Posted on 03/18/2020 7:43:47 AM PDT by daniel1212
Can wearing masks stop the spread of the coronavirus?
There’s solid scientific data demonstrating that masks do an incredible job at blocking particulate pollution, but what about the coronavirus particles? Viruses are tiny! Can masks get those?
This means coronavirus particles are smaller than the oft-mentioned PM2.5 standard, but bigger than some dust particles and gases.
Researchers from the University of Edinburgh tested different common mask...They tested a whole range of masks and materials. Here’s the percentage of particles the different materials blocked:
3M N95 masks captured over 95% of particles down to 0.007 microns. That’s over 10 times smaller than the coronavirus. What might be surprising to some is that the surgical mask was able to capture 80% of the tiny particles...
In another study, when scientists looked only at viable virus particles, they found that N95 masks performed even better, letting through 2% of virus particles.
Conclusion: Masks – including surgical masks and N95 masks – can capture virus particles and even particles that are over 10 times smaller than the coronavirus...
Several 3M masks were able to capture over 99% of tiny 0.01 micron particles (10 times smaller than the coronavirus), even while on people’s face. What’s more, surgical masks were surprisingly effective, capturing 63% of the tiny virus-sized particles. Bottom line: Masks can capture even the smallest particles – those 10 times smaller than viruses. What’s more, they work surprisingly well even while people are wearing them.
Of course, you can also hold your breath for a vaccine:)
This is better than telling people not to touch their face, which is not a problem unless you touch eyes, mouth or nostrils, or eat with unwashed hands.
But above all pray (see tag).
Ping
“This is better than telling people not to touch their face, which is not a problem unless you touch eyes, mouth or nostrils, or eat with unwashed hands. “
Wrong. Unless you are in very close contact with a carrier, you are unlikely to breathe in the virus.
Never heard of a bank robber with the flu so a handkerchief must work.
Here is where that maks fails - in the fitting. If the mask does not provide a solid SEAL against the face, air moves in around the mask.
The ideal mask provides the mentioned level of filtration, makes a solid seal on the face, is easily replaceable and in the long term, is not expensive. Currently, I have found these types of masks costing $10 for a two pack. Even if you dispose and replace once per week, a couple months supply starts to approach $100.
This is where I see an opportunity and I am using my 3d printer to develop a mask that is low cost (target $30 to $35), that provides HEPA 13 or better filtration, can easily replace the filters at a minimum cost, and is chemically resistant to detergent / sanitation / dishwasher safe. Yes they would be initially more expensive, but would last multiple years, and the filters could be even made at home but cutting up a standard HEPA house filter.
Sorry sir, that is designed to keep you from touching your face, ("Don't touch your face!") lest the virus jumps from your face to your hand, or your hand to your face (no mention of the part of your face that is relevant, or when washing hands is most important).
The article it deals with that.
This is where I see an opportunity and I am using my 3d printer to develop a mask that is low cost (target $30 to $35), that provides HEPA 13 or better filtration,
What about the Tyvek used in shopping bags? It is barely breathable, so you need forced air to use it, but it would be cheap.
The way I see it masks are more for other people’s protection than your own, especially in this case, you could be infected already. If you are breathing through your mask, you reduce the chance of giving what you got to others, at least by some factor.
The CDC does not seem to have stats on that!
Thanks!!!!!
I am not sure what you are saying it wrong, while some research shows the Coronavirus lives for hours in air particles and days on surfaces . However, a person is not thought to be infectious after about 5-7 days of having symptoms, though that can await a week or more.
This one has me stumped. Do they work better when left in the box? Do they work best for animals? What was this attempting to convey?
They work on a face nearly as well as they work on a test fixture.
The Lancet, Volume 361, Issue 9368, 3 May 2003, Pages 1519-1520, "Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)."
Practice of droplets precaution and contact precaution is adequate in significantly reducing the risk of infection after exposures to patients with SARS. The protective role of the mask suggests that in hospitals, infection is transmitted by droplets.
Would you be willing to share your 3d printer recipe?
Viruses are airborne opportunistically, not. classified as airborne pathogens.
GOOD ONE :)
This one has me stumped. Do they work better when left in the box? Do they work best for animals? What was this attempting to convey?
That's simple: It means that such masks show zero virus transmission while left in the box, and they work surprisingly well even while people are wearing them!
Actually, what this was responding to was objection that while that in machine tests they work, yet when people wear them then air would exist thru the sides of the mask. Thus "even while people are wearing them" referred to tests that showed (last image) the latter, and not simply effectiveness in machine tests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.