March Madness and Covid-19

Status
Not open for further replies.
paboomersooner said:
Serious question. If proper protocol is followed, do surgical, N95, homemade masks etc. entirely stop the Coronavirus from getting to your lungs?

Through conversation, I understand there to be a video floating around the interwebs of a doctor showing the ineffectiveness of certain types of masks.

Supposedly, he uses a spray bottle of water and a surgical mask to demonstrate that at least some of the water can easily pass through the mask from either direction. I looked for the video but was unable to find it.

According to this article, https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/sciencepanorama/can-face-masks-really-stop-spread-disease, surgical masks are made to filter out large droplets, not smaller aerosols. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't viruses smaller and lighter than water droplets?

"Surgical masks cover the mouth and nose and are effective mainly for stopping the large droplets, but they do not filter out aerosols. In addition, surgical masks do not confer full protection as they do not fit the face tightly."

In the case of the surgical mask, the fit is not custom so there are gaps between the face and the mask created, perhaps creating a small vacuum? If viruses act anything like water and many other things, could they follow the path of least resistance?

Even with the N95's, according to this article, masks don't stop everything from getting through.

"While masks may reduce the spread and infection of airborne pathogens, they do not provide total protection. Most studies found that the N95 masks do indeed filter more than 95% of all particles of aerosol size. However, they only provide 60-90% protection from viral infection in laboratory conditions.

Some studies show that the use of N95 masks is more effective in protecting against infection than surgical masks. In contrast, other studies have found no significant difference in the protection conferred by the two mask types."

The article is from March 2020, but I don't think the mask industry has seen a significant technological upgrade in the last two months.

I think what is being said is the masks can definitely help and the risk to breathing in viruses can be reduced. However, I'm with SB13. I think the mask thing is largely a dog and pony show.
Click to expand...

If you scroll back you will see that I have said that masks in public are mostly to protect others and not you. The reason for this is that the mask, any mask, helps prevent your droplets from projecting out a long distance. Of course the N95 masks are the most effective at protecting *you*, they are what I wear when working with respiratory specimens. But ANY mask is better than no mask at keeping your droplets from being propelled outwards away from you.

It is most definitely NOT a dog and pony show, which is why the White House is now mandating that all staffers where masks.
 
Last edited:
paboomersooner said:
Serious question. If proper protocol is followed, do surgical, N95, homemade masks etc. entirely stop the Coronavirus from getting to your lungs?
Click to expand...

When you're dealing with contaminants you WANT (ideally) to establish a clean area and keep all of the contaminants in isolation. When you cannot perform that simple task then it all comes down to percentages and procedures. We still are unable to guarantee cleanliness so we take best measures and precautions to lower exposure percentages. ANY obstruction to air velocity will curtail an individual's plume. It's not to protect him from others .. it's to protect everyone from him. You want everyone to do that to curtail the spread numbers. We cannot show total cleanliness for all so we do our best with the timing and percentages.
 
steverocks35 said:
CDC recommendations for masks, scroll down and check out the recent studies:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html#:~:text=In%20light%20of%20this%20new,community%2Dbased%20transmission.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-faq.html
Click to expand...

Good articles. Thanks for posting!

Common sense tells me that in the absence of a N95 mask, any mask is better than leaving your mouth and nose totally exposed. But even if protecting yourself from the virus is limited, wearing a mask to protect others is the right thing to do.
 
coolm said:
No. This is absolutely, positively 100% wrong and all the nitpicking about problems with the masks is absolutely ignorant to their import. Once again someone with a limited view of materials offering an opinion on the topic of contagion. Neither you nor he knows enough about each particular use or their function in general to make that comment. People get just enough information about a subtle glimpse of a topic and think they can make policy decisions over actual professionals from that field. It's the classic definition of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Sorry to offend you coolm but you my friend are wrong. I’ve read the papers that the outside of the mask has more viral particles than the inside. Yes this is very counterintuitive.
Yes the virus is mostly acquired by breathing in the droplets. The non N95 masks do not stop the droplets. Yes they keep one from spitting large amounts across the room. If you are coughing or spitting I believe they help a bunch. I hope you are smart enough to not be out in public if this is the case. Also avoid anyone who is doing it!
I also know the N95 has to be properly fitted. Only 2 sizes are available at our hospital. I’ve worn them for tb cases in the past. Neither size actually fits my face to the requirements that it would be effective. They have a smell test you have to do. My big nose screws it up. I chose the better of the sizes.

