Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020(oceansasia.org)
oceansasia.org
Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020
https://oceansasia.org/covid-19-facemasks/
176 comments
The 3M 100 (your example) is a big, bulky heavy mask that costs (according to Amazon currently) $33, and as you say, isn’t actually fit for Covid protection (in both directions) without modification.
And you wonder why, after a year, “people” haven’t widely adopted them? Honestly, this is such a prime HN comment I’m not sure you’re not trolling.
And you wonder why, after a year, “people” haven’t widely adopted them? Honestly, this is such a prime HN comment I’m not sure you’re not trolling.
[deleted]
Define big and bulky. But fair enough, that’s why lightweight 2020 pandemic redesigned versions are desirable. $33 is 9 cents a day averaged out over the year. Double it so you have a spare; that’s 18 cents a day. Not out of reach for most but they should be subsidized or provided free by the government anyway.
Even as a one off, a single respirator costs less than three or four good quality cloth masks, and less than a months supply of single use designed N95s or surgical masks.
Few who have ever ever worn an elastomer respirator would argue it’s less comfortable than an N95 or less efficacious than a 1918 flu era cloth mask.
The exhalation valve filter adaptation could be cut and fitted with the craft skills of a five year old and took two minutes.
I’m not trolling but I think you may be.
Even as a one off, a single respirator costs less than three or four good quality cloth masks, and less than a months supply of single use designed N95s or surgical masks.
Few who have ever ever worn an elastomer respirator would argue it’s less comfortable than an N95 or less efficacious than a 1918 flu era cloth mask.
The exhalation valve filter adaptation could be cut and fitted with the craft skills of a five year old and took two minutes.
I’m not trolling but I think you may be.
Masks with exhalation valves (edit: and no filter :) are inconsiderate to others since they do not stop you from spreading virus particles.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/11/new-airflow-vi...
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/11/new-airflow-vi...
> with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter
that definitely fixes it.
is there a way to know who has the exhalation filter and who doesn't, though?
How does a high-volume retail store know whether the rando with the elastomeric mask has a sufficient exhalation filter or not?
That is my big concern.
is there a way to know who has the exhalation filter and who doesn't, though?
How does a high-volume retail store know whether the rando with the elastomeric mask has a sufficient exhalation filter or not?
That is my big concern.
That's why they put a filter on it
You can't spread what you haven't caught.
Seems like everyone assumes they are not infected. It's always the others that are irresponsibly spreading diseases.
How did you retrofit the exhalation filter? I have a similar 3M mask (6000 series) but haven't used it since March since the exhale port doesn't make it easy to attach a filter. Being able to use it would solve my glasses fogging, which I've only been able to mitigate somewhat with shaped 3D printed pieces of plastic in the nose-wire slot of my fabric mask.
I appreciate the thought and effort you and like minded are spending on this, and it hurts my soul to see the disasteraus mass Thanksgiving shopping crowds, that then showed up again in even greater numbers for Christmas in busy shopping centers.
Yup. Really can’t get my head around the ostrich-lemming like attitude of the multitudes.
By cutting some N95/best available filter fabric and fitting internally over the exhalation valve. When flying I’ve worn a Korean nanofiber mask over the top for added social protection from ignorant flight attendants and airport staff who otherwise might ask me to remove it because they can’t see the internal exhalation valve filter. Korean commercially available masks are great by the way and there’s no shortage over there.
In situations where a respirator isn’t viable or necessary a some masking tape over the nose bridge wire area is quite good for reducing or eliminating glasses fogging and providing a better seal.
In situations where a respirator isn’t viable or necessary a some masking tape over the nose bridge wire area is quite good for reducing or eliminating glasses fogging and providing a better seal.
> 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter
do you have the model number for this mask? why did you have to retrofit it?
do you have the model number for this mask? why did you have to retrofit it?
> why did you have to retrofit it?
My 3M P100 filters incoming air, not outgoing. There's a valve for exhalation. I just wear a surgical mask over the valve.
My 3M P100 filters incoming air, not outgoing. There's a valve for exhalation. I just wear a surgical mask over the valve.
"Recommended Application" for one of these masks:
> Assembly and Mechanical, Chemical Clean-up, Chemical Handling, Chipping, Chiseling, Cleaning, Furnace Operations, Grinding, Laboratories, Machining, Masonary, Painting, Pouring/Casting, Sanding, Sawing, Welding
They are intended to protect yourself from the environment, not the other way around. So they come with incoming filters only. To change that, a retrofit filter is needed.
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-...
> Assembly and Mechanical, Chemical Clean-up, Chemical Handling, Chipping, Chiseling, Cleaning, Furnace Operations, Grinding, Laboratories, Machining, Masonary, Painting, Pouring/Casting, Sanding, Sawing, Welding
They are intended to protect yourself from the environment, not the other way around. So they come with incoming filters only. To change that, a retrofit filter is needed.
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-...
Any reason why you went with the "P"100 (resistant to oils) instead of the regular "N"100?
Seems like there’s no trade off to over-engineering health and safety in the context. N100 would be adequate but the P100 additionally provides a broader spectrum of air pollution exposure reduction which in the context of infection control helps protect the mucosal barriers from damage and preserves immune fitness, preventing T-cell depletion caused by inhalation of vehicular pollution and industrial/commercial combustion emissions, smoke, and so on.
