When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this? The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying? I don't recall seeing/hearing any official retraction of the previously stated position.

Bill.

On 28/03/2020 06:28, wrote:
When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this? The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying? I don't recall seeing/hearing any official retraction of the previously stated position.

Bill.


You mean this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-51881555/coronavirus-do-face-masks-actually-work

Seems to explain when you need them and when not.

On 28/03/20 07:19, mm0fmf wrote:
On 28/03/2020 06:28, wrote:
When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this? The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying? I don't recall seeing/hearing any official retraction of the previously stated position.

Bill.


You mean this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-51881555/coronavirus-do-face-masks-actually-work

Seems to explain when you need them and when not.

A confusing video giving mixed messages with so many ifs, maybes, in
generals, etc. But perhaps the biggest error is that it shows and talks
about those simple face masks worn by doctors, nurses, etc, when
carrying out minor procedures. It also misses the point that if you are
wearing a mask, it acts as a barrier between your hands and face when
you forget to /not/ wipe your face with your hand.

I've had a couple of unused P3 masks for a year, and have now made good
use of them on shopping trips. The point is they will remove coughed
particulates in the 0.3 to 10 micron range. That was one thing the BBC
video was very poor on; if someone coughs a few metres ahead of you, and
you walk through the "cloud" do you think you'd be better off wearing a
decent mask or not?

It's up to you.

--

Jeff

On 28/03/2020 07:19, mm0fmf wrote:
On 28/03/2020 06:28, wrote:
When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical
people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this?
The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that
masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying? I don't recall seeing/hearing any
official retraction of the previously stated position.

Bill.


You mean this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-51881555/coronavirus-do-face-masks-actually-work


Seems to explain when you need them and when not.


Interestingly, many of the people shown in that are not wearing them
properly. They have a gap on either side of the nose, which should be
closed by adjusting the malleable strip in the top edge of the mask.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
wrote:
When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical
people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this? The
BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that masks
are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying? I don't recall seeing/hearing any official
retraction of the previously stated position.

It's said they may not help stop you catching it. But may help reduce you
spreading it to others.

We're meant to cough or sneeze into a tissue. Some coughs are involuntary.
A mask might help contain those or at least shorten the distance it
travels.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Although the latest reports seem to be showing that the risk of direct
inhalation of droplets from far greater distances than 2m is a lot
higher than was first thought, so although the rest is right, wearing a
mask may provide more protection than was first thought.

There was a bit on the TV the other day. A Chinese group going to an
Italian hospital to help out. The usual sort of publicity thingie shot
outside the hospital. All, including the TV crews, were required to wear
masks.

Now both China and italy have more direct experience of this than us. But
perhaps not the English obsession of not looking 'stupid' in public.

--
*Prepositions are not words to end sentences with *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/03/2020 07:19, mm0fmf wrote:
On 28/03/2020 06:28, wrote:
When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical
people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this?
The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that
masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying? I don't recall seeing/hearing any
official retraction of the previously stated position.

Bill.


You mean this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-51881555/coronavirus-do-face-masks-actually-work


Seems to explain when you need them and when not.

Although the latest reports seem to be showing that the risk of direct
inhalation of droplets from far greater distances than 2m is a lot
higher than was first thought, so although the rest is right, wearing a
mask may provide more protection than was first thought.

SteveW

On 28/03/2020 06:28, wrote:
When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical
people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this?
The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that
masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

If we are talking about the typical "surgical mask", then my
understanding is that as a way of protecting you from catching it, they
are not that effective. (The filtration is poor, they typically leak at
the face seals, and they don't protect the mucous membranes of the eyes).

On medial staff, they can be effective in lowering the risks of passing
infection to your patients via droplets. However to use them
effectively, requires a level of discipline and training. i.e. changing
them between patients, not touching them and allowing contamination of
the hands etc, disposing of them as clinical waste and so on.