I have previously done a great deal of research on surgical masks due to being required to wear one at work. All papers over the last 20 years have shown masks DO NOT decrease surgical site infections. And have in one study actually shown an increase with actual surgeon and scrubs wearing a mask vs. not wearing one. Some facilities in North America have gone to circulating nurses and anesthesiologists not wearing masks. They have had no change in infection rates. They have saved a bunch of money and waste.
Believe me in medicine decision makers frequently create policies because it sounds like a good idea or we have to do something. This was the basis of my statement that it makes people feel as if they are doing something. I didn’t say don’t wear a mask.

I am not ignorant of the situation nor the science. Although I have to admit it’s been a long time since I did physics. No plans to take it back up. I’ll let my daughter who graduates next week from USNA and begins nuclear school this fall do it. My time has passed.
 
Eielson said:
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31042-4.pdf

Finally some positive news on the anti-viral front. Haven't gotten to read over it thoroughly, but this seems to support what I (and many others) had hypothesized about them. The earlier we start them the better. A lot of our antivirals have been saved for the sickest patients, but by then it's likely to be of little use. I'd figured patients would likely present too late for them to be of much use, but perhaps there is still some hope.

I imagine the biggest issue moving forward will be sheer numbers. The patients that would ideally be treated are the ones that are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, which represents a massive number (and most of which will recover on their own). It's also likely to require a rather large number needed to treat, so mild side effects may not be insignificant. Perhaps we could empirically treat all patients over a certain age or with certain comorbidities aggressively in order to preserve available treatments, while still benefiting those that are most vulnerable. And then perhaps saving anti-inflammatory drugs for those in later stages.

Starting to ramble again...
Click to expand...

Yes it makes sense to start the treatment as soon as someone is sick enough to be admitted to the hospital or earlier if known to be positive. It isn’t helping patients who are already have ARDS. No reason to use it on them when it is a completely different disease.
 
vbdad said:
Sorry to offend you coolm but you my friend are wrong. I’ve read the papers that the outside of the mask has more viral particles than the inside. Yes this is very counterintuitive.
Yes the virus is mostly acquired by breathing in the droplets. The non N95 masks do not stop the droplets. Yes they keep one from spitting large amounts across the room. If you are coughing or spitting I believe they help a bunch. I hope you are smart enough to not be out in public if this is the case. Also avoid anyone who is doing it!
I also know the N95 has to be properly fitted. Only 2 sizes are available at our hospital. I’ve worn them for tb cases in the past. Neither size actually fits my face to the requirements that it would be effective. They have a smell test you have to do. My big nose screws it up. I chose the better of the sizes.

I have previously done a great deal of research on surgical masks due to being required to wear one at work. All papers over the last 20 years have shown masks DO NOT decrease surgical site infections. And have in one study actually shown an increase with actual surgeon and scrubs wearing a mask vs. not wearing one. Some facilities in North America have gone to circulating nurses and anesthesiologists not wearing masks. They have had no change in infection rates. They have saved a bunch of money and waste.
Believe me in medicine decision makers frequently create policies because it sounds like a good idea or we have to do something. This was the basis of my statement that it makes people feel as if they are doing something. I didn’t say don’t wear a mask.

I am not ignorant of the situation nor the science. Although I have to admit it’s been a long time since I did physics. No plans to take it back up. I’ll let my daughter who graduates next week from USNA and begins nuclear school this fall do it. My time has passed.
Click to expand...

There have been studies done that show even talking or sneezing can spread the virus through droplets so everyone should wear a mask in public places. This isn't a healthcare setting we are talking about. We aren't talking about infecting a wound with bacteria. We are talking about limiting the distance you are projecting droplets, and not just from coughing, from talking and breathing as well.
 
Yes I understand. And the masks don’t contain the droplets. Yes they likely decrease the distance and volume. Also the masks then get a bunch of viral droplets on them. Everyone touches their mask and touches objects which others touch. This isn’t the primary mode of infection but if it is none then they should quit disinfecting everything. I prefer they continue to wipe stuff down.

I’ll remind you that I said to wear the masks just understand limitations.
 
vbdad said:
Yes I understand. And the masks don’t contain the droplets. Yes they likely decrease the distance and volume. Also the masks then get a bunch of viral droplets on them. Everyone touches their mask and touches objects which others touch. This isn’t the primary mode of infection but if it is none then they should quit disinfecting everything. I prefer they continue to wipe stuff down.

I’ll remind you that I said to wear the masks just understand limitations.
Click to expand...

Right, the masks are supposed to get the viral droplets on them, so you don't breathe them in. That's why the correct way to remove them is to not touch the front of the mask.
 
vbdad said:
Sorry to offend you coolm but you my friend are wrong. I’ve read the papers that the outside of the mask has more viral particles than the inside. Yes this is very counterintuitive.
Yes the virus is mostly acquired by breathing in the droplets. The non N95 masks do not stop the droplets. Yes they keep one from spitting large amounts across the room. If you are coughing or spitting I believe they help a bunch. I hope you are smart enough to not be out in public if this is the case. Also avoid anyone who is doing it!
I also know the N95 has to be properly fitted. Only 2 sizes are available at our hospital. I’ve worn them for tb cases in the past. Neither size actually fits my face to the requirements that it would be effective. They have a smell test you have to do. My big nose screws it up. I chose the better of the sizes.

