Page 1594 of 1673 FirstFirst ... 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 ... LastLast
Results 39,826 to 39,850 of 41810
  1. #39826
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Was UT, AK, now MT
    Posts
    13,546
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    The problem with airplanes as I understand it is that the air circulation is usually off when the plane is on the ground--boarding, unloading and generally sitting there doing nothing. Apparently they could run the ventilation system but it costs money. Experts care to comment?
    As a former flight nurse during covid, yes, you are correct. During flight air exchanges per hour in most jets far exceeds CDC guidelines for hospitals. Outflow valves direct airflow, in theory. During flight air is brought in to maintain cabin altitude, goes through compressor, is clean……outflow valves should, in theory, direct airflow..but in our testing, airflow was not laminar and highly variable.

    Government medevac for previous repatriation flights had patient aft, crew foreword….to keep crew out of contaminated air flow. Assuming aft positioned outflow valves. Lear 31/45 and Pilatus airflow is erratic, at best. That said, prior to vax, very very few nurses got sick while wearing N95 or PAPR.

    At the beginning of all this, this was our setup. Overkill now, but before knowledge and vax, felt like the right thing to do. Negative pressure Isopod. Hard to work with when a patient is in their on a ventilatorClick image for larger version. 

Name:	78BD70E3-350E-4691-9F0B-BAB7C37BA831.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	477.1 KB 
ID:	413884
    Last edited by Trackhead; 04-21-2022 at 01:22 PM.

  2. #39827
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    93108
    Posts
    2,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Trackhead View Post
    At this point, 95% of Americans have either had covid, been vaccinated, or both. None prevent transmission, so living in high vax area means absolutely nothing.
    Wise words.

  3. #39828
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Aspen
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by schuss View Post
    I have two kids maskless in school. Exposure is mostly out of my hands at this point and we're all vaxxed.
    If it makes you feel better my kid's school had "universal masking" and every kid and teacher in the class still got Covid

  4. #39829
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,534
    Once you go to a restaurant for food and drinks, then a hockey game with 20,000 people, and then a packed bar afterwards for more drinks, then stay in a hotel, you don't GAF about a mask anymore. I got 'back to normal' pretty damn fast.

  5. #39830
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    Quote Originally Posted by paulster2626 View Post
    Once you go to a restaurant for food and drinks, then a hockey game with 20,000 people, and then a packed bar afterwards for more drinks, then stay in a hotel, you don't GAF about a mask anymore. I got 'back to normal' pretty damn fast.
    I've been doing all of that for the past year. I'm still not ready to lose the mask when around strangers up close for more than 10+ minutes.. Dining spread out is OK. Sitting shoulder to shoulder at a bar not so much...

    I still trust the CDC to make decisions more than how fucking tired I am of having to wear a mask around strangers.. so I'll still do that until A) the CDC says all clear and/or B) when most hospitals have more patients with flu complications than they do with COVID complications..

    That's when it will be over from my perspective..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #39831
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    11,238
    Where I live 10% of the population has tested positive for covid. Call it twice that to capture those not tested. Shit why not triple it.

    It’s nowhere close to 100%.

    My point being that not everywhere is at 100% - yet all areas are subject to somewhat similar restrictions /loosenings as time passes.

    I’m not saying that places that have 90-100% rates need to be locked down. I’m not even saying my area needs to be locked down.

  7. #39832
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,999
    My area, 16% tested positive (unclear how many were reinfection or vaxed). 66% eligible are vaxed and 59% eligible have been boosted.

    My understanding is that being vaxed or previously infected prevents infection/reinfection for some and it reduces (for some) the time of being infectious.

  8. #39833
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    18,007
    I 110% DGAF if someone is still choosing to wear a mask. However, why they are wearing anything other than a N95/KN95/etc. baffles me. I also sometimes still see people walking outside alone with a mask on which blows my mind.

  9. #39834
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,999
    Most masks reduce transmission, no?