P100 is the common designation in most uses you saw pre-pandemic, i.e. Asbestos removal, and the GP is referring to a legacy mask.
P100 is much easier to find than N100
Wondering what an equivalent option would be in Europe. P100 seems to be not available outside the US.
Europe uses different designations but equivalents are available.
Source: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/433598O/european-standar...
Source: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/433598O/european-standar...
[deleted]
Imagine the archeologists in the year 100,000, sorting through rock samples and going "oh look, there's the mask pollution from the great 2020 pandemic"
The Master, Douglas Adams, already covered this: https://sites.google.com/site/h2g2theguide/Index/s/840887
Loved this. Thanks for sharing. Big fan of DA.
I think about this a lot, our footprint as seen by future anthropologists.
I've thought about it a little. If everything is digital and in deprecated formats then there could be a sort of "dark ages"... even without some kind of end of world scenario to wipe out the evidence. We could simply just forget how to access it. Eg: in yr 3030 will we still know how to open pdfs ,flash files, or say PS4 games?
We have a lot of documentation and clues, so it shouldn't be that bad. There are decades of rants about the shortcomings of the pdf format, at least :)
Those formats are also more logical(ish) than human language, so reverse engineering them should be possible in some cases.
Also, there will be plenty of 'rosetta stones' around: media that exists in both an obsolete format and a more recent, better understood one.
Those formats are also more logical(ish) than human language, so reverse engineering them should be possible in some cases.
Also, there will be plenty of 'rosetta stones' around: media that exists in both an obsolete format and a more recent, better understood one.
There’s already “digital dark ages” and it’s a reason archive.org and retro tech collection is so important.
From the 70s-90s most consumer tech was thrown in land fill when people were finished with it. There wasn’t yet much of a “collector” mentality because it wasn’t old enough to be cool, and there was such a mad rush to always have the newest developments in that tech-honeymoon period that people threw the old stuff out.
Then for the software side, storage was expensive and complicated. People didn’t keep copies of every single old thing like lots of people do now, websites were purged of old content to fit new content, versioning in development didn’t really exist (on a large scale).
I’m a retro tech/software collector and there’s plenty of stuff from my childhood that I can’t find a single trace of anymore.
From the 70s-90s most consumer tech was thrown in land fill when people were finished with it. There wasn’t yet much of a “collector” mentality because it wasn’t old enough to be cool, and there was such a mad rush to always have the newest developments in that tech-honeymoon period that people threw the old stuff out.
Then for the software side, storage was expensive and complicated. People didn’t keep copies of every single old thing like lots of people do now, websites were purged of old content to fit new content, versioning in development didn’t really exist (on a large scale).
I’m a retro tech/software collector and there’s plenty of stuff from my childhood that I can’t find a single trace of anymore.
I'm curious if there is an aggregation site for "lost" things? Something where people can put traces but indicate it missing? (eg an advertisement for a game that we can't find the cartridge) ?
"Why do you think people in the 20th century used to bury some women with bags of plastic on their chest? Surely some religious ritual but I found no mention of it."
(silicone is not bio-degradable, right?)
(silicone is not bio-degradable, right?)
My vague, hand-wavy recollection is that breast implants are a problem for crematories.
So I'm guessing it's also not biodegradable.
Edit:
The 1,500-degree Fahrenheit heat of cremation will burn away all of the body's natural substances, leaving the bones to be ground up
Silicone implants remain behind as a goo, while metal implants, like hip replacements, remain completely intact
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3228354/Mortician...
So I'm guessing it's also not biodegradable.
Edit:
The 1,500-degree Fahrenheit heat of cremation will burn away all of the body's natural substances, leaving the bones to be ground up
Silicone implants remain behind as a goo, while metal implants, like hip replacements, remain completely intact
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3228354/Mortician...
Bold of you to assume that future anthropologists will do anything other than fighting in World Water War II.
If we make it that far.
Wait and see... the 20xx pandemic will be even bigger
On the note of disposing properly:
To protect wildlife, it's been recommended by wildlife nonprofits to snip the straps of your face masks before disposing, to minimize the potential for it to harm an animal.
[1] https://www.heart.co.uk/lifestyle/rspca-warn-face-masks-wild...
To protect wildlife, it's been recommended by wildlife nonprofits to snip the straps of your face masks before disposing, to minimize the potential for it to harm an animal.
[1] https://www.heart.co.uk/lifestyle/rspca-warn-face-masks-wild...
If I place an item into a trash bin, what is the likelihood that it comes into contact with wildlife?
Many things could happen to the mask, even if you disposed of it in a proper location. The trash bin could be tipped over or rummaged in by wildlife, for instance. When the trash collector comes, the trash bag could rip and the contents spill out. Strong winds might cause small and light objects like masks to fly out.
I don't know about the estimates, but as an avid hiker/runner, everywhere I go.. on any trail, I'll see more then a few masks lying on the ground.
In every parking lot, there are masks lying about.
People are definitely losing/tossing masks, and not all of them are going to get swept up by cleaning functions in commercial areas.
In every parking lot, there are masks lying about.
People are definitely losing/tossing masks, and not all of them are going to get swept up by cleaning functions in commercial areas.
I've lost a lot of masks and it's not because I'm intentionally littering. I just get home and find that I don't have it anymore. Perhaps the shape of it makes it work out of a pocket easily?