I have previously done a great deal of research on surgical masks due to being required to wear one at work. All papers over the last 20 years have shown masks DO NOT decrease surgical site infections. And have in one study actually shown an increase with actual surgeon and scrubs wearing a mask vs. not wearing one. Some facilities in North America have gone to circulating nurses and anesthesiologists not wearing masks. They have had no change in infection rates. They have saved a bunch of money and waste.
Believe me in medicine decision makers frequently create policies because it sounds like a good idea or we have to do something. This was the basis of my statement that it makes people feel as if they are doing something. I didn’t say don’t wear a mask.

I am not ignorant of the situation nor the science. Although I have to admit it’s been a long time since I did physics. No plans to take it back up. I’ll let my daughter who graduates next week from USNA and begins nuclear school this fall do it. My time has passed.
Click to expand...

1. when you bring up surgical site contamination you're including a litany of other issues not present in this virus scenario. was the initial field flashed or was a spore count taken? if only flashed then you didnt guarantee a clean surface to start. if only surgery prepped then you don't even get the protection of flash sterilization. so your methodology is already flawed and now we're just off talking about percentages again.

2. your explanation relies on contamination being propelled through the filter media as an aerosol suspended or becoming suspended as a result of air velocity on the front side of the mask. the first case STILL relies on air stream velocity for the size of the plume and that is most assuredly curtailed with ANY size media ... even one larger than the particulate. I already discussed this above dealing with non-HEPA filtered ventilation. The second, propelling contaminants already on the outer surface, is also controlled by the velocity/pressure drop plus normal PPE protective measures. You're supposed to clean your mask and establish your own personal clean area.

3. In the event you want to say something about your studies or it being medical etc ... make sure to call that large hospital on SW 59th and Western and ask them whose picture that is in the SW corridor of their main bldg lobby. That guy who looks just like me. It's TJ Messer - my dad. He was in charge of SPD (sterilization) and purchasing for Integris for 35 years and cleanliness protocols were his field. He wrote and helped write most of the sterilization procedures used by hospitals all over the country through I believe NIOSH. He was one of the top experts in the country on the subject. Granted, I'm not him but I am pretty familiar with his work having discussed it with him for years. I understand the issues.

4. VB - tell your daughter to have fun at nuke school. I went in 1986. Beware of heat transfer/fluid flow. It's been called "fleet transfer/student flow" for being hard to grasp.
 
Last edited:
coolm said:
1. when you bring up surgical site contamination you're including a litany of other issues not present in this virus scenario. was the initial field flashed or was a spore count taken? if only flashed then you didnt guarantee a clean surface to start. if only surgery prepped then you don't even get the protection of flash sterilization. so your methodology is already flawed and now we're just off talking about percentages again.

2. your explanation relies on contamination being propelled through the filter media as an aerosol suspended or becoming suspended as a result of air velocity on the front side of the mask. the first case STILL relies on air stream velocity for the size of the plume and that is most assuredly curtailed with ANY size media ... even one larger than the particulate. I already discussed this above dealing with non-HEPA filtered ventilation. The second, propelling contaminants already on the outer surface, is also controlled by the velocity/pressure drop plus normal PPE protective measures. You're supposed to clean your mask and establish your own personal clean area.

3. In the event you want to say something about your studies or it being medical etc ... make sure to call that large hospital on SW 59th and Western and ask them whose picture that is in the SW corridor of their main bldg lobby. That guy who looks just like me. It's TJ Messer - my dad. He was in charge of SPD (sterilization) and purchasing for Integris for 35 years and cleanliness protocols were his field. He wrote and helped write most of the sterilization procedures used by hospitals all over the country through I believe NIOSH. He was one of the top experts in the country on the subject. Granted, I'm not him but I am pretty familiar with his work having discussed it with him for years. I understand the issues.

4. VB - tell your daughter to have fun at nuke school. I went in 1986. Beware of heat transfer/fluid flow. It's been called "fleet transfer/student flow" for being hard to grasp.
Click to expand...

What’s on 59th and Western? SW medical center is 44th street.

She is looking forward to it. Unlike her father she has yet to find something hard to grasp. It might be this concept. She loved USNA.
 
true. 44th, 59th he and my mom both worked at hillcrest then SW so I get it mixed up. 59th and western NW corner is a laundrymat last I looked.

my NPS was in Orlando. I assume hers is in Charleston or Groton. it's fun. charleston is a nice place.
 