  10. #39835
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by schuss View Post
    I have two kids maskless in school. Exposure is mostly out of my hands at this point and we're all vaxxed.
    Me too! And they both tested positive in the last week thanks to an outbreak in one of my kids classes. Both my kids are vaxxed.

  11. #39836
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    14,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    I 110% DGAF if someone is still choosing to wear a mask. However, why they are wearing anything other than a N95/KN95/etc. baffles me. I also sometimes still see people walking outside alone with a mask on which blows my mind.
    My wife occasionally drives home in one. She doesn’t even know that she has it on from the hospital and being dead tired.

  12. #39837
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    I 110% DGAF if someone is still choosing to wear a mask. However, why they are wearing anything other than a N95/KN95/etc. baffles me. I also sometimes still see people walking outside alone with a mask on which blows my mind.
    This is pretty much where I am. Well fitting N95/KN95/etc. are so far superior to any other option that if you are truly concerned about masking, then you really have to be wearing one of those.

    And they’re so effective that having people around you wear cloth or even surgical masks isn’t going to greatly reduce your chance of getting sick.

    So unless you’re advocating for a mask mandate that requires everyone to wear an N95/KN95/etc., then why bother?

  13. #39838
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Donner Summit
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    Most masks reduce transmission, no?

  14. #39839
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by paulster2626 View Post
    Once you go to a restaurant for food and drinks, then a hockey game with 20,000 people, and then a packed bar afterwards for more drinks, then stay in a hotel, you don't GAF about a mask anymore. I got 'back to normal' pretty damn fast.
    I dont give a fuck what people do in places that nobody HAS to go like bars, restaurants, hockey games, vanilla ice concerts, etc.

    I care about protecting the vulnerable people in our society in places they cannot reasonable avoid.

    Grocery store, pharmacy, dmv, doctors offices, hospitals, public transit, etc should be mask required.

    Its not often people have to be in those places long.

    Suck it up and give a fuck about someone other than yourself for a few minutes.

    I cannot even fathom being so selfish to be unwilling to wear a mask. I cant even comprehend it. It makes me so sad for all of us.

  15. #39840
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    Most masks reduce transmission, no?
    Technically yes, but actually no:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D3A9AAC5-AB5C-4AA7-AE35-F8ADA540D718.jpg 
Views:	98 
Size:	331.3 KB 
ID:	413898

    Cloth mask does basically nothing. And note the text at the bottom: two people wearing well fitting instead of unfitted N95’s increases the safe exposure time from 25 hours to 2500 hours. Wish it had exposure for fitted N95 vs. no mask, but it’s got to be a fairly high number.

    Edit: I see teledad beat me to it.

  16. #39841
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,999
    Made me laugh because I now remember sharing that graphic many months ago. Must be brain fog… or maybe recovery from bicycle day (I wish!)

  17. #39842
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Was UT, AK, now MT
    Posts
    13,546
    Quote Originally Posted by JaytaeMoney View Post
    If it makes you feel better my kid's school had "universal masking" and every kid and teacher in the class still got Covid
    That’s because epi data has shown mask mandates do nothing on a population level.

  18. #39843
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,999

  19. #39844
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Was UT, AK, now MT
    Posts
    13,546
    We can search pubmed and post confirmation bias all day long, or just agree to disagree. I’ll go with the latter for now.

  20. #39845
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,999
    I didn’t scour pubmed. Apparently, google did it for me.

    I’m curious to see the literature showing epi data that shows mask mandates do nothing on a population level.

    Most analyses that I’ve read or heard couple mask mandates with horrible and confusing messaging from public health agencies.

  21. #39846
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Technically yes, but actually no:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D3A9AAC5-AB5C-4AA7-AE35-F8ADA540D718.jpg 
Views:	98 
Size:	331.3 KB 
ID:	413898

    Cloth mask does basically nothing. And note the text at the bottom: two people wearing well fitting instead of unfitted N95’s increases the safe exposure time from 25 hours to 2500 hours. Wish it had exposure for fitted N95 vs. no mask, but it’s got to be a fairly high number.

