I sacrifice?"; would you worry about getting ill?

[MigL]

What annoys me is how everything remotely politically related gets turned around to be about D Trump.
And every problem with society, or the world in general, is due to the unfairness of the haves and have-nots.

D Trump got elected President, and the world was/is/will be unfair; I will help whomever I can.
Rich people die too.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No it won't, but if you're facing problems that transcends "who might die today" with "which family member do I sacrifice?"; would you worry about getting ill?

So worrying about who might die next of one thing means they won't worry about who might die next of covid-19? And when no one is well enough to go and work the fields and tend the animals, you think they won't care about the disease that is causing that?

You are not making much sense. 

And not many people, even in the developing world, live in circumstances as dire as you seem to picturing.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

What annoys me is how everything remotely politically related gets turned around to be about D Trump.
And every problem with society, or the world in general, is due to the unfairness of the haves and have-nots.

I'm sure it annoys the have-nots, just a little more...

[MigL]

Oh, is it a contest now...

[Strange]

Just now, dimreepr said:

I'm sure it annoys the have-nots, just a little more...

I thought they had more important things to worry about.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

What annoys me is how everything remotely politically related gets turned around to be about D Trump.

What annoys me is how everything remotely political gets turned around to be about the liberal media, Obama, Pelosi, socialism, etc. 😀

I guess we all have our own set of filters through which we view the world. 

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Only semantically, the syntax remains valid. 

Yes, the important part.

[MigL]

See, there you go; you turned my post around to be about American politics...

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, the important part.

Perception???

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Perception???

No, 'meaning'.

[dimreepr]

Meaning has filters and biases...

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

See, there you go; you turned my post around to be about American politics...

Whose politics were you referring to when you mentioned Donald Trump? (apologies if I'm being dense)

Just now, dimreepr said:

Meaning has filters and biases...

No shit. None of this little journey makes your original statement any more accurate.

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

None of this little journey makes your original statement any more accurate.

I guess that depends on your politics... 

[CharonY]

I have posted in this thread, so not making this statement as a mod. However, it would be great if we could stay on topic. Please open a thread in politics for example if other aspects are to be explored.

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

We may as well be talking about socks and scarves and t-shirts over our mouths. Better than nothing, but not good. 

Actually I think that is fine. A surgical mask does not have filter capacities, either, it is more a splash protection. Considering it is about minimizing producing droplets it would still work. N95 or equivalent masks, are, when properly worn, very uncomfortable especially after prolonged use. If it results in fiddling with it, you may increase droplet transfer via your hands. Again, it is more about protecting others rather than just yourself.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

If, or more likely when, it spreads to developing countries I think you are going to realise that is not true. 

There are also other areas where is is going to be absolutely devastating: various war-torn countries and the associated refugee camps, which are already overcrowded and under-resourced.

I suspect we are also going to see a massively increased problem of poverty in first world countries, as well. (As if it wasn't bad enough already.)

We're off-topic, but another aspect of this is how authoritarian leaders are using this as an opportunity to seize more power, to implement enhanced surveillance, and to crumble the checks and balances which often restrain their selfish intent.

[Allie23]

I signed up to this website just to follow the coffee filter as facemask thread! I'm considering sewing some masks with a pocket for a filter in them. The best info I've found yet says that for masks, more fabric is better (pleated better than straight), which makes sense, biologically. Think pleated sheets in proteins?  More surface area!  Also found data that a tea towel (dishcloth) is close to as effective as a surgical mask. I think the idea is, capture as many particles as possible while still allowing air to flow through. A quick search for filter papers comes up with air furnace filters, vacuum filters, various filter papers for scientists, air filters for motors, tea bags, and coffee filters. I might try coffee filters inside a home-made mask, or maybe even folded (pleated) paper towels stuck in there between two sheets of fabric?

Also, to consider, improper use of these masks theoretically could INCREASE one's risk of contracting the disease. Imagine the virus gets stuck on the outside or filter of a mask, just like it is supposed to. Then the wearer handles mask and reuses the mask. Masks CATCH pathogens! Wearer handles mask and accidentally gets virus on INSIDE of mask. Wearer is toast. Caution needed. I recently read about a nurse contracting COVID-19 most likely from reusing a N-95 mask that she was instructed to leave in a bag outside rooms between patients, then reuse. Storing a mask in a bag and reusing it? Seems like a virus has a pretty good chance of going from outside of mask, to bag material, to inside of mask, to your mouth or nose. Sketchy.

[MigL]

her is a good article on the droplet size for human sneezing, coughing, or general talking.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/

It references distances and size , in microns, so as to clarify filtering media requirements.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Allie23 said:

I signed up to this website just to follow the coffee filter as facemask thread! I'm considering sewing some masks with a pocket for a filter in them. The best info I've found yet says that for masks, more fabric is better (pleated better than straight), which makes sense, biologically. Think pleated sheets in proteins?  More surface area!  Also found data that a tea towel (dishcloth) is close to as effective as a surgical mask. I think the idea is, capture as many particles as possible while still allowing air to flow through. A quick search for filter papers comes up with air furnace filters, vacuum filters, various filter papers for scientists, air filters for motors, tea bags, and coffee filters. I might try coffee filters inside a home-made mask, or maybe even folded (pleated) paper towels stuck in there between two sheets of fabric?