Last edited:
paboomersooner said:
Serious question. If proper protocol is followed, do surgical, N95, homemade masks etc. entirely stop the Coronavirus from getting to your lungs?

Through conversation, I understand there to be a video floating around the interwebs of a doctor showing the ineffectiveness of certain types of masks.

Supposedly, he uses a spray bottle of water and a surgical mask to demonstrate that at least some of the water can easily pass through the mask from either direction. I looked for the video but was unable to find it.

According to this article, https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/sciencepanorama/can-face-masks-really-stop-spread-disease, surgical masks are made to filter out large droplets, not smaller aerosols. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't viruses smaller and lighter than water droplets?

"Surgical masks cover the mouth and nose and are effective mainly for stopping the large droplets, but they do not filter out aerosols. In addition, surgical masks do not confer full protection as they do not fit the face tightly."

In the case of the surgical mask, the fit is not custom so there are gaps between the face and the mask created, perhaps creating a small vacuum? If viruses act anything like water and many other things, could they follow the path of least resistance?

Even with the N95's, according to this article, masks don't stop everything from getting through.

"While masks may reduce the spread and infection of airborne pathogens, they do not provide total protection. Most studies found that the N95 masks do indeed filter more than 95% of all particles of aerosol size. However, they only provide 60-90% protection from viral infection in laboratory conditions.

Some studies show that the use of N95 masks is more effective in protecting against infection than surgical masks. In contrast, other studies have found no significant difference in the protection conferred by the two mask types."

The article is from March 2020, but I don't think the mask industry has seen a significant technological upgrade in the last two months.

I think what is being said is the masks can definitely help and the risk to breathing in viruses can be reduced. However, I'm with SB13. I think the mask thing is largely a dog and pony show.
Click to expand...

There are a variety of mask options. N95 have typically been used for these types of cases because they prevent 95% of particulates from getting through. However, with COVID, at the places I’ve been working have been using P100 respirators when performing procedures on COVID patients. The P100’s block 99.97% of particulates. There is nothing that is 100% certain but we take numerous levels of precautions to decrease the transmission as much as possible.

As far as civilians walking around town, if everyone wears a mask and practices social distancing, there is very little to worry about. The problem is, most people forget or get complacent and they touch their mask and then their face before washing their hands.
 
Really need to dial back all attacks and personal stuff.

This has gone on maybe for 2 long.

So please everyone do your part.
 
steverocks35 said:
If you scroll back you will see that I have said that masks in public are mostly to protect others and not you. The reason for this is that the mask, any mask, helps prevent your droplets from projecting out a long distance. Of course the N95 masks are the most effective at protecting *you*, they are what I wear when working with respiratory specimens. But ANY mask is better than no mask at keeping your droplets from being propelled outwards away from you.

It is most definitely NOT a dog and pony show, which is why the White House is now mandating that all staffers where masks.
Click to expand...

It may stop the large droplets from projecting further but is it stopping the smaller ones? I guess that is the question. And in practicality, is the difference it makes even substantial enough to have an effect? Is going from all forward 6 feet much better than 4 feet foward and 1 ft sideways?
 
coolm said:
When you're dealing with contaminants you WANT (ideally) to establish a clean area and keep all of the contaminants in isolation. When you cannot perform that simple task then it all comes down to percentages and procedures. We still are unable to guarantee cleanliness so we take best measures and precautions to lower exposure percentages. ANY obstruction to air velocity will curtail an individual's plume. It's not to protect him from others .. it's to protect everyone from him. You want everyone to do that to curtail the spread numbers. We cannot show total cleanliness for all so we do our best with the timing and percentages.
Click to expand...

Is it shown that the virus is slowed down by the clothe?
I don't know the size of the average droplet or average virus.
But a bowling bowl isn't going to be slowed down going through a 10 ft cave vs a 5 ft cave.
 
vbdad said:
Yes I understand. And the masks don’t contain the droplets. Yes they likely decrease the distance and volume. Also the masks then get a bunch of viral droplets on them. Everyone touches their mask and touches objects which others touch. This isn’t the primary mode of infection but if it is none then they should quit disinfecting everything. I prefer they continue to wipe stuff down.

I’ll remind you that I said to wear the masks just understand limitations.
Click to expand...

it would be interesting to see how often people change or wash their masks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Team Trends Heading into Last Weeks of Season
Replies
5
Views
418
WichitaSooner
W
C
Quick Intro and a few thoughts
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
opsooner
O
BoulderSooner
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Replies
0
Views
172
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
O
Resume is Fine; Eye Test is Not
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
3K
WichitaSooner
W
W
Uzan's struggles
Replies
19
Views
989
CMSOONER
CMSOONER
Back
Top