Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

oceansasia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 177 posts

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#121

Post by xenocratus »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #86
frogpelt wrote: post #14

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.

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".

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#122

Post by yibg »

worker767424 wrote: post #103
yibg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how much protection would be enough for you to wear one? 50%? 75%? Hell, even 1% is higher than 0 and really, what's the harm? Yea most people don't get very sick, except for the 300k that are dead just in the US.

> and really, what's the harm? If people think a mask offers them more protection than it really does, they might engage in riskier behavior. When I see people out walking around the neighborhood with masks on, I really wonder what they're trying to accomplish. You're not going to get covid walking outdoors passing within 6 feet of someone for 5 seconds. These days, my theory is more people get infected at home than…

Judgement is important of course. I wear masks around people but not when I’m driving or outdoors by myself. I think for a lot of people, it’s just easier not to put it on and take it off. For me for instance if I’m out hiking I just put it on and leave it on. Where as my partner will remove it when there is no one around and put it back on when someone is coming close by. I see the same thing with people driving short distances.

People getting infected at home may be a large vector, but the virus got in the home some how in the first place. It’s just easier to spread from that point onwards once it’s in.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#123

Post by napier »

justQandA wrote: post #99
napier wrote: post #83

It’s surprising that after a year, people still haven’t figured out that reusable elastomer respirators with long life replaceable filter cartridges and >99% small particle filtration effectiveness are the best option from the perspectives of safety, overall cost and sustainability. I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with…

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.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#124

Post by immy »

Stephen304 wrote: post #115
napier wrote: post #83

It’s surprising that after a year, people still haven’t figured out that reusable elastomer respirators with long life replaceable filter cartridges and >99% small particle filtration effectiveness are the best option from the perspectives of safety, overall cost and sustainability. I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with…

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.

Cut up surgical mask and duct tape it around the exterior vent.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#125

Post by DoreenMichele »

xenocratus wrote: post #121
DoreenMichele wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 d…

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.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#126

Post by EB-Barrington »

worker767424 wrote: post #103
yibg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how much protection would be enough for you to wear one? 50%? 75%? Hell, even 1% is higher than 0 and really, what's the harm? Yea most people don't get very sick, except for the 300k that are dead just in the US.

> and really, what's the harm? If people think a mask offers them more protection than it really does, they might engage in riskier behavior. When I see people out walking around the neighborhood with masks on, I really wonder what they're trying to accomplish. You're not going to get covid walking outdoors passing within 6 feet of someone for 5 seconds. These days, my theory is more people get infected at home than…

New York State recently reported that 74% of infections spread between Sept and Nov 2000 took place during household social gatherings (based upon contact tracing data).

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#127

Post by boatsie »

zucked wrote: post #67
matz1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Masks don't provide 100% protection, So 1% protection ? >but nothing does. However, masks are important, because they enable people to safely perform essential activities like grocery shopping, and most jobs. fortunately that the chance of getting sick from covid from doing those activities without mask are very very low. infection is not useful metric because only small percentage actually cause sickness. Masks: Th…

Are you insinuating that any improvement is not worth pursuing? Let's look at this a different way: I have COVID and I'm contagious. I don't know that, of course, so I go to the grocery store. The same grocery store you're shopping it. We cross paths in the cereal aisle. Would you rather me be wearing a mask?

As callous as it sounds, I don’t think doing things for “any improvement” means it is worth doing. Everything has a cost/benefit ratio. Are you going to wear a mask for the rest of your life in public and private (your household matters too) because you could catch the flu or someone could catch it from you? Are you going to stay out of motor vehicles because they could injure you or someone else?

People have become so extreme in their views that every single life matters that they forget how our 2019 way of life still had significant risk that nobody batted an eye at.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#128

Post by tangent-man »

yibg wrote: post #25
matz1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how it help, from the picture it shown that virus particle are smaller than mask pores. Masks: The Science & The Myths : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RaBLKKXJt4

Because the virus particles travel on other things, and those other things are big enough to get blocked.

No its because of Brownian Diffusion. Counter intuitively masks block particles smaller than 0.3 microns (such as virus’s) more easily than particles at around 0.3 microns in size.

It is particles that are around 0.3 microns in size that filters have the most difficulty blocking. N95 particles block 95% of particles of 0.3 microns in size. N99 Masks block 99% of particles at 0.3 microns.

As I understand it smaller particles get ‘stuck’ in the maze of fibres and are statistically unlikely to find there way through the mask. The best analogy I can think of is a spec of dust finding its way into a centre of a huge labarynth that is vibrating randomly in all directions (and coated in honey). Some respirator masks also contain anti viral coatings and are electrostaticaly charged.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#129

Post by napier »

Stephen304 wrote: post #115
napier wrote: post #83

It’s surprising that after a year, people still haven’t figured out that reusable elastomer respirators with long life replaceable filter cartridges and >99% small particle filtration effectiveness are the best option from the perspectives of safety, overall cost and sustainability. I’ve been using the same pre pandemic 3M P100 industrial respirator with a retrofitted exhalation valve filter for months. It fits with…

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.

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.

Re: Estimated 1.56B face masks will have entered oceans in 2020

#130

Post by mynameisvlad »

matz1 wrote: post #82
zucked wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you insinuating that any improvement is not worth pursuing? Let's look at this a different way: I have COVID and I'm contagious. I don't know that, of course, so I go to the grocery store. The same grocery store you're shopping it. We cross paths in the cereal aisle. Would you rather me be wearing a mask?

>Are you insinuating that any improvement is not worth pursuing That is not what I insinuating at all. >Would you rather me be wearing a mask If you are sick, you should rest at home, just like with any other illness. I wouldn't care whether you wear mask or not.

> If you are sick, you should rest at home, just like with any other illness.

That's not what was asked. Covid has an up to two week asymptomatic period, there's a high chance that someone around you when you go out is infected and doesn't know. Would you rather them be wearing a mask or not?

Post reply on HN