The might be some *very small* argument, that if everyone were wearing
them, they might reduce the amount of droplets projected into the air,
but I suspect that any advantage would be quickly lost in a non clinical
use pattern (e.g. wearing it all day, adjusting, removing, refitting
after eating and so on). Its even possible that you would increase risks
of infection as it would encourage more face touching, and more transfer
of the virus to hard surfaces that other people will then pick up, and
transfer to their face next time they touch their mask.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying?

IMO, no.


[1] To be effective protection for the wearer they would need full face
coverage, and much higher levels of filtration with the capacity to
filter vapour / chemical contamination as well as particulates. Also the
be assured of protection they would need to be properly fitted with a
proper respirator testing hood etc.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/03/2020 09:09, Jeff Layman wrote:

You mean this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-51881555/coronavirus-do-face-masks-actually-work


Seems to explain when you need them and when not.

A confusing video giving mixed messages with so many ifs, maybes, in
generals, etc. But perhaps the biggest error is that it shows and talks
about those simple face masks worn by doctors, nurses, etc, when
carrying out minor procedures. It also misses the point that if you are
wearing a mask, it acts as a barrier between your hands and face when
you forget to /not/ wipe your face with your hand.

So long as the mask is not already saturated because you have been
wearing it for half an hour...

I've had a couple of unused P3 masks for a year, and have now made good
use of them on shopping trips. The point is they will remove coughed
particulates in the 0.3 to 10 micron range. That was one thing the BBC
video was very poor on; if someone coughs a few metres ahead of you, and
you walk through the "cloud" do you think you'd be better off wearing a
decent mask or not?

If its a full face respirator, then I expect you would be better off
with the mask.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/03/2020 09:30, Chris Hogg wrote:

I have a few masks for DIY work bought a good few years ago. Long
since lost the specification, so don't know whether they are suitable
for blocking the virus or sneeze-spray, although I would argue that
any mask is better than none. They are valved masks, which are
supposed to be better for people who wear glasses, but even so, and
even squeezing the malleable strip down onto the bridge of my nose, I
still get a lot of exhaled breath coming up inside my glasses and
fogging them.

Can anyone recommend a mask that doesn't do that? Also being suitable
under the present circumstances would be a bonus.

For DIY I normally recommend:

https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/compan...86499 &rt=rud

They can be adjusted to get a very good face seal (although beardies may
have a different experience), and the valve directs the hot wet air down
and away from the eyes. They are intended to last a month of daily use
before being replaced. That usually translates into much more time with
occasional use.

If you want protection from the current "elevated" threats, you would
probably have to consider the re-useable full face mask version with the
appropriate filters.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/03/2020 14:28, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/03/2020 09:30, Chris Hogg wrote:

I have a few masks for DIY work bought a good few years ago. Long
since lost the specification, so don't know whether they are suitable
for blocking the virus or sneeze-spray, although I would argue that
any mask is better than none. They are valved masks, which are
supposed to be better for people who wear glasses, but even so, and
even squeezing the malleable strip down onto the bridge of my nose, I
still get a lot of exhaled breath coming up inside my glasses and
fogging them.

Can anyone recommend a mask that doesn't do that? Also being suitable
under the present circumstances would be a bonus.

For DIY I normally recommend:

https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/compan...86499 &rt=rud


They can be adjusted to get a very good face seal (although beardies may
have a different experience), and the valve directs the hot wet air down
and away from the eyes. They are intended to last a month of daily use
before being replaced. That usually translates into much more time with
occasional use.

If you want protection from the current "elevated" threats, you would
probably have to consider the re-useable full face mask version with the
appropriate filters.



That's what I've been using for a year or two (after a recommendation
here) and, as a beardy, can report that they work well. I've had to
replace the elastic once, and wipe the inside with IPA from
time-to-time, but the input filters are unlikely to get clogged so I
don't see why the mask can't continue to live until the exhaust valve
gives-up.

On 28/03/2020 15:40, wrote:
On 28/03/2020 14:28, John Rumm wrote:

For DIY I normally recommend:

https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/compan...86499 &rt=rud


They can be adjusted to get a very good face seal (although beardies
may have a different experience), and the valve directs the hot wet
air down and away from the eyes. They are intended to last a month of
daily use before being replaced. That usually translates into much
more time with occasional use.

If you want protection from the current "elevated" threats, you would
probably have to consider the re-useable full face mask version with
the appropriate filters.



That's what I've been using for a year or two (after a recommendation
here) and, as a beardy, can report that they work well. I've had to
replace the elastic once, and wipe the inside with IPA from
time-to-time, but the input filters are unlikely to get clogged so I
don't see why the mask can't continue to live until the exhaust valve
gives-up.

I have found when they get old the internal rubber flaps that cover the
inside of the filters can curl a bit at the edges. That means a bit of
the waste air can escape back through the filters rather than the valve.
Which may raise the risk of steaming up glasses, or get the filter
getting wetter than it would otherwise.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/03/2020 15:40, wrote:
On 28/03/2020 14:28, John Rumm wrote:

For DIY I normally recommend:

https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/compan...86499 &rt=rud


They can be adjusted to get a very good face seal (although beardies
may have a different experience), and the valve directs the hot wet
air down and away from the eyes. They are intended to last a month of
daily use before being replaced. That usually translates into much
more time with occasional use.

If you want protection from the current "elevated" threats, you would
probably have to consider the re-useable full face mask version with
the appropriate filters.



That's what I've been using for a year or two (after a recommendation
here) and, as a beardy, can report that they work well. I've had to
replace the elastic once, and wipe the inside with IPA from
time-to-time, but the input filters are unlikely to get clogged so I
don't see why the mask can't continue to live until the exhaust valve
gives-up.

I have found when they get old the internal rubber flaps that cover the
inside of the filters can curl a bit at the edges. That means a bit of
the waste air can escape back through the filters rather than the valve.
Which may raise the risk of steaming up glasses, or get the filter
getting wetter than it would otherwise.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/03/2020 16:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/03/2020 15:40, wrote:
On 28/03/2020 14:28, John Rumm wrote:

For DIY I normally recommend:

https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/compan...86499 &rt=rud


They can be adjusted to get a very good face seal (although beardies
may have a different experience), and the valve directs the hot wet
air down and away from the eyes. They are intended to last a month of
daily use before being replaced. That usually translates into much
more time with occasional use.

If you want protection from the current "elevated" threats, you would
probably have to consider the re-useable full face mask version with
the appropriate filters.



That's what I've been using for a year or two (after a recommendation
here) and, as a beardy, can report that they work well. I've had to
replace the elastic once, and wipe the inside with IPA from
time-to-time, but the input filters are unlikely to get clogged so I
don't see why the mask can't continue to live until the exhaust valve
gives-up.

I have found when they get old the internal rubber flaps that cover the
inside of the filters can curl a bit at the edges. That means a bit of
the waste air can escape back through the filters rather than the valve.
Which may raise the risk of steaming up glasses, or get the filter
getting wetter than it would otherwise.

Just checked mine (I've been sanding the dark stain off an old oak door)
and the inlet valves are slightly curled, but it doesn't cause problems.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 16:15:40 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I have found when they get old the internal rubber flaps that cover the
inside of the filters can curl a bit at the edges.

Could that just be down to age or if some lube gets on them by
mistake? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

wrote

When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks.
I also see medical people wearing masks when
dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this?

In the case of the general public, they dont understand
that the only real benefit of that type of simple mask is
that it makes it harder to touch your mouth or nose
with a finger which is contaminated with the virus.

In the case of the medical people, those with the most
clue use much better than simple surgical masks which
have a completely different purpose, stopping some of
the germs from the medical person infecting the patient.

The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that
masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

They didnt say it as absolutely as that.