Yep, it's pretty frustrating, I see them outdoors all the time. Not quite as frustrating as people who fill doggie bags then leave them on the side of the trap for the crap fairies to pick up.
Easy come/ easy go.
Easy come/ easy go.
The big problem with the masks is, while many people will pick up litter, masks seem extra dirty like a used condom. People aren't likely to pick them up.
This is my favorite kind of headline. The kind that screams, "No matter what you do, it's wrong!"
All "news" is bad news. I recommend not reading it most of the time.
Better to read research papers and raw stats somewhere than commercial "news," in most cases.
Better to read research papers and raw stats somewhere than commercial "news," in most cases.
But this assumes some level of knowledge/understanding of the subject at hand. If I read research papers about Covid (assuming I have the time) I doubt I'd be able to follow the arguments or understand the nuances of conclusions, caveats and so on... Time is also a problem as I mentioned above. This approach essentially duplicates the effort needed to analyse and distill the research.
To me it kind of reads as "all documentation is bad documentation, just read the code".
To me it kind of reads as "all documentation is bad documentation, just read the code".
Not all articles that digest the information some are equally bad about making "all news bad news" for the sake of being an attention whore.
"Duplicating" effort to do your own analysis is better than drinking the koolaid on shitty ideas that will royally fuck you over if you believe them and then someday having to deprogram yourself from their shitty ideas if you actually want your life to work.
Current research on Covid is pretty preliminary. Most of what's being said is sort of speculative to some degree. We mostly aren't getting solid conclusions out of it, which is part of why people are still scared of it and the pandemic rages on.
If we actually knew what the hell was going on and how to fix it, we would have put a stop to the pandemic already, just as we put out the oil well fires in just six months instead of taking the predicted years to solve it: Because oil well fires were pretty well understood, so it wasn't all that hard to invent new solutions when we had motive to.
The world rapidly forgot that it was honestly and sincerely in a not click-bait fashion predicted to be a global environmental disaster. We just took it for granted when it got fixed and found some new "news" to bellyache about.
I'm a former homemaker. I get really tired of people simultaneously dismissing me as an idiot who knows nothing because I chose to be a full-time wife and mom for some years and also telling me my solutions are out of reach for ordinary people because that requires more brains than they have.
"Duplicating" effort to do your own analysis is better than drinking the koolaid on shitty ideas that will royally fuck you over if you believe them and then someday having to deprogram yourself from their shitty ideas if you actually want your life to work.
Current research on Covid is pretty preliminary. Most of what's being said is sort of speculative to some degree. We mostly aren't getting solid conclusions out of it, which is part of why people are still scared of it and the pandemic rages on.
If we actually knew what the hell was going on and how to fix it, we would have put a stop to the pandemic already, just as we put out the oil well fires in just six months instead of taking the predicted years to solve it: Because oil well fires were pretty well understood, so it wasn't all that hard to invent new solutions when we had motive to.
The world rapidly forgot that it was honestly and sincerely in a not click-bait fashion predicted to be a global environmental disaster. We just took it for granted when it got fixed and found some new "news" to bellyache about.
I'm a former homemaker. I get really tired of people simultaneously dismissing me as an idiot who knows nothing because I chose to be a full-time wife and mom for some years and also telling me my solutions are out of reach for ordinary people because that requires more brains than they have.
At the risk of appearing cynical or condescending - do you have any links or references to studies about press consumption and it's impact on views/mental health/general wellbeing etc.? I'd be legitimately interested in reading that (I do read research papers when I want to make sure I understand something well - just not all the time)
You don't sound cynical or condescending, just lazy (or desperate for any excuse to talk with someone). This is such a common question that google autocompletes it if you start to type it into their search engine.
But here are my first two hits, which both appear to link out to actual supporting studies:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...
https://www.lifehack.org/532866/five-reasons-why-consuming-n...
But here are my first two hits, which both appear to link out to actual supporting studies:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...
https://www.lifehack.org/532866/five-reasons-why-consuming-n...
Everything in life is an optimization exercise.
“Burying COVID victims accounted for an increase in home prices due to less land!”
“Cremating COVID victims increased global temperatures by 0.2C”
“Cremating COVID victims increased global temperatures by 0.2C”
I lost all faith in humanity in 2020. I still can't believe people can be that stupid.
We won't be able to safe ecology when people can't follow simple rules.
We won't be able to safe ecology when people can't follow simple rules.
I live in a near-pristine area on the coast where people pay high prices to eat seafood dinners on a pier while they gaze at the sunset and let their plastic straws and oyster cracker foils blow into the ocean below them.
I estimate conservatively that at least one piece of something plastic from every table winds up in the ocean.
I estimate conservatively that at least one piece of something plastic from every table winds up in the ocean.
I think you may want to reexamine things. What you describe is just about the last cause for concern about ocean plastic pollution. You should look into it a bit.
Of the supposed total 5.25 Trillion pieces of plastic or 269,000 tons in the ocean[1], apparently 90% of that comes from 9 rivers, 7 in Asia and 2 in Africa[2]. And the rest of the world, essentially all of the Americas including the immensely plastic polluting central American rivers, Australia, and all of Europe only contribute 10% of ocean plastic pollution.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...
Of the supposed total 5.25 Trillion pieces of plastic or 269,000 tons in the ocean[1], apparently 90% of that comes from 9 rivers, 7 in Asia and 2 in Africa[2]. And the rest of the world, essentially all of the Americas including the immensely plastic polluting central American rivers, Australia, and all of Europe only contribute 10% of ocean plastic pollution.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...
> And the rest of the world, essentially all of the Americas including the immensely plastic polluting central American rivers, Australia, and all of Europe only contribute 10% of ocean plastic pollution.
That's probably not entirely fair, given that the west exports their recycling overseas.
https://theconversation.com/heres-what-happens-to-our-plasti...
> Since then Southeast Asia has become the new destination for Australia’s recycled plastics, with 80-87% going to Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Other countries have also begun to accept Australia’s plastics, including the Philippines and Myanmar.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/750864036/u-s-recycling-indus...
> The U.S. used to send a lot of its plastic waste to China to get recycled. But last year, China put the kibosh on imports of the world's waste. The policy, called National Sword, freaked out people in the U.S. — a huge market for plastic waste had just dried up.
It was a pretty open secret that it frequently just wound up dumped by unscrupulous companies that claimed to be processing it.
That's probably not entirely fair, given that the west exports their recycling overseas.
https://theconversation.com/heres-what-happens-to-our-plasti...
> Since then Southeast Asia has become the new destination for Australia’s recycled plastics, with 80-87% going to Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Other countries have also begun to accept Australia’s plastics, including the Philippines and Myanmar.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/750864036/u-s-recycling-indus...
> The U.S. used to send a lot of its plastic waste to China to get recycled. But last year, China put the kibosh on imports of the world's waste. The policy, called National Sword, freaked out people in the U.S. — a huge market for plastic waste had just dried up.
It was a pretty open secret that it frequently just wound up dumped by unscrupulous companies that claimed to be processing it.
> I live in a near-pristine area on the coast ... one piece of something plastic from every table winds up in the ocean.
You do not live in a near-pristine area.
You do not live in a near-pristine area.
Could you explain what rule it is you think people are too stupid to follow?
Since you bring up safe ecology; do you think it is plausible that the source of those 1.5 Billion masks is the same 9 rivers that make up 90% of all plastic ocean pollution, 7 of them being Asia and 2 in Africa?
Since you bring up safe ecology; do you think it is plausible that the source of those 1.5 Billion masks is the same 9 rivers that make up 90% of all plastic ocean pollution, 7 of them being Asia and 2 in Africa?
> Could you explain what rule it is you think people are too stupid to follow?
I see face masks everywhere, even in places where you have a trash can every 20-30 meters.
How hard is it to put the mask in the trash can or in your pocket? It takes no space in a pocket and you can put it in a plastic bag for an extra safety.
I see face masks everywhere, even in places where you have a trash can every 20-30 meters.
How hard is it to put the mask in the trash can or in your pocket? It takes no space in a pocket and you can put it in a plastic bag for an extra safety.
> Could you explain what rule it is you think people are too stupid to follow?
If you have to ask this question after having lived through 2020, it does make me wonder...
I believe a more decent question would be: is there any rule that people are not too stupid to follow?
If you have to ask this question after having lived through 2020, it does make me wonder...
I believe a more decent question would be: is there any rule that people are not too stupid to follow?
I'm not sure what people expected to happen when we started producing billions of disposable masks and distributing them to everyone instead of just medical staff that have to follow disposal procedures. This shit happens with literally all of our single-use disposable garbage. Any system that requires billions of individual people to follow rules that inconvenience them without any sort of enforcement or consequences that come back to them personally was doomed to fail from the start.
If we had just distributed reusable cloth masks and charged for them so people have an incentive to not lose them we could have avoided the bulk of this.
If we had just distributed reusable cloth masks and charged for them so people have an incentive to not lose them we could have avoided the bulk of this.
> reusable cloth masks
There might be issues with reusing masks (I haven't seen any data on this).
This is more like one of those problems you sort out later and worry about it less when it's happening. The one thing I'd propose is do what we can to not use synthetics in them so they'll at least biodegrade.
There might be issues with reusing masks (I haven't seen any data on this).
This is more like one of those problems you sort out later and worry about it less when it's happening. The one thing I'd propose is do what we can to not use synthetics in them so they'll at least biodegrade.
I actually agree with you on this. I can't blame people for just rolling out what we had as fast as possible and dealing with the consequences later. It's frustrating but undoubtedly a good call in the moment.
But I hope that we eventually get to the point where we have most people using reusable masks and that the disposable ones are biodegradable.
But I hope that we eventually get to the point where we have most people using reusable masks and that the disposable ones are biodegradable.
> "and charged for them"
You cannot charge the poorest people, those that pose the highest likely risk of contracting the illness, for masks that ultimately protect all of us.
You cannot charge the poorest people, those that pose the highest likely risk of contracting the illness, for masks that ultimately protect all of us.
Sure, totally reasonable. Having a small percentage of people get them for free wouldn't really throw this scheme off when the goal is to reduce waste over the entire population.
If people can't follow simple rules, then the state must force them to, under threat of fines, arrest, and prison time.
I doubt the whole planet can cooperate on that.
Singapore is a lovely city.
It's indeed. They nearly solved the problem of tragedy of the commons.
Can't say I agree, but it's cool to see Kissinger commenting on HN. Welcome!
Not the real Kissinger unfortunately
What seems to be lacking in many articles of this type is a detailed explanation of the exact paths plastic takes to get into the ocean.
Some paths I've heard of include: ships dumping waste directly into the ocean; landfills that are improperly sealed; waste blown and/or spilled out of out of open containers, trucks, and barges; waste blown or washed (from where?) into storm drains and rivers; etc.. Moreover, most of the great pacific garbage patch apparently consists of fishing nets.
It seems like tracking the waste flow and disrupting some of those paths might be a good idea.
Some paths I've heard of include: ships dumping waste directly into the ocean; landfills that are improperly sealed; waste blown and/or spilled out of out of open containers, trucks, and barges; waste blown or washed (from where?) into storm drains and rivers; etc.. Moreover, most of the great pacific garbage patch apparently consists of fishing nets.
It seems like tracking the waste flow and disrupting some of those paths might be a good idea.
and here I am wearing the same mask I got in April...
Came here to say the exact thing. This article could have been worded better. E.g. "Discarded Masks May Start Entering into the Ocean"
Many use those flimsy cheap ones that are only good for a day or two. Because they are lazy to remember where they put it,they just take a new one. Like plastic plates.
Whenever I go outside and see >50% people wearing disposable masks I wonder... Why? Did they only find out about the pandemic right now and it caught them off-guard?
I have had reusable masks since April. I assumed everyone was doing the same, but everytime I go outside I prove myself wrong. I don't get it.
I have had reusable masks since April. I assumed everyone was doing the same, but everytime I go outside I prove myself wrong. I don't get it.
Apparently surgical masks are better than the cloth masks.
https://healthnewshub.org/cloth-mask-vs-surgical-mask-vs-n95...
Some companies (Southwest Airlines for example) will refuse service to you if you're wearing a non-standard mask. Wearing the disposable blue surgical masks is the best bet if you don't want to be randomly denied access to somewhere you're going.
I wear reusable masks every day. If I go on a plane, yeah I also have disposable masks for those events.
Do you have any non-travel related examples where they don't also hand out said masks?
Do you have any non-travel related examples where they don't also hand out said masks?
Simple reasons:
- The cloth masks don't form a tight seal and leave two gaping holes on either side of my nose.
- The cloth masks don't have as fine a filter mesh and aren't as effective at filtering tiny particles.
That said, I don't go out that often, and my trips are limited in time, so I reuse a disposable N95/KN95 mask until I've worn it for as much as a total of 30-100 hours before I dispose of it. I also use reusable everything else wherever I can in my life, I just haven't found any actually good reusable masks that would pass e.g. NIOSH tests.
- The cloth masks don't form a tight seal and leave two gaping holes on either side of my nose.
- The cloth masks don't have as fine a filter mesh and aren't as effective at filtering tiny particles.
That said, I don't go out that often, and my trips are limited in time, so I reuse a disposable N95/KN95 mask until I've worn it for as much as a total of 30-100 hours before I dispose of it. I also use reusable everything else wherever I can in my life, I just haven't found any actually good reusable masks that would pass e.g. NIOSH tests.
3M respirators with P100 filters have a comfortable silicone seal, aren’t very expensive, and actually prevent the wearer from infection.
We settled on a public policy where we are only as safe as the worst mask an infected person is wearing. I would have preferred an alternative policy where people who don’t want to get sick simply wear an effective mask.
I do encourage covering the exhale valve, though, just to be extra safe and considerate.
We settled on a public policy where we are only as safe as the worst mask an infected person is wearing. I would have preferred an alternative policy where people who don’t want to get sick simply wear an effective mask.
I do encourage covering the exhale valve, though, just to be extra safe and considerate.
I have respirators and filters left over from home improvement projects - have you ever tried to communicate through those? Your voice takes on this indescribable warbly tone. I wouldn't want to try and accomplish any errands wearing one of those. Maybe if I were riding public transit and able to not speak to anyone...
I don't have a lot of daily errands; mostly just picking up coffee or food outside and to go. I don't talk to people for that (except to say thanks!), and don't wear the P100 because it's low risk.
Places I've worn the P100: an airplane, grocery store, train, Uber, medical lab for a test. I found the peace of mind alone was well worth the inconvenience in these scenarios.
Places I've worn the P100: an airplane, grocery store, train, Uber, medical lab for a test. I found the peace of mind alone was well worth the inconvenience in these scenarios.
I don't quite understand the policy argument. Can you explain the difference in the 2 policies?
The main policy issues I see are (a) unavailability of good masks, not ramping up mask production, not controlling hoarding with strict consequences (b) advocating for not wearing masks
The main policy issues I see are (a) unavailability of good masks, not ramping up mask production, not controlling hoarding with strict consequences (b) advocating for not wearing masks
I found out first hand that when you enter most hospitals they make you replace your mask with a disposable surgical mask.
Face masks make me sweat like crazy so I’ve been using disposables for hygiene reasons
I don't believe myself to be able to always manage fabric mask clean. Possibly dirt mask is worse than nothing, so I always wear disposable mask. Also I heard that non woven mask works better than fabric.
matz1(3)
The reason medical professionals wear disposable masks in clinics is because reusable masks don't work.
Actual correct mask usage means changing masks numerous times a day.
Actual correct mask usage means changing masks numerous times a day.
You are spreading false information. Reusable masks do "work." Masks lose effectiveness over time and should be changed regularly, but it is not true that "correct" usage involves changing them "numerous times a day."
There are two major factors that, as I understand it, drive the use of disposable masks in clinical settings. First is that healthcare workers see many sick people a day and they are worried about surface transmission. This is the main reason why they need to change their masks so often. The rest of us, who are moving through the world without looking directly into the mouths of sick people, have fewer foreign moisture on our masks. The second is that masks do become less effective over time, but the relative import of mask effectiveness should be judged proportionally to risk of the situation. Again, clinical workers are in a higher risk situation, so they change masks more often. The utility for the general public is lower.
Cloth masks were called into question early in the pandemic due to a 2015 study indicating they spread disease[1]. This was in a medical setting and, as I understand it (I am a layman) it was because of poor mask sanitation (i.e. using masks for many days without cleaning). My understanding is that using a cloth mask for a day is better than no mask. Of course it would be better to change it more often, but the relative risk is low.
Since then we have done a number of studies on cloth masks in the population and those studies have shown that cloth masks are effective[2]. It is true that "better" masks protect better, but that protection is almost always trumped by compliance. The mask you will wear is 100% better than the mask you won't wear. So health experts have focused on that.
The medical community has done a shit job of communicating this, but that's no reason to say things that don't seem to be true.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
[2] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...
There are two major factors that, as I understand it, drive the use of disposable masks in clinical settings. First is that healthcare workers see many sick people a day and they are worried about surface transmission. This is the main reason why they need to change their masks so often. The rest of us, who are moving through the world without looking directly into the mouths of sick people, have fewer foreign moisture on our masks. The second is that masks do become less effective over time, but the relative import of mask effectiveness should be judged proportionally to risk of the situation. Again, clinical workers are in a higher risk situation, so they change masks more often. The utility for the general public is lower.
Cloth masks were called into question early in the pandemic due to a 2015 study indicating they spread disease[1]. This was in a medical setting and, as I understand it (I am a layman) it was because of poor mask sanitation (i.e. using masks for many days without cleaning). My understanding is that using a cloth mask for a day is better than no mask. Of course it would be better to change it more often, but the relative risk is low.
Since then we have done a number of studies on cloth masks in the population and those studies have shown that cloth masks are effective[2]. It is true that "better" masks protect better, but that protection is almost always trumped by compliance. The mask you will wear is 100% better than the mask you won't wear. So health experts have focused on that.
The medical community has done a shit job of communicating this, but that's no reason to say things that don't seem to be true.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
[2] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...
No matter which of those two mask types are employed, a relevant May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
"In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks".
"Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
"Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission."
Has the CDC analysis been refuted?
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
"In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks".
"Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
"Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission."
Has the CDC analysis been refuted?
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
> May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza
That's probably quite important if you are trying to control pandemic influenza, but SARS-COV-2 isn't influenza. Different pathogens have different characteristics, and thus different responses to protective measures. AFAIK, most influenzas are much more prone to airborne transmission than SARS-COV-2, where the main concern is droplet transmission (though some airborne transmission seems to occur), against which masks that are ineffective against airborne transmission can be quite effective.
You wouldn't judge the value of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS by studies of how effective they were in preventing the spread of the flu, either.
That's probably quite important if you are trying to control pandemic influenza, but SARS-COV-2 isn't influenza. Different pathogens have different characteristics, and thus different responses to protective measures. AFAIK, most influenzas are much more prone to airborne transmission than SARS-COV-2, where the main concern is droplet transmission (though some airborne transmission seems to occur), against which masks that are ineffective against airborne transmission can be quite effective.
You wouldn't judge the value of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS by studies of how effective they were in preventing the spread of the flu, either.
What size particle/droplet is most important in stopping Covid transmission?
As I said, I'm a layman, but several things jump out to me.
The first thing I think of is that the meta-study you linked is for influenza. Obviously covid and influenza are similar but I think there are important differences (we did not, for instance, have as many cases of influenza in any of the last fifty years as we have of covid this year). In particular, I know that the asymptomatic transmission of covid is unusual and is not something that happens in influenza[0].
The studies that support mask wearing in my link are on mask mandates (though there are also case studies that suggest masks have been effective). I believe that mandating masks reduces transmission of the virus and I don't think it's necessary to reconcile that fact with the fact that masks don't reduce the spread of influenza.
The version of the study you linked is formatted oddly and the tables are on another page. A pdf of their article is easier to read, I think [3]. From Table 2 (and the discussion around it) I take that they are hoping to catalog open questions and are not seeking to make a recommendation about proper procedure. Therefore I think it's perfectly in keeping with Jingyi Xiao, et. al. to recommend wearing masks based on the covid-specific studies while recognizing we have no evidence that masks prevent influenza.
[0] While you can transmit influenza when you're not showing symptoms, my understanding is that covid is different enough that we shouldn't compare them. That could be wrong and if you have anything to contribute I'd be interested to see it.
[1] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Associati...
The first thing I think of is that the meta-study you linked is for influenza. Obviously covid and influenza are similar but I think there are important differences (we did not, for instance, have as many cases of influenza in any of the last fifty years as we have of covid this year). In particular, I know that the asymptomatic transmission of covid is unusual and is not something that happens in influenza[0].
The studies that support mask wearing in my link are on mask mandates (though there are also case studies that suggest masks have been effective). I believe that mandating masks reduces transmission of the virus and I don't think it's necessary to reconcile that fact with the fact that masks don't reduce the spread of influenza.
The version of the study you linked is formatted oddly and the tables are on another page. A pdf of their article is easier to read, I think [3]. From Table 2 (and the discussion around it) I take that they are hoping to catalog open questions and are not seeking to make a recommendation about proper procedure. Therefore I think it's perfectly in keeping with Jingyi Xiao, et. al. to recommend wearing masks based on the covid-specific studies while recognizing we have no evidence that masks prevent influenza.
[0] While you can transmit influenza when you're not showing symptoms, my understanding is that covid is different enough that we shouldn't compare them. That could be wrong and if you have anything to contribute I'd be interested to see it.
[1] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Associati...
I coul get into the epidemiology and biology of a pathogen that stays on surfaces for days.
But for simplicity sake I'll just say this.
I wouldn't want my surgeon walking in to give me surgery, with a mask he just used from another operation.
Corona virus doesn't become any less deadly or contagious outside of a medical institution.
Also falsely accusing someone of spreading false information Should be like falsely accusing someone of rape. The accuser should go to jail or get banned if they're wrong.
But for simplicity sake I'll just say this.
I wouldn't want my surgeon walking in to give me surgery, with a mask he just used from another operation.
Corona virus doesn't become any less deadly or contagious outside of a medical institution.
Also falsely accusing someone of spreading false information Should be like falsely accusing someone of rape. The accuser should go to jail or get banned if they're wrong.
Exactly, which is why I pointed out that healthcare workers frequently change masks for reasons related to their environment. It's also, of course, why medical workers wore surgical masks before covid.
PPE worn outside of clinical settings already exist in a lower risk situation and so it's reasonable to accept lower standards for it.
PPE worn outside of clinical settings already exist in a lower risk situation and so it's reasonable to accept lower standards for it.
Lower standards?
You mean standards like applying a device directly onto your respiratory system that's been potentially exposed for long periods of time to a virus that stays on surfaces for days?
These aren't lower standards these are freaking negative standards.
The virus doesn't become less deadly or less contagious outside of medical institutions.
You mean standards like applying a device directly onto your respiratory system that's been potentially exposed for long periods of time to a virus that stays on surfaces for days?
These aren't lower standards these are freaking negative standards.
The virus doesn't become less deadly or less contagious outside of medical institutions.
[deleted]
There's a slight difference on what is required by a medical professional and by someone just commuting. Sure, one could always do better, but reusable masks are adequate.
Maybe adequate for applying a plague vector directly to your face, a plague vector that's been constantly potentially exposed to a virus that stays on surfaces for days.
Sure they're adequate for that.
There's a reason medical professionals change their PPE.
Corona virus doesn't magically become less deadly or less contagious outside of medical institutions.
Sure they're adequate for that.
There's a reason medical professionals change their PPE.
Corona virus doesn't magically become less deadly or less contagious outside of medical institutions.
[deleted]
Sounds like a completely made up figure.
>>The report used a global production estimate of 52 billion masks being manufactured in 2020, a conservative loss rate of 3%, and the average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical face mask to arrive at the estimate.
It sounds like and estimate
It sounds like and estimate
I found no justification for the 3% figure in the actual report.
EDIT: my bad, the justification is a 3% estimated rate for all plastics globally.
EDIT: my bad, the justification is a 3% estimated rate for all plastics globally.
People throw away trash (empty soda bottles, candy wraps etc) a lot easier than they'd throw away a device meant to protect their (and others) health. The real number has to be waaay below 1%.
Surgical masks are disposable for a reason, they eventually get dirty, damp, and smelly. They can't ordinarily be cleaned, so they go in the trash. It's not at all weird if a single-digit percentage point of a disposable item doesn't make it into a proper landfill.
According to the article:
> They enter oceans when they are littered, when waste management systems are inadequate or non-existent, or when these systems become overwhelmed due to increased volumes of waste.
I was arguing that because of the first reason (litter) face masks are thrown into nature way less compared to other plastics in general. It's unfortunately relatively common to just throw away plastic bottles after use, as well as when eating candy. Those are the two most common pieces of litter I see everywhere. Go have a look at a pile of litter somewhere and try to estimate the percentage of masks among the plastic. That was the point I was trying to make.
For the two latter reasons (mismanagement of waste) the end result would probably be more or less the same regardless of the type.
Ultimately the real percentage of facemasks depends on the ratio between these "means of loss". And even though from my (western) perspective trash doesn't end up in the sea when thrown away, there are countries like India and other developing or poor countries that might make the littering statistic insignificant. On the other hand they are also unlikely to use masks to the same extent as in the western world...
> They enter oceans when they are littered, when waste management systems are inadequate or non-existent, or when these systems become overwhelmed due to increased volumes of waste.
I was arguing that because of the first reason (litter) face masks are thrown into nature way less compared to other plastics in general. It's unfortunately relatively common to just throw away plastic bottles after use, as well as when eating candy. Those are the two most common pieces of litter I see everywhere. Go have a look at a pile of litter somewhere and try to estimate the percentage of masks among the plastic. That was the point I was trying to make.
For the two latter reasons (mismanagement of waste) the end result would probably be more or less the same regardless of the type.
Ultimately the real percentage of facemasks depends on the ratio between these "means of loss". And even though from my (western) perspective trash doesn't end up in the sea when thrown away, there are countries like India and other developing or poor countries that might make the littering statistic insignificant. On the other hand they are also unlikely to use masks to the same extent as in the western world...
"The report used a global production estimate of 52 billion masks being manufactured in 2020, a conservative loss rate of 3%"
However I didn't see a link to the report itself which prevents me from speaking on the methodology of the loss rate value.
However I didn't see a link to the report itself which prevents me from speaking on the methodology of the loss rate value.
The report is available at the end of the page. It's some awful embedded PDF reader thing.
Yeah but how do you make an article out of "many face masks will..."? Like what is many? Dozens or billions?
1.56 is for sure false precision though. I assume there can be easily an order of magnitude uncertainty in that.
1.56 is for sure false precision though. I assume there can be easily an order of magnitude uncertainty in that.
[deleted]
And even more gloves.
We see them go out the Goldengate much more often than masks.
Are there any companies trying to tackle the problem of trash in the oceans?
honest question - which cities/states/countries dump trash in the ocean?
Which countries are still dumping their garbage in the ocean?
Maybe the takeaway we should try to get out of this is that, with so many people in the world, behavioral solutions -- like social distancing -- are overall superior to thing-based solutions (like masks).
I tried to start a blog about this idea. I probably tried to start more than one.
But with the hysteria in the air, I felt like I was going to attract a lynch mob for trying to critique the practice of turning to masks instead of looking for something better than masks as The Answer. So that idea of mine never really went anywhere.
I tried to start a blog about this idea. I probably tried to start more than one.
But with the hysteria in the air, I felt like I was going to attract a lynch mob for trying to critique the practice of turning to masks instead of looking for something better than masks as The Answer. So that idea of mine never really went anywhere.
People who say that masks aren’t the answer frankly mystify me.
If you were to tell a child “there is a disease that is spread from our breath. What do you think a good solution would be?” I would be dollars to donuts that their answer would be “what about a mask?”
The answer is so obvious that even a child could come up with it. And it takes an adult to convince themselves otherwise. Even science says that masks are effective.
If you were to tell a child “there is a disease that is spread from our breath. What do you think a good solution would be?” I would be dollars to donuts that their answer would be “what about a mask?”
The answer is so obvious that even a child could come up with it. And it takes an adult to convince themselves otherwise. Even science says that masks are effective.
I live with a serious, incurable respiratory condition. I have many years of experience of managing it by first and foremost not exposing myself to germs rather than cavalierly exposing myself and hoping a little cloth over my face will somehow fix it.
But based on this comment and all the downvotes, it seems the decision to not pursue a blog in earnest promoting the idea "That maybe we can find a better-er answer" was the correct decision as a means to protect myself from people who don't want a better answer, they just want a dog to kick.
I'm trying to say something like "Instead of promoting condoms and prophylactic drugs for HIV and other diseases while saying casual sex is fine, we could suggest (alternatives like) celibacy and monogamy as better solutions."
But I imagine that would also be just as hated on. Can't tell anyone "Maybe keeping it in your pants sometimes when not doing so could kill you is a better answer."
Edit:
TLDR: Maybe adults should aspire to more sophisticated answers than ones even a five year old could come up with rather than attacking other adults as idiots for (supposedly) "not seeing something so obvious even a child could dream it up as a solution."
But based on this comment and all the downvotes, it seems the decision to not pursue a blog in earnest promoting the idea "That maybe we can find a better-er answer" was the correct decision as a means to protect myself from people who don't want a better answer, they just want a dog to kick.
I'm trying to say something like "Instead of promoting condoms and prophylactic drugs for HIV and other diseases while saying casual sex is fine, we could suggest (alternatives like) celibacy and monogamy as better solutions."
But I imagine that would also be just as hated on. Can't tell anyone "Maybe keeping it in your pants sometimes when not doing so could kill you is a better answer."
Edit:
TLDR: Maybe adults should aspire to more sophisticated answers than ones even a five year old could come up with rather than attacking other adults as idiots for (supposedly) "not seeing something so obvious even a child could dream it up as a solution."
Your situation is atypical. So masks may not be a good solution for you. But for society in general, masks are the best solution. No amount of maskless social distancing can keep you safe but still be able to socialize with others. 6’ is not a number that was derived from science. When investigated, scientists said it was more like 20’.
But having masks and learning how to wear them properly allows people to engage in almost normal social gatherings. This is based on the fractional levels of infections in countries with extremely high compliance like Korea and Japan.
But having masks and learning how to wear them properly allows people to engage in almost normal social gatherings. This is based on the fractional levels of infections in countries with extremely high compliance like Korea and Japan.
Masks are effective in a hospital setting with trained persons that know how to properly wear one and replace/clean. Wearing the same cloth mask every day while you grocery shop does nothing but make you feel better.
I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with a perfect seal and doesn’t get uncomfortable or warm during extended wear.
Hopefully public health experts and governments will back consumer friendly, low-profile reusable respirator designs. There’s no reasonable reason for there to be a shortage at this point, after all this time, and even sending a few to every household with a link to an instructional video would cost a tiny fraction of the past and future direct and indirect economic consequences stemming from lack of optimal PPE for the general public and essential workers alike.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.