Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday April 20, 2021
Home Forums Images WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Miscellaneous > Off-Topic

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.







* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. 
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-16-2020, 06:58 PM   #2001
poison
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 37678
Join Date: May 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poison View Post
I'm saying your mom would/should have been the first to receive. You're getting irrationally upset at the necessarily clinical bent of the discussion.

I'm sorry you lost your mom, truly. If you have other older relatives, may they receive vaccines imminently.



Why is it always glass half empty with you people. The preferable statement is:

Everyone is equally relevant.



This. ^



You're expressing the sentiment, but applying it wrong in the covid case. Healthy people under 70 without comorbidities are not at much risk at all, so vaccinating them before those over 70 with comorbidities who are actually at risk is a waste.
Here is what Wales is doing. Accurate triaging.

Twitter
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
poison is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 12-16-2020, 07:12 PM   #2002
Reciprocity
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1165
Join Date: Mar 2000
Default

Reciprocity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 07:15 PM   #2003
4S-TURBO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: PORTLAND (OR)
Vehicle:
+__+ (-__-)(-__-)
('>') ('>') ('__') (*>*)

Default

Glass half empty guys. Do better.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 07:30 PM   #2004
Hondaslayer
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 4562
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Auburn, WA
Vehicle:
2014 Electric Datsun
2005 Adventure van

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
Glass half empty guys. Do better.
You got a glass? Did it come with bootstraps?
Hondaslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 07:34 PM   #2005
kgb4187
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 35824
Join Date: Apr 2003
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reciprocity View Post
Um, excuse me but the methodology for dispersion has been in use for decades already.


kgb4187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 07:36 PM   #2006
Reciprocity
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1165
Join Date: Mar 2000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
Glass half empty guys. Do better.
This is better.
Reciprocity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 08:23 PM   #2007
4S-TURBO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: PORTLAND (OR)
Vehicle:
+__+ (-__-)(-__-)
('>') ('>') ('__') (*>*)

Default

4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 08:26 PM   #2008
poison
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 37678
Join Date: May 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Default

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0034580

Quote:
Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway

ABSTRACT
Even though face masks are well accepted as tools useful in reducing COVID-19 transmissions, their effectiveness in reducing viral loads in the respiratory tract is unclear. Wearing a mask will significantly alter the airflow and particle dynamics near the face, which can change the inhalability of ambient particles. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of wearing a surgical mask on inspiratory airflow and dosimetry of airborne, virus-laden aerosols on the face and in the respiratory tract. A computational model was developed that comprised a pleated surgical mask, a face model, and an image-based upper airway geometry. The viral load in the nose was particularly examined with and without a mask. Results show that when breathing without a mask, air enters the mouth and nose through specific paths. When wearing a mask, however, air enters the mouth and nose through the entire surface of the mask at lower speeds, which favors the inhalation of ambient aerosols into the nose. With a 65% filtration efficiency (FE) typical for a three-layer surgical mask, wearing a mask reduces dosimetry for all micrometer particles except those of size 1 µm-3 µm, for which equivalent dosimetry with and without a mask in the upper airway was predicted. Wearing a mask reduces particle penetration into the lungs, regardless of the FE of the mask. The results also show that mask-wearing protects the upper airway (particularly the nose and larynx) best from particles larger than 10 µm while protecting the lungs best from particles smaller than 10 µm.
I. INTRODUCTION
Infectious respiratory diseases spread when a healthy person comes in contact with virus-laden droplets from someone who has been infected, often through a sneeze or cough.1,2 Wearing a mask has been proven to be an effective method of protection in this pandemic, which both reduces the exhalation of virus-laden aerosols from a COVID patient and minimizes the inhalation of airborne virus-laden aerosols by the subjects surrounding the patient.3,4 Masks are available with different filtration efficiencies and levels of breathability. The filtration media are often made of micrometer or nano-sized fibers, arranged as a matrix or network, to achieve the desired filtration efficiency (FE).5 A mask with a higher FE often has a higher breathing resistance, i.e., worse breathability.
Physiological studies show that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 first deposits in the human upper airway to cause infection of the nasal goblet secretory cells and then spreads to the central and inner parts of the lungs.6,7 The final target is the alveoli, the smallest respiration units that has a diameter of 0.2 mm-0.4 mm.8,9 The virus will attack the type-II cells in the alveoli and interfere with their capacity to secrete the surfactants needed to maintain normal breathing.6 With an inadequate lining of surfactants on the alveolar wall, water surface tension can increase the breathing effort by two to four times to draw in the same volume of fresh air (or oxygen).10 To make things worse, the coincidence of hypertension of the cardiovascular system can fill the alveolar airspace with fluids, making breathing and oxygen exchange even harder.11 Usually under this condition, mechanical ventilation to the patients is needed.
There exists a threshold number of SARS-CoV-2 viruses (i.e., the infectious dose in both concentration and time) that are necessary to cause the illness.12,13 It is currently unclear what the exact infectious dose is for COVID-19, but it is estimated to be 1000 viruses, by analogy to influenza and SARS.14-17 Therefore, the knowledge of the local deposition rates of the virus-laden particles on the epithelial cells (i.e., viral loads) is crucial in determining the risk of COVID infection. Due to face covering, both inhaled and exhaled airflow can be altered significantly. Simha and Rao visualized the expiratory flows of coughs and quantified the propagation distances with and without a mask using a Schlieren imaging system. It was demonstrated that the cough flow fields were governed by the propagation of viscous vortex rings. Verma et al.19,20 used a laser-illuminating system to visualize the effectiveness of face masks and face shields in obstructing respiratory jets. Their results confirmed that a well-fitted mask can significantly curtail the speed and range of expelled droplets while a face shield still allowed droplets to move around and spread out over a large area.19,20 However, how the presence of a mask affects the inhalation dosimetry of ambient aerosols in the upper airway is not clear, even though we expect certain degrees of difference from that without wearing a mask. In contrast to the recent resurgence of interest in using Schlieren and (particle image velocimetry) systems to visualize expiratory flows,18-22 reports of inspiratory flow and particle dynamics with face-covering are scarce, with the exception of a very recent study by Dbouk and Drikakis,23 who elegantly simulated the effectiveness of face-covering on reducing airborne viral infections. This lack of investigation into inhalation dosimetry with masks can be largely attributed to the inaccessibility of measurement within the mask and in the human respiration tract. However, considering the large variations in inspiratory airflows caused by wearing a mask, it is hypothesized that the inhalability of airborne particles into the nose/mouth, as well as their subsequent deposition within the upper respiratory tract and lungs, can also be significantly different.
The objective of this study is to numerically characterize the difference in the deposition distribution of ambient aerosols in the upper airway with and without a mask. The specific aims include:
(1)
developing a computational model that includes a mask, face, and upper airway with a perfect mask-face seal,
(2)
studying the inspiratory airflows and particle motions near the face when wearing a surgical mask in comparison to those without a mask,
(3)
characterizing the effect of particle size, inhalation flow rate, and mask resistance matrix on the dosimetry of ambient aerosols with and without a mask, and
(4)
quantifying the fraction of airborne particles deposited on the face, retained in the upper airway, and entering the lungs; regional deposition in the nose and larynx will be particularly examined.
The results of this study will provide insights into the airflows and particle dynamics with a mask on and the factors involved in determining the protection efficacy of face-covering, which is an area remaining largely unexplored but will be of high interest to patients, care providers, PPE designers, and public policymakers.

-----

IV. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
Since the COVID pandemic from early 2020, the fluids community has been actively involved in elucidating transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 viruses and devising ways to curb the transmission.40,41 Both optical visualization and numerical modeling have been undertaken to understand the respiratory flows and droplets from coughs and sneezes and the effectiveness of face-covering to curtail these droplets.1,18-20,42-45 In this study, we aimed at understanding the effect of mask-wearing on inspiratory airflows and their effects on the inhalability and deposition of ambient particles in the upper respiratory airways. A computational mask-face-airway model was developed that consisted of a three-layer surgical mask fitted on the face of an image-based head airway geometry. Factors that influence the inhalability into the nose/mouth and retention in the upper airway and lungs of ambient aerosols were examined, which include (a) with and without a mask, (b) mask filtration efficiency (0% vs 65%), (c) particle size (1 µm-20 µm), (d) inhalation flow rate (15 l/min-60 l/min), and (e) mask resistance (five matrices). We were interested in the dosimetry difference with and without a mask in different regions of the body (the face, upper airway, and lungs) and among the four sections of the upper airway (the nose, mouth, pharynx, and larynx). Mechanisms underlying these differences were explored, and their implications are discussed below.
Wearing a mask was found to notably change the airflow field and particle motions near the face. Due to the mask resistance, the speeds of both airflow and particles decreased in the otherwise respiration zones when no mask was worn; as a compensation, airflow and particles redistribute to regions other than these respiration zones of the mask because the same volume of air will be inhaled with or without a mask (Fig. 3). The overall slowed-down airflow near the face favors the inhalability of particles into the nose, as well as their subsequent deposition in the upper airway. It is also found that the airflow speeds are higher near the folds or pleats of the mask, indicating the potential impacts of mask shape and morphological details on its protective efficacy.
The results of this study show that wearing a zero-filtration mask can lead to a higher deposition rate of particles smaller than 10 µm (i.e., PM10) in the upper airway for all flow rates (15 l/min-60 l/min) and mask resistance matrices considered. This seemingly counterintuitive observation may be attributed to the altered pressure and airflow fields caused by the mask, which further changes the inhalability of the particles and subsequent deposition in the upper airways. The overall lower speeds of the respirable particles after wearing a mask, as well as an increased area of respiration, can increase the chance of respirable particles to land on the face or being inhaled into the mouth and nose. This unexpected finding raises an alarm that wearing masks with very low filtration efficiencies may lead to a higher chance of deposition of ambient aerosols and thus can do more harm than protection. In this study, we assumed a 65% filtration efficiency of the mask, which is typical for a three-layer surgical mask, for all particle sizes. Luckily, the adjusted dosimetry of ambient aerosols is lower with a mask than without one for all particle sizes considered (1 µm-20 µm) in the face, upper airway, and lungs. Considering that the nasal epithelium is one of three sites in the human body binding with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,46,47 wearing a 65%-filtration mask can reduce the nasal deposition (viral load) by half for 3 µm-10 µm aerosols and by four to five times for 15-µm aerosols (Fig. 13).
The finding that particle dosimetry can be substantially different with and without a mask calls for cautions in health risk assessment with face coverings. The practice of estimating airway doses with a mask by simply scaling the doses without a mask can introduce significant errors. Furthermore, current mask filtration efficiency (FE) testing, for instance, using TSI 8130, only provides an integrated FE value for polydisperse aerosols and does not differentiate FEs among particle sizes. It is well expected that the mask FE varies significantly with particle sizes. Even though this study adopted an identical FE (65%) for all particles considered, further studies with a mask are warranted to include the mask FEs that are specific to different particle sizes. Likewise, complementary experimental studies are needed to measure the particle-size-dependent FEs for different types of masks.
The nose has a unique role in this COVID-19 pandemic for several reasons. It is the first physical barrier of our body to keep ambient aerosols from getting into the respiratory tract; unlike the mouth, the downward nostrils can effectively prevent large particles from being inhaled due to their large inertia. The nasal mucus and immune cells constitute the second line of defense against invading viruses.48 However, the nasal goblet secretory cells are also one of the three confirmed binding sites for COVID-19 viruses, where two necessary enzymes for cell invasion, ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) and TMPRSS2 (type II transmembrane serine protease), coexist.47 This explains the usage of nasal swabs in COVID testing.46 The other two sites with these two enzymes coexisting are the surface epithelial cells of the alveoli and the ileal absorptive cells in the small intestine.47 In this study, we found that the protective efficacy of a mask for the nasal airway decreases at lower inhalation flow rates. Particularly at 15 l/min, the nasal retention of 1 µm-3 µm ambient aerosols is even higher by wearing a 65% filtration mask than without a mask at all. This situation is expected to worsen for flow rates lower than 15 l/min or wearing a mask with lower filtration efficiencies. After saying that, we also wish to emphasize that wearing a 65% filtration mask indeed reduces deposition of ambient aerosols larger than 3 µm on both the face and in all parts of the respiratory tract for all flow rates considered (15 l/min-60 l/min). Moreover, wearing a mask is highly effective in keeping large particles (>10 µm) from getting into the nostrils (i.e., particle inhalability), as illustrated in Figs. 8(c) and 13(a).
Limitations that may compromise the applicability of the results in this study include a perfect seal between the mask and the face, steady breathing, inhalation only, rigid airway walls, and an initial airborne aerosol profile of a spherical shape. It is well known that unlike N95, a disposable three-layer surgical mask does not fit tightly with the face;49,50 the fitting can become worse with physical activities or incorrect wearing practices.51,52 Air leakages through mask-face spaces can change the airflow and particle dynamics at different levels depending on the location and area of these opening spaces. Using a perfect mask-face seal here cuts the numerous possibilities of such open spaces short and intends to represent the optimal scenario in mask protection from ambient aerosols. However, imperfect mask-face sealing of varying degrees should be investigated to refine the assessment of mask protection efficiencies. Tidal breathing and compliant walls are the other two physiological factors determining respiratory aerodynamics, which further influence the trajectories, inhalability, and deposition of ambient aerosols.34,53 Furthermore, interpersonal transmissions of respiratory infectious diseases like COVID-19 are often related to coughs or sneezes from an infected person, which produces a bolus of droplets that vary its shape and size distribution during its transportation through the air.42,54,55 In this sense, the spherical profile of monodisperse particles adopted in this study may not adequately represent the interpersonal transmissions. Moreover, the hygroscopic effects and electrostatic charges were excluded, both of which had been demonstrated to change the particle fates and behaviors.56-60 However, the computational model herein did take into account the most fundamental properties affecting a mask's performance, such as a realistic mask model with morphological details (folds) and experimentally determined properties (filtration efficiency and breathing resistance), an anatomically accurate face-airway geometry, and ambient aerosols are representative of COVID-19 virus-laden droplets.8 With the assumptions of a perfect mask-face interface, constant inhalation, non-moving walls, and monodisperse particles that greatly reduced numerical complexities, the results of this study provide a first-order approximation of mask performance in real life. Likewise, the computational model developed in this study can serve as a platform where more physiologically realistic factors can be evaluated.
In summary, the effects of wearing a three-layer surgical mask on airflow and aerosol dynamics were examined in a mask-face-airway model in comparison to without a mask. A better understanding of the factors involved in determining the dosimetry of ambient aerosols on the face and in the respiratory tract was obtained. Specific findings are as follows:
1.
Wearing a mask significantly slows down inspiratory flows and extends respiration zones, which favors the inhalability of ambient aerosols into noses.
2.
High flow speed and elevated particle concentrations are observed in the mask pleats.
3.
Wearing a mask significantly reduces particle penetration into the lungs, regardless of the filtration efficiency of the mask. Wearing a 65%-filtration mask can reduce lung deposition by three folds for particles of size 1 µm-10 µm.
4.
With a 65% mask filtration efficiency that is typical for a three-layer surgical mask, deposition is reduced by wearing a mask for all particle sizes considered, except 1 µm-3 µm, for which equivalent dosimetry in the upper airway was predicted.
5.
Wearing a mask protects the upper airway (particularly the nose and larynx) best from particles larger than 10 µm, while it protects the face and lungs best from particles less than 10 µm (PM10).
6.
The mask protection of the nasal airway, whose goblet secretory cells are binding sites for SARS-CoV-2, decreases at lower inhalation flow rates (15 l/min or less).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
William Zouzas and Nathania Santoso at UMass Lowell Biomedical Engineering are gratefully acknowledged for reviewing this manuscript.
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Keep in mind this was done with 'a perfect seal', which no one has in real life, lowering effectiveness even more.

Cliffs: masks = not good.
poison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 08:28 PM   #2009
4S-TURBO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: PORTLAND (OR)
Vehicle:
+__+ (-__-)(-__-)
('>') ('>') ('__') (*>*)

Default

Fill the glass mron.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 09:11 PM   #2010
dwx
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 8343
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Atlanta, GA
Vehicle:
2005 2012 Jeep
2013 DGM BRZ

Default

Streak of misinterpreting studies goes unbroken.
dwx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 09:41 PM   #2011
Calamity Jesus
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 44501
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Yeah, well, you know
Vehicle:
that 's, like, your
alternate facts, man.

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwx View Post
Streak of misinterpreting studies goes unbroken.
I have to wonder if someone didn't install a browser extension that makes everything he reads say the opposite of what it really says. I mean, even a complete imbecile gets it right every now and then.
Calamity Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 09:46 PM   #2012
bakadayo
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 41230
Join Date: Aug 2003
Default

https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-t...ave-seen-some/

Quote:
he wedding photographer had already spent an hour or two inside with the unmasked wedding party when one of the bridesmaids approached her. The woman thanked her for still showing up, considering "everything that's going on with the groom."

When the photographer asked what she meant by that, the bridesmaid said the groom had tested positive for the coronavirus the day before. "She was looking for me to be like, 'Oh, that's crazy,' like I was going to agree with her that it was fine," the photographer recalls. "So I was like, 'What are you talking about?' And she was like, 'Oh no no no, don't freak out. He doesn't have symptoms. He's fine.'"

The photographer, who has asthma and three kids, left with her assistant before the night was over. Her exit was tense. The wedding planner said it was the most unprofessional thing she'd ever seen. Bridesmaids accused her of heartlessly ruining an innocent woman's wedding day. She recalls one bridesmaid telling her, "I'm a teacher, I have fourteen students. If I'm willing to risk it, why aren't you?" Another said everyone was going to get COVID eventually, so what was the big deal? The friend of the bride who'd spilled the beans cried about being the "worst bridesmaid ever."

After the photographer left, she canceled her Thanksgiving plans with family, sent her kids to relatives' houses so they wouldn't get sick, and informed the brides of her upcoming weddings that she'd be subcontracting to other shooters. A few days later she started to feel sick, and sure enough, tested positive for the coronavirus. She informed the couple. "But they didn't care," she says. They didn't offer to compensate her for the test, nor did they apologize for getting her sick.
...
Jeebus, how can you be so callous as to endanger other people's health/lives like that?
bakadayo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 09:51 PM   #2013
Hondaslayer
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 4562
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Auburn, WA
Vehicle:
2014 Electric Datsun
2005 Adventure van

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakadayo View Post
https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-t...ave-seen-some/



Jeebus, how can you be so callous as to endanger other people's health/lives like that?
OTOH she agreed to the job. What did she expect?

Yes, I wish the couple a short and unhappy marriage, but come on.
Hondaslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2020, 09:52 PM   #2014
Calamity Jesus
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 44501
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Yeah, well, you know
Vehicle:
that 's, like, your
alternate facts, man.

Default

Idiots gonna idiot.. newlyweds are complete douchebags here.. but:

Quote:
They didn't offer to compensate her for the test
Uhhh... why would they need to compensate her for something she shouldn't have had to pay for?
Calamity Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 12:48 AM   #2015
poison
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 37678
Join Date: May 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwx View Post
Streak of misinterpreting studies goes unbroken.
Quote:
NEWS
Wearing a used mask could be worse than no mask amid COVID-19: study
By Lia Eustachewich

December 16, 2020 | 8:59am


Wearing a used mask could be more dangerous than not wearing one at all when it comes to warding off COVID-19, a new study has found.

A new three-layer surgical mask is 65 percent efficient in filtering particles in the air — but when used, that number drops to 25 percent, according to the study published Tuesday in the Physics of Fluids.

Researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University say that masks slow down airflow, making people more susceptible to breathing in particles — and a dirty face mask can’t effectively filter out the tiniest of droplets.

“It is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,” said author Jinxiang Xi.

Our results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers.”
.....
poison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 01:19 AM   #2016
4S-TURBO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: PORTLAND (OR)
Vehicle:
+__+ (-__-)(-__-)
('>') ('>') ('__') (*>*)

Default

How Effective Is the Mask You’re Wearing? You May Know Soon
Quote:
A C.D.C. division is working with an industry standards group to develop filtration standards — and products that meet them will be able to carry labels saying so.More than 100,000 varieties of face masks are currently for sale. They come in silk, cotton and synthetics; with filters and without; over-the-head and over-the-ears. They have sparkles and sunflowers; friendly greetings and insults; cartoon characters and teeny reindeer.

What they don’t have is a label that shows how well they block infectious particles, an omission that has frustrated public health officials during the coronavirus pandemic. Those experts note that there is a big range in the effectiveness of various designs, and some barely filter out particles at all.

“The most fundamental, basic question is, What is the safest mask and how do I assure that I have that, and my family members and children have that?” said Fran Phillips, who stepped down in August from her post as deputy health secretary of Maryland. “It’s so startling that we are here in this moment and we don’t have that information.”

That may change soon. A division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working to develop minimum filter efficiency standards, and labels showing which products meet them, for the vast and bewildering marketplace for masks and other face coverings.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a division of the C.D.C. known as NIOSH, has been quietly writing guidelines with an industry-standard-setting organization, ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), that are expected to be made public next month.

“By having a standard in place you will be able to know what level of protection is being achieved and you’ll have a consistent way of evaluating these products,” said Maryann D’Alessandro, director of the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory.

Since the pandemic began, there has been little federal oversight of masks and other face coverings. Both the Food and Drug Administration and the C.D.C. have some authority over the industry. The F.D.A., which regulates medical devices, shares authority with NIOSH for oversight of N95 respirators, which are the most protective devices available. But most of the masks worn by the general public are just pieces of cloth and don’t come under any regulatory oversight.

Sales of masks took off after the F.D.A. issued an emergency measure in April — when health care facilities were struggling to secure enough protective gear — that said in part that the agency would not take action against companies selling them to the general public. At the same time, however, the F.D.A. also noted that these products “may or may not meet fluid barrier or filtration efficiency levels.” That warning didn’t hurt the market, and some critics now blame the F.D.A. for the poor quality of many of the products being sold.
“There were many things the F.D.A. could have done to improve the situation, especially after research started coming out about which masks worked and which didn’t,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit health policy group. “F.D.A. could have issued a guidance that masks should be fitted, at least two layers of cloth, not made of stretchy materials, etc. Instead, there was a free-for-all.”

The effectiveness of masks can range “from 0 to 80 percent, depending on material composition, number of layers and layering bonding,” said Dale Pfriem, president of Protective Equipment Consulting Services and a member of the standards development working group addressing mask guidelines.

The gold standard for masks is the N95, which fits tightly and can filter out at least 95 percent of very small particles. But N95 masks are generally reserved for health practitioners, and they have been in short supply since the outbreak began. Hospitals, desperate for more N95s, have been driven to a booming black market to secure them.

To offset the shortage, the F.D.A. last spring authorized the sale of the KN95, the Chinese equivalent of the American N95. But the agency soon detected fraudulent and counterfeit products and narrowed the field of permissible KN95 imports. Despite that, the agency acknowledges that there is still rampant fraud, with countless companies stamping “KN95” on masks that do not meet the F.D.A. standards.

One step below the N95s in terms of protection are F.D.A.-approved surgical masks, which must meet certain agency standards. The surgical mask style is often copied by companies that sell imitations, which do not offer the same level of protection.

And then there is the Wild West: millions of masks fashioned from every possible fabric, from single layers on up, as well as bandannas and gaiters, which are closed loops of fabric that are worn around the neck and can extend to cover the lower part of the face.

Just about any mask is better than no mask, public health experts say. The C.D.C. has updated its guidance on masks numerous times, noting that a tightly woven, multilayered fabric offers better protection than a mask made from a single layer of fabric or a loose knit — for both the wearer and the people with whom the wearer comes in contact. But the agency’s website offers no clarity on whether masks with filters offer better protection than those without them, nor about how synthetic fabrics compare with cotton or other materials.

“There’s been a critical need for some kind of national program to test and certify masks, and to communicate with people how to use and care for them,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech and a leading expert on airborne viruses.

A working group of federal and industry officials has proposed one high and one low filtration requirement that manufacturers and distributors can adopt and list on their labels. The lower standard is a 20 percent filtration barrier and the higher is 50 percent.

Those numbers are more protective than they sound. The filtration efficiency percentages are based on a product’s efficiency at filtering particles measuring 0.3 microns, which, as the generally most penetrative particles, are standard for NIOSH tests.

“Twenty percent efficiency at 0.3 microns would translate to 50 percent efficiency at one- to two-micron particles, and 80 percent efficiency at blocking particles that are four to five microns or larger,” Dr. Marr said. “I think it will be useful.”

According to Dr. Marr, the coronavirus itself is 0.1 microns, but it is carried in aerosols that can range in size from around 0.5 microns on up.

Jeffrey Stull, a member who is assisting in writing the standards, said the group would also rate masks and face coverings for “breathability.” The standard-setting project, he said, has been a long haul.