Was the BBC wrong,

No.

or lying?

No.

I don't recall seeing/hearing any official
retraction of the previously stated position.

Because what they said is still correct.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 05:39:40 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile Ozzietard's latest troll**** unread

05:39??? Just what the **** is wrong with you? Is there really NOBODY for
outside Usenet to whom you could talk, you clinically insane senile asshole
from Oz?

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On 28/03/20 14:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/03/2020 09:09, Jeff Layman wrote:

You mean this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-51881555/coronavirus-do-face-masks-actually-work


Seems to explain when you need them and when not.

A confusing video giving mixed messages with so many ifs, maybes, in
generals, etc. But perhaps the biggest error is that it shows and talks
about those simple face masks worn by doctors, nurses, etc, when
carrying out minor procedures. It also misses the point that if you are
wearing a mask, it acts as a barrier between your hands and face when
you forget to /not/ wipe your face with your hand.

So long as the mask is not already saturated because you have been
wearing it for half an hour...

Well, even if wet it would still act as a barrier between hand and face.

I've had a couple of unused P3 masks for a year, and have now made good
use of them on shopping trips. The point is they will remove coughed
particulates in the 0.3 to 10 micron range. That was one thing the BBC
video was very poor on; if someone coughs a few metres ahead of you, and
you walk through the "cloud" do you think you'd be better off wearing a
decent mask or not?

If its a full face respirator, then I expect you would be better off
with the mask.

Not full face. Half face with valve; soft rubber seal around the
periphery. I guess if push came to shove, tight-fitting safety goggles
would be a useful addition

--

Jeff

On 28/03/2020 18:05, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 16:15:40 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I have found when they get old the internal rubber flaps that cover the
inside of the filters can curl a bit at the edges.

Could that just be down to age or if some lube gets on them by
mistake? ;-)

Well in heavy use the interior of the tends to get pretty wet!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 22:24:25 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 28/03/2020 18:05, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 16:15:40 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I have found when they get old the internal rubber flaps that cover the
inside of the filters can curl a bit at the edges.

Could that just be down to age or if some lube gets on them by
mistake? ;-)

Well in heavy use the interior of the tends to get pretty wet!

weg

Cheers, T i m

On 28/03/2020 14:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/03/2020 06:28, wrote:
When I go out, I see lots of people wearing masks. I also see medical
people wearing masks when dealing with COVID-19 cases. Why is this?
The BBC was unequivocal, at the start of this crisis, in stating that
masks are not useful as a preventive measure against COVID-19.

If we are talking about the typical "surgical mask", then my
understanding is that as a way of protecting you from catching it, they
are not that effective. (The filtration is poor, they typically leak at
the face seals, and they don't protect the mucous membranes of the eyes).

On medial staff, they can be effective in lowering the risks of passing
infection to your patients via droplets. However to use them
effectively, requires a level of discipline and training. i.e. changing
them between patients, not touching them and allowing contamination of
the hands etc, disposing of them as clinical waste and so on.

The might be some *very small* argument, that if everyone were wearing
them, they might reduce the amount of droplets projected into the air,
but I suspect that any advantage would be quickly lost in a non clinical
use pattern (e.g. wearing it all day, adjusting, removing, refitting
after eating and so on). Its even possible that you would increase risks
of infection as it would encourage more face touching, and more transfer
of the virus to hard surfaces that other people will then pick up, and
transfer to their face next time they touch their mask.

Was the BBC wrong, or lying?

IMO, no.


[1] To be effective protection for the wearer they would need full face
coverage, and much higher levels of filtration with the capacity to
filter vapour / chemical contamination as well as particulates. Also the
be assured of protection they would need to be properly fitted with a
proper respirator testing hood etc.


More on this:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...w-to-use-masks

On Monday, 30 March 2020 08:02:27 UTC+1, Richard wrote:


More on this:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...w-to-use-masks

I've heard that wearing a BoJo mask either makes people keep their distance or they attack you.