Also, to consider, improper use of these masks theoretically could INCREASE one's risk of contracting the disease. Imagine the virus gets stuck on the outside or filter of a mask, just like it is supposed to. Then the wearer handles mask and reuses the mask. Masks CATCH pathogens! Wearer handles mask and accidentally gets virus on INSIDE of mask. Wearer is toast. Caution needed. I recently read about a nurse contracting COVID-19 most likely from reusing a N-95 mask that she was instructed to leave in a bag outside rooms between patients, then reuse. Storing a mask in a bag and reusing it? Seems like a virus has a pretty good chance of going from outside of mask, to bag material, to inside of mask, to your mouth or nose. Sketchy.

Essentially anything that can works as splash protection has a decent change of capturing the droplets containing the virus. I will re-iterate again that the data is very thin on whether widespread use is a good protection from getting it. Theoretical papers have looked on whether N95 masks can protect effectively from particles under lab conditions, and, well of course they do. As you mentioned, handling and other issues make them less effective under less ideal situations (e.g. no full seal). Surgical masks can also be penetrated, which kind of makes sense, as they are basically disposable splash protection. 

Take a look at some influenza data. A review is e.g. Cowling et al. Epidemiology&Infection 2010 138:4 pp/449-56

As mentioned, despite the fact that surgical or even cloth masks are way inferior as N95 masks in terms of protection and potential penetration with small particles, folks found similar efficiency with both masks when it comes to household transmission. That indicates that if they work, it might not depend on the material (or perhaps wearing them at all) per se. The one measure that throughout all studies reduced transmission was hand washing.

However, since folks might be transmitting viruses while being asymptomatic, it does make sense to wear masks to limit spread. For that scenario you can find more literature indicating that it might actually help (see also references provide in the above paper).

There are also other thoughts, folks wearing masks may be better in distancing themselves from others, for example, which can skew results. But as a whole, there is a distinct difference in efficacy when comparing professional (e.g. laboratory or clinical use) vs. household use.

[J.C.MacSwell]

As most of us probably suspected the CDC has changed their guidelines on masks and face coverings. Not that they would ever admit they were wrong, but it seems they've been pushed in the right direction

"The CDC would not have gone this direction if not for the White House," the senior official told CNN. "We would have tried more to understand about asymptomatic transmission. We would have done more studies if we had more time."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/03/health/us-coronavirus-friday/index.html

So we've gone from N95 masks being of no benefit to the public, as they aren't capable of fitting them on and understanding proper protocols for wearing them, to admitting almost any face covering could have some limited benefit.

On 3/31/2020 at 4:43 PM, CharonY said:

Actually I think that is fine. A surgical mask does not have filter capacities, either, it is more a splash protection. Considering it is about minimizing producing droplets it would still work. N95 or equivalent masks, are, when properly worn, very uncomfortable especially after prolonged use. If it results in fiddling with it, you may increase droplet transfer via your hands. Again, it is more about protecting others rather than just yourself.

Also. These face coverings can be more than splash shields or barriers. They still act as filters to some degree. They allow air through. The fibres still remove particles by diffusion, interception and impaction, just not nearly as effectively as an N95 (or better) mask.

If you wear a face covering you can breath through, and do everything else properly including all the proper hygiene tactics and staying 6 feet from everyone, you will be safer than putting yourself in an identical situation without one...which still won't be 100% safe...but we never are. 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So we've gone from N95 masks being of no benefit to the public

I don't think anyone has ever said that. However ...

Some good advice on mask wearing here, if you are going to wear one: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1246262176337334272.html

[MigL]

In 32 years of working in the chemical industry with all sorts of PPE, I was always taught that you need to know how to use it.
In the case of masks ( filtering, respirator, or supplied air ), if something goes wrong, your first reaction/instinct is to yank it off.
For Covid-19 protection, think of a mask solely as a ( partial ) barrier, where one side may be contaminated. As a matter of fact, a face-shield might be just as effective, but you still need to keep proper use in mind. People are told to wear masks and latex/nitrile gloves but they are given no instruction. Just how many people know how to remove gloves without exposing themselves to contaminants ?

In my line of work, that could immediately endanger your life.
With Covid-19, improper use of a mask will endanger it 2 weeks later.

All the Muslim women wearing burkas aren't looking so foolish now, are they ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

57 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think anyone has ever said that. However ...

Some good advice on mask wearing here, if you are going to wear one: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1246262176337334272.html

You certainly wouldn't expect the WHO, the CDC, or the US Surgeon General to have said that, would you? But you would be wrong.

On 3/15/2020 at 6:23 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/02/29/no-you-do-not-need-face-masks-for-coronavirus-they-might-increase-your-infection-risk/#415bf6e2676c

Compare the headlines with the somewhat accurate article.

That is implying otherwise IMO, and implying it intentionally. If they did this with malicious intent, I think most would be a little less forgiving.

Bolding by me:

“Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” tweeted Dr. Jerome Adams, the U.S. Surgeon General, on Feb. 29. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell