Free face masks

NOt true at all. There is not one single case of a strong healthy person dying from corona virus. And I can point you to scientists who will gladly tell you that corona virus has never been isolated and does not even meet the scientific criteria to be considered a communicable disease. And I would never want anyone to take my word. I read books and articles and do research. Anyone who doesn't do the same is a fool in my view.

Obese people cannot be considered to be healthy. People with underlying health issues cannot be considered to be healthy. I am in perfect health with no conditions, perfect blood pressure and I am not on any meds. This thing literally CANNOT kill me. It is impossible.

Healthy people are not on any meds. Psych meds included...

 

Feel free to place me on ignore. I have as much right to post on here as you do. I do find it interesting that you seem more interested in discrediting the messenger than you do in debating the facts and ideas. This trucker has read literally thousands of books and can write a college level paper off the top of his head. I do research for fun. A book report is my idea of a good time.

The fact is that masks offer absolutely no protection to the wearer, and any words you type here will never change this reality.

You can say whatever you want, but you will never control any discussion that I am involved in. Of that you can be sure.

 

Your post presupposes that doctors and scientists all share the same conclusions, opinions, and viewpoints, which cannot possibly be true. If you are claiming scientific consensus, the honus is on you to back up this assertion.

 

Doing something makes people feel less helpless. A plausible explanation helps sell the idea, but feeling less helpless or more in control is probably the big appeal to these masks.

 

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Results
The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

 

You can get HEPA filter material in different places in the hardware store and use those to make a mask. HEPA material filters 99.9%, IIRC, and a good design and proper filter media can protect you from items as small as a virus. I think Wuhan Flu virus is 0.3 microns in size. You can get HEPA material that filters don to that size.

 

If we are going to talk about feelings, I can freely admit that this is not my area of expertise. I would like to note that feelings are irrational by nature, whereas thoughts and ideas are rational by nature (even though thoughts can manifest irrationally on occasion and feelings do sometimes line up with reality, these are exceptions and not the rule).

 

from the study linked above:

We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm. The controls were HCWs who observed standard practice, which involved mask use in the majority, albeit with lower compliance than in the intervention arms. The control HCWs also used medical masks more often than cloth masks. When we analysed all mask-wearers including controls, the higher risk of cloth masks was seen for laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection.

The trend for all outcomes showed the lowest rates of infection in the medical mask group and the highest rates in the cloth mask arm. The study design does not allow us to determine whether medical masks had efficacy or whether cloth masks were detrimental to HCWs by causing an increase in infection risk. Either possibility, or a combination of both effects, could explain our results. It is also unknown whether the rates of infection observed in the cloth mask arm are the same or higher than in HCWs who do not wear a mask, as almost all participants in the control arm used a mask. The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk for HCWs. The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,29 and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.30 Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks. Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.31 These effects may be associated with cloth masks.

We have previously shown that N95 respirators provide superior efficacy to medical masks,8 9 but need to be worn continuously in high-risk settings to protect HCWs.9 Although efficacy for medical masks was not shown, efficacy of a magnitude that was too small to be detected is possible.8 9 The magnitude of difference between cloth masks and medical masks in the current study, if explained by efficacy of medical masks alone, translates to an efficacy of 92% against ILI, which is possible, but not consistent with the lack of efficacy in the two previous RCTs.8 9 Further, we found no significant difference in rates of virus isolation in medical mask users between the three trials, suggesting that the results of this study could be interpreted as partly being explained by a detrimental effect of cloth masks. This is further supported by the fact that the rate of virus isolation in the no-mask control group in the first Chinese RCT was 3.1%, which was not significantly different to the rates of virus isolation in the medical mask arms in any of the three trials including this one. Unlike the previous RCTs, circulating influenza and RSV were almost completely absent during this study, with rhinoviruses comprising 85% of isolated pathogens, which means the measured efficacy is against a different range of circulating respiratory pathogens. Influenza and RSV predominantly transmit through droplet and contact routes, while Rhinovirus transmits through multiple routes, including airborne and droplet routes.32 33 The data also show that the clinical case definition of ILI is non-specific, and captures a range of pathogens other than influenza. The study suggests medical masks may be protective, but the magnitude of difference raises the possibility that cloth masks cause an increase in infection risk in HCWs. Further, the filtration of the medical mask used in this trial was poor, making extremely high efficacy of medical masks unlikely, particularly given the predominant pathogen was rhinovirus, which spreads by the airborne route. Given the obligations to HCW occupational health and safety, it is important to consider the potential risk of using cloth masks.

In many parts of the world, cloth masks and medical masks may be the only options available for HCWs. Cloth masks have been used in West Africa during the Ebola outbreak in 2014, due to shortages of PPE, (personal communication, M Jalloh). The use of cloth masks is recommended by some health organisations, with caveats.34–36 In light of our study, and the obligation to ensure occupational health and safety of HCWs, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly during AGPs and in high-risk settings such as emergency, infectious/respiratory disease and intensive care wards. Infection control guidelines need to acknowledge the widespread real-world practice of cloth masks and should comprehensively address their use. In addition, other important infection control measure such as hand hygiene should not be compromised. We confirmed the protective effects of hand hygiene against laboratory-confirmed viral infection in this study, but mask type was an independent predictor of clinical illness, even adjusted for hand hygiene.