“It’s been a very difficult process,” said Mr. Stull, president of International Personnel Protection Inc. “We’ve been struggling to find this consensus on what the performance level should be. We were originally talking about higher levels, and they said, ‘No, 80 percent of the industry can’t comply — that’s not going to do anyone any good.’ So we had to balance it out.”

Manufacturers who want to note that they meet the ASTM standard must first have their products tested by an accredited laboratory. They should also be able to show that their masks provide a reasonable fit to the population at large. Those who do comply with the standards can then note that they meet the ASTM standard on the product or the packaging. There is no enforcement mechanism, however.

Daniel Carpenter, a professor of government at Harvard, called NIOSH’s work in developing the standard “regulatory entrepreneurship.”

“It’s saying, ‘Let’s use the tools we have, even if we don’t have formal regulatory tools,” Mr. Carpenter said. “It is an alternate mode of regulation. It can have a pretty important regulatory effect because if you don’t comply with the standards, you don’t get the seal of approval.”

Mr. Pfriem hopes the standards catch on. “What we have here is a really good standard,” he said. “Manufacturers will have something to design their products to, and something to put in their marketing materials and packaging, and consumers will have a sense of confidence.”

He added, “I can tell you that a lot of what is marketed on eBay and other sites, that are manufactured, say, in your neighbor’s garage, won’t be able to meet this standard.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/h...ctiveness.html

I mean 9 months later. Effective masks or effective leadership?
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 03:41 AM   #2017
etothen
Ethon
 
Member#: 221885
Join Date: Aug 2009
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portlandia
Vehicle:
2050 Ivory Tower
Ivory...duh

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sans meaning View Post
It did not just seem like they wanted to spread the infection, it was their stated policy.
etothen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 03:57 AM   #2018
parker
Member Status: Member
 
Member#: 46241
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Shallow Fields, Stanton
Vehicle:
- Can I get
a wayo

Default

When you frame it against the "this is deadly stuff, Bob", Woodward tapes (part deaux)

trategy indeed.
parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 09:31 AM   #2019
Reciprocity
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1165
Join Date: Mar 2000
Default

Reciprocity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 09:49 AM   #2020
markman
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 93623
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brian Fellow's Safari Planet
Default

The comments are gold
markman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 10:25 AM   #2021
poison
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 37678
Join Date: May 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
How Effective Is the Mask You’re Wearing? You May Know Soon

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/h...ctiveness.html

I mean 9 months later. Effective masks or effective leadership?
I'm glad you're finally understanding that what has gone on until now has been absolute bull****, that masking as done currently doesn't work, and as my post above shows is probably increasing infections.

And people have the nerve to scream at people not wearing masks.
poison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 10:41 AM   #2022
nab911
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 119866
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Atlanta
Default

Quote:
Just about any mask is better than no mask, public health experts say. The C.D.C. has updated its guidance on masks numerous times, noting that a tightly woven, multilayered fabric offers better protection than a mask made from a single layer of fabric or a loose knit - for both the wearer and the people with whom the wearer comes in contact.
Thanks again CDC
nab911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 10:52 AM   #2023
markman
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 93623
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brian Fellow's Safari Planet
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nab911 View Post
Thanks again CDC
Fake news, I'd rather trust the conclusion jumping gymnastics of people on twitter with no medical training whatsoever.
markman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 10:53 AM   #2024
rogue
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7977
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Sterling, VA
Vehicle:
100% Abuse

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nab911 View Post
Thanks again CDC
Pfff!

If masks offered protection from disease, then why haven't doctors and nurses and hospital staff been wearing them for decades?

Check-mate!
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2020, 10:54 AM   #2025
edkwon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 453
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 小さいӔ
Vehicle:
2020 Kia Telluride
2015 911 Turbo

Default




So done & done, I just got dose #1 of the Pfizer vaccine.

this was even less painful than a flu shot TBH and very underwhelming, barely felt a thing. They kept us all for a mandatory 15-20 min observation period to make sure nobody dropped dead from anaphylaxis.

I have to get my 2nd dose at approx the 3 wk mark (17-21 days) for max efficacy.

Will post updates if I notice any untoward side effects like zombification after the 1st dose, or it requires a full 2 doses to become a rage monster
edkwon is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2021 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.