Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/
Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
21–30 of 92 posts
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#22Somewhat off topic, but I think that the figure labeling in this article is disappointing. In figure 2, the masks are numbered but not named. In figure 3, the masks are named but not numbered. So, I can't (personally) tell which mask from figure 1 performed well and which mask performed poorly.
Table 1 gives the relation between mask names and numbers.
Having to use the table to relate the pictures to the results does seem very poor.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the broader point is one that still stands: wearing literally anything over your nose and mouth is shown, by this study, to cut droplet by at least 50%. Even the cotton varieties cut it from 70% to 90%. So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health. You're right about the differences in effectiven…
You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative. Edit: This is one of the main reason the Scandinavian countries recommend against _all_ mask use (including N95) so not sure why I'm getting downvoted for merely saying an inefficient mask could have that problem.
I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that.
For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have without face masks. Reason being that it seems like spread through surfaces is not as bad as through the air, so making the air cleaner seems better than making the surfaces cleaner to me.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#24[flagged]
I was rewatching Stranger Things last night and Hopper made a comment about how a missing child brings out the crazies (his words, for those somehow not in the know, it's a show set in the 80s, no internet, no mobile phones). I'm starting to suspect that the media, police, government in all its forms, just used to filter them all out. File their reports and letters in the wastebin. I do wonder whether we've now just…
This is correct - I remember people had serious concerns about it in the early 90s when the web first started growing. It gave a vehicle for "the crazies" to find each other, talk to each other, and strengthen their views by validating each other. In many cases, this is a good thing as it allows a healthy diversity to grow in our society. But it is a double-edged sword. While it does help people find their tribe, it also creates unhealthy echo chambers.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#25The market for face masks is probably enormous right now but the information out there on which ones to buy is anemic. I assumed this was because masks were such a commodity that it didn't really matter which ones you bought, but this article shows otherwise. Even just among the cotton ones there is quite a difference.
I think the broader point is one that still stands: wearing literally anything over your nose and mouth is shown, by this study, to cut droplet by at least 50%. Even the cotton varieties cut it from 70% to 90%. So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health. You're right about the differences in effectiven…
[dead]
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#26[flagged]
I was rewatching Stranger Things last night and Hopper made a comment about how a missing child brings out the crazies (his words, for those somehow not in the know, it's a show set in the 80s, no internet, no mobile phones). I'm starting to suspect that the media, police, government in all its forms, just used to filter them all out. File their reports and letters in the wastebin. I do wonder whether we've now just…
They would both filter out the crazies and the Whistleblowers. Bummer we can’t just get the actually useful ones.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#27Somewhat off topic, but I think that the figure labeling in this article is disappointing. In figure 2, the masks are numbered but not named. In figure 3, the masks are named but not numbered. So, I can't (personally) tell which mask from figure 1 performed well and which mask performed poorly.
Table 1 gives the relation between mask names and numbers. Having to use the table to relate the pictures to the results does seem very poor.
Thanks - I had actually missed that on my skim-through.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative. Edit: This is one of the main reason the Scandinavian countries recommend against _all_ mask use (including N95) so not sure why I'm getting downvoted for merely saying an inefficient mask could have that problem.
I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that. For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have…
I've only heard what the state epidemiologists say but here's the Finnish study that the current recommendations are based on: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benef...
With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that. For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have…
I've only heard what the state epidemiologists say but here's the Finnish study that the current recommendations are based on: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benef... With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.
> five of eight systematic reviews found no evidence that the use of masks would provide any benefit in controlling sources of infection or protecting healthy persons from exposure to respiratory infections
Unfortunately, that news article does not contain the links to those reviews. Maybe they are part of the full report, but I can't read Finnish.
Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative. Edit: This is one of the main reason the Scandinavian countries recommend against _all_ mask use (including N95) so not sure why I'm getting downvoted for merely saying an inefficient mask could have that problem.
I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that. For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have…
I think the reason that various authorities advised against masks is political - there simply weren't enough and to direct the supply to clinical workers.