    Edit: I see teledad beat me to it.
    I puzzled out the pattern on this chart, and it looks like if two people wearing well fitted N95’s are good for 2500 hours, then a person wearing a well fitted N95 should be safe from an unmasked person for 25 hours.

    So, if you’re shopping, at an airport, etc. you can be quite safe by wearing a good fitting N95, regardless of what others around you are doing.

    If spending a significant amount of time with someone who is high risk, in a close space, then it may be a good idea for both to mask up.

    IANAD

  22. #39847
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,349
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    I puzzled out the pattern on this chart, and it looks like if two people wearing well fitted N95’s are good for 2500 hours, then a person wearing a well fitted N95 should be safe from an unmasked person for 25 hours.

    So, if you’re shopping, at an airport, etc. you can be quite safe by wearing a good fitting N95, regardless of what others around you are doing.

    If spending a significant amount of time with someone who is high risk, in a close space, then it may be a good idea for both to mask up.

    IANAD
    You are an engineer, though, right? Are you familiar with how much more concentrated a stream of air stays when exiting from a high pressure source as compared to the massively more dispersed sourcing that happens when air is drawn toward a vacuum? (Aka, exhale vs. inhale.)

    If you look around you'll notice that there are more versions of that chart. The earlier versions showed a difference between masks worn by an infected source and those worn by an uninfected person. That difference reflects the fact that it's easier to reduce transmission by blocking the source than filtering at the uninfected. This is why masks have generally been used medically to keep the wearer from infecting others.

    There are a couple of other things that are obviously half-assed about that chart, too, like the implication that any N95 mask will be 100x more effective when well-fitted. That may be true of some N95's, but the standard only requires them to be 95% efficient even fitted, so at the least some of those masks are not going to step up that much. Others may, but those aren't going to be better than well-fitted cloth until they are fitted--i.e. the flow resistance is so high in that material that a slight gap renders them useless.

    They're not citing a specific mask for that chart because they made that chart up without testing anything--note the perfect symmetry. It may be a useful analogy, but it doesn't work for proving a specific point.

    FTR: I'm a big fan of N95's. They've kept my wife safe hovering in people's mouths (well, that and a face shield). We sat on 2 flights totalling 9 hours in them on Tuesday. (If we come down with something I'll update.) On both flights I noticed that pretty much everyone else that was wearing a mask was wearing a protective/sealing mask, too. So Brandolini's Law fans, gather your cherries while ye may, because the apparent effectiveness of masks is about to go way up now that they are only being worn by people who give a shit and keep them on (even while eating, in many cases).

  23. #39848
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    If you look around you'll notice that there are more versions of that chart. The earlier versions showed a difference between masks worn by an infected source and those worn by an uninfected person. That difference reflects the fact that it's easier to reduce transmission by blocking the source than filtering at the uninfected. This is why masks have generally been used medically to keep the wearer from infecting others.
    I did think it was odd that the effects were symmetrical, but trusted that there was something I wasn’t thinking of that would make it so. Haven’t come across the chart that shows the asymmetrical effects.

    (And, yes I’m and engineer, but fluid dynamics was one of my worst grades…)

  24. #39849
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Back in SEA
    Posts
    9,657
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    I did think it was odd that the effects were symmetrical, but trusted that there was something I wasn’t thinking of that would make it so. Haven’t come across the chart that shows the asymmetrical effects.

    (And, yes I’m and engineer, but fluid dynamics was one of my worst grades…)
    N95’s, fit-tested, ABSOLUTELY are effective because people who actively care for Covid+ patients wear them, and don’t generally get infected.
    ... jfost is really ignorant, he often just needs simple facts laid out for him...

  25. #39850
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Back in SEA
    Posts
    9,657
    Also pretty dumb to say that cloth/surgical masks “do nothing”… if people bother to wear them, they double/quadruple the time to infectious exposure. That seems pretty fucking significant to me. But yeah, I guess if people don’t wear them they won’t work at all…

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •