Home-made face masks likely need at least 2 layers to curb COVID-19 spread:
Home-made cloth face masks likely need a minimum of two layers, and preferably three, to prevent the dispersal of viral droplets from the nose and mouth that are associated with the spread of COVID-19, indicates a video case study published online in the journal Thorax.
[...] A team of Australian researchers therefore compared the effectiveness of single and double-layer cloth face coverings (175 g/m² cotton fabric, with a thread count of 170/ inch) with a 3-ply surgical face mask (Bao Thach) at reducing droplet spread.
[...] The video recording showed that the 3-ply surgical face mask was the most effective at reducing airborne droplet dispersal, although even a single layer cloth face covering reduced the droplet spread from speaking.
But a double layer covering was better than a single layer in reducing the droplet spread from coughing and sneezing, the recording showed.
This is just one case, added to which several other factors contribute to the effectiveness of cloth face masks, note the researchers. These include the type of material used, design and fit, as well as the frequency of washing.
Nevertheless, based on their observations, a home made cloth mask with at least two layers is preferable to a single layer mask, they say, adding: "Guidelines on home-made cloth masks should stipulate multiple layers."
And they emphasise: "There is a need for more evidence to inform safer cloth mask design, and countries should ensure adequate manufacturing or procurement of surgical masks."
Journal Reference:
Prateek Bahl, Shovon Bhattacharjee, Charitha de Silva, et al. Face coverings and mask to minimise droplet dispersion and aerosolisation: a video case study [$], Thorax (DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215748)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @05:27PM (13 children)
So then social distancing is unnecessary as long as we have a bandana over our mouth?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Monday July 27 2020, @05:33PM (12 children)
No, for the same reason airbags didn't mean removal of seatbelts. Different protections for different situations.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @05:42PM (3 children)
That's what the supposed media claims. There is more than one media, all of Congress tunes into the classified news where they say don't worry about masks.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 27 2020, @06:06PM (2 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @06:25PM (1 child)
The ideal mask lets in germs from others but blocks the outgoing germs. That way you keep your own immune system strong while not posing a threat to anyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @03:02PM
Except when the disease in question kills you or interrupts your ability to function in a way you can't afford, or you are already immunocompromised for any number of reasons, or you realize that 'ideal' is not possible.
Let's just say you're wrong, OK?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @10:15PM (7 children)
So youre point being that the protests shouldnt have been allowed to happen? Like how we have seat belts and airbags?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Monday July 27 2020, @11:00PM (6 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @11:34PM (5 children)
I wasnt aware the us could dictate what type of businesses and gathers could be allowed at a whim
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 28 2020, @03:03PM (4 children)
Public safety is not "at a whim".
And the U.S. has been in "a" state of emergency since 1974/2001, which does let the government ignore certain rules, apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @07:34PM (3 children)
So the protests should not have been allowed or endorsed as a matter of public safety. Yet they were. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who is being discriminated against. Public safety as a battle cry is the same as think of the children, and i find it just as unacceptable as i would any rhtoric used to deny basic human rights.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 29 2020, @08:34PM (2 children)
I mean...I guess you can make that argument if you want to; I didn't. I just pointed out that "widespread contagion and people dying" is a fairly good reason, not "at a whim." Somebody upthread pointed out that outlawing protests is actually unconstitutional.
--
No, "think of the children" is the narrower, stupider application of Public Safety.
My right to swing my fists around ends at your nose, as the saying goes. Feel free to apply this to me going up to you and coughing in your face.
--
I don't see how this relates to the topic at hand. Are you sure "discrimination" is the word you're looking for?
Telling the people they can't peacably assemble isn't discrimination unless you only tell certain groups of people; otherwise it's just a violation of rights.
--
People are literally dying from Covid, and you can't just suck it up and wear a mask when you go outside occasionally?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @01:36AM (1 child)
Plenty of evidence and examples of some groupd being allowed to assrmble and others not. And people literally die of alot of things...if we used that rhetoric for everything that killed people, we wouldnt exactly be living free lives, would we? Just suck it up and wear a mask is not justification for law, nor is the science behind wearing bandana over your mouth preventing the spread of infectious airborn disease, yet thats what we have in some states.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:53PM
So how about you provide any?
These are hardly normal circumstances. If widespread plague were a common occurrence when they wrote the Constitution, it would've been in there.
So are you saying you don't believe that wearing masks does anything, or you admit that it does but don't think these minor inconveniences are worth the public safety benefit?
Normally I have a very high bar for what constitutes an acceptable invasion of our rights--widespread contagion is basically the only exception, because in the absence of a cure, there are very few ways to effectively fight it. It may not be strictly legal to take certain actions to do so, but pragmatism demands them if the situation gets bad enough.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"