SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 2) by slinches on Monday July 27 2020, @10:41PM (11 children)
Reality not meeting your expectations of what might happen isn't exactly rock solid evidence, especially when your expectations are a bit hyperbolic. There's no reason to think that police departments would shut down or that protesters would even be aware that they were infected at one vs anywhere else they've been. The only way to know for sure would be to do a study that tested random individuals which includes a sufficient number of protesters to be a statistically relevant cohort. As far as I'm aware, there isn't one of those published yet.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 27 2020, @11:04PM (10 children)
You know more than a month has passed, right?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:18PM (9 children)
You know that not everyone exposed will get sick and most who do don't have severe enough symptoms to seek treatment, right?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:46PM (8 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday July 28 2020, @03:09PM (7 children)
Nope. You are the one suggesting that protests are uniquely immune from spreading the disease. I was just pointing out that your expectations of how it spreads seems to be informed by watching zombie apocalypse movies.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 28 2020, @07:04PM (6 children)
Nope, never said that. What I DID said they wore masks and that they were mostly effective.
You were attempting to discredit the concept but failing to take into consideration that they were still a large group of people going out and bumping into other people. So either the protestors have a unique ability to hide their illness or we have to take the suggestion seriously (not necessarily believe it, just consider it...) that by and large they didn't get sick.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday July 28 2020, @07:44PM (5 children)
You keep stating that because "by and large they didn't get sick" it is due to something the protesters did that makes their gatherings less susceptible to spreading the disease than other large gatherings. There is no evidence for that assertion. It's just as likely that is just how it works in large gatherings. Most won't get sick, some will but it won't be immediately obvious that they were infected at the gathering vs anywhere else they have been. Unless we have study data that can determine the difference in infection rates between those who only go out for essentials and those who have been attending protests and other gatherings of various sizes and demographic profiles, there's no way to know what the relative risks of these activities really are.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 29 2020, @12:19AM (4 children)
Heh. We know they wore masks. We know there's no evidence they got sick. We have good reason to believe evidence of them getting sick would have been abundant. We know masks work and why. We know lotsa other gatherings happened without masks and there was a corresponding spike. We know more than ample time has passed for credible direct AND indirect evidence to come to light. The odds are pretty good the study you want has been done by now, try Googling around. (I'm wearing my mask in the mean-time.)
🙄 Gee, that's a familiar sentiment.
Well at least I can say your posts on this topic have been far more rational than what I typically get: "Why is it okay for those looters* to be out but I can't go to the beauty salon, church, or a number of other places we've heard tragic tales of that somehow won't apply to me?!" Assuming you're not doing something stupid like refusing to wear a mask in public I think you've got a pretty healthy attitude. We don't actually disagree that much.
* ...or 'rioters' or some other term that is both derogatory and also doesn't point directly at the reason for the protest cos saving lives is inconvenient to the narrative.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday July 29 2020, @04:09AM (3 children)
I agree, we aren't that far off, but this is the key point of contention:
We don't have anything of the sort. The number of people protesting isn't large enough to make a big obvious impact on the population level numbers, which are all we have to go by. The signal is easily lost in the noise of essential workers going about their daily lives, large numbers of smaller gatherings and those who are choosing to ignore CDC and local guidelines.
I just want us all to make informed, rational decisions about how we go about our lives. That means understanding that going to any gathering is a personal risk and that you are also taking that risk for everyone in your community. That doesn't mean that I think protesters are reckless or that it's okay to go out to bars and party. Both may or may not be a reasonable risk, depending on the circumstances of the particular individuals involved and who they may be exposing to that risk. We all have the freedom to make these decisions for ourselves and the responsibility to make them wisely. So making sure that we have a sound and objective basis for making those decisions is of paramount importance.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 29 2020, @02:19PM (2 children)
Thanks for being civil, thanks for being insightful, and thanks for being patient with me.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday July 29 2020, @06:37PM (1 child)
Thanks, I appreciate that you recognize that I'm trying to be rational (not that I always succeed). It's exceptionally difficult these days to have a well-reasoned and meaningful discussion. The level of emotional manipulation by most media sources is insane and it feels so much better to have your opinions validated or contradictory ones invalidated than it does to recognize the flaws and gaps in your own views. The sports team analogy is a good one and recognizing what your "home team" is is important. My brother pointed me to a good series of articles about what's been happening to public discourse and why that sports team mentality is so forecful right now that are really relatable here: https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/story-of-us.html. [waitbutwhy.com] It's a little long winded, but I think it has to be to approach the subject without pushing too many people away.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday July 31 2020, @06:19PM
I am so sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I wanted to let you know that I've started reading that link and you're right, it is interesting! I'm only a chapter and a half in right now but I wanted to mention to you that i've been doing a little hobby'ist creative writing lately and I think that's the reason I'm finding it a fun read! I appreciate your time and have a good weekend.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