The last time i was actually tested the fellow there had a small open vial he held up in front of my mask and asked what do i smell… I replied “i just smell the rubber inside my mask”, he asked me to remove my mask and i immediately could smell bananas.
it was this:
Isoamyl acetate—This substance has the smell of bananas. It is used only for fit testing of elastomeric masks.
you may not have this but try any pungent smell to see how much you can smell through your mask. perfume, brandy, pickles or just any non toxic strong smelling item (eliquid flavor?) will give you an idea.
NIOSH approved respirators have a filtering medium capable of removing at least 95% of airborne particulates > 0.3 um in diameter. Respirators have been used in the health care setting when the workforce was concerned with the spread of tuberculosis. Surgical masks are not equipped with such filtering material to reduce particle penetration by 95%. An aerosol is a liquid droplet or solid particle dispersed in air. Bioaerosols are aerosols of biological origin and include viruses, living organisms, such as bacteria and fungi. Bacteria are usually spherical or rod shaped, but may occur in clusters or chains. The adverse health affects of the biologic particles, particularly pathogenicity, depend not on the mass of the inhaled particles but on the number of particles.
There are more than 17,000 species of bacteria and those that cause human disease are called human pathogens. Viral particles, called virions, are one of the smallest known bioaerosol agents, with a particle diameter ranging from 20 to 300 nm (Balazy, 2006a). Aerosol particles attach firmly to any surface they contact and this is what separates them from gas molecules and from millimeter size particles. When aerosol particles contact each other they adhere and form agglomerates.
Filtration relies on the adhesion of the particles. Although surgical masks are not as efficient as air purifying NIOSH respirators they too operate by mechanical filtration. A mechanical respirator traps the particulate matter that passes through the filter material. Surgical masks and respirator filters are constructed of flat, non-woven mats of fine fibers. The fiber is laid so the long section of the fiber is perpendicular to the air crossing the path, therefore allowing several particles to be captured along the axis. The efficiency with which a fiber removes particles from an aerosol stream is called Single Fiber Efficiency. Assumption is that the particle adheres to the fiber and is permanently removed from airflow.
Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission. However, the size and concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS-CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm; assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.
Of note, we found greater contamination on the outer than the inner mask surfaces. Although it is possible that virus particles may cross from the inner to the outer surface because of the physical pressure of swabbing, we swabbed the outer surface before the inner surface. The consistent finding of virus on the outer mask surface is unlikely to have been caused by experimental error or artifact. The mask’s aerodynamic features may explain this finding. A turbulent jet due to air leakage around the mask edge could contaminate the outer surface. Alternatively, the small aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 generated during a high-velocity cough might penetrate the masks. However, this hypothesis may only be valid if the coughing patients did not exhale any large-sized particles, which would be expected to be deposited on the inner surface despite high velocity. These observations support the importance of hand hygiene after touching the outer surface of masks.
This experiment did not include N95 masks and does not reflect the actual transmission of infection from patients with COVID-19 wearing different types of masks. We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing.
In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.
.
.
There is a major fundamental problem with all of the media and government information and many studies looking at the relative utility/effectiveness of various NIOSH/FDA approved respirators compared with various generic, non-approved masks. This is due to the fact that surgical masks and respirators are very different in the protections they provide and there are multiple types of each.
Some N95 respirators are intended for use in a health care settings. Specifically, single-use, disposable respiratory protective devices used and worn by health care personnel during procedures to protect both the patient and health care personnel from the transfer of microorganisms, body fluids, and particulate material.The surgical N95 respirators are class II devices regulated by the FDA,under 21 CFR 878.4040, and CDC NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84.
There are in fact at least 5 types of N95 respirators (not masks) manufactured by 3M as well as specific foreign manufactured N95 PPEs considered comparable to the two types of surgical respirators approved and recommended by NIOSH/FDA for health workers.
There are also at least 5 types of N95 Model 8210 respirators, 3 of which are designated for health care use. These are the Standard, the V, and the Plus. However, the standard N95 respirator 8210 is not cleared by the U.S. FDA as a surgical respirator, as it is not "Fluid Resistant and does not Meet ASTM Test Method F1862 “Resistance of Medical Face Masks to Penetration by Synthetic Blood.” I haven’t yet had the time to investigate if the other two 8210 respirators considered PPE and for use in health care settings on the 3M website provide any greater protection than the standard one, but I am assuming they do not.
As far as I know in my research, there is no such thing as a N95 mask; and manufactured and home-made Cloth/Fabric masks recommended for the public are a whole separate entity.
Source (Dr. Janice E Cohen, Psychiatry/Mental Health, in Comments section):
This MedScape article references and discusses the content of the Annals of Internal Medicine paper.
This could explain why countries like Italy and Spain have experienced a much higher mortality rate than Germany – because far fewer cases are being recorded, it skews the data and creates the illusion that a higher proportion of Covid-19 patients are dying than they really are.
Help me understand something… why is this a “chilling study”? Wouldn’t this be positive instead of negative? Correct me if I’m wrong, but most of the testing has been done on symptomatic individuals, right? And according to data (depending on your source), there’s 89,915 deaths so far in 1,498,833 cases, for a 6% mortality rate (way, way above the projected mortality rate). But according to the article, there may be 25 million cases, which puts the mortality rate at .04%, much closer to the .07% estimate I’m still seeing out there.
Lol, Ok, the Ogre opinion. Because Chilling will sell more than without the word added to the title.
As far as positive vs negative, I agree with your thoughts. Absolute mortality numbers are what they are. Mortality rate reduction is positive to me. Increased rate of spread could be good or bad. I’m under the impression that once recovered the person is now immune to reinfection and that is accepted even in regard to “flattening the curve”, having the same number of people exposed but over a longer period of time. If the infection rate is much greater than we believed, so is the recovery rate and therefore the overall recovery from the pandemic should be exponential in the same manner that it was propagated. To me the real question is how effective will any or all of this be regarding keeping the virus away from those who it will kill when infected? Are we preventing deaths or delaying them? Probably a bit of both.
There’s a third option, and that is “the virus is spreading regardless of what we do”, which is also very likely happening (again, there’s just no way to test every human in real time all the time).
That’s what I thought immediately as well. This story is hardly chilling; in fact, it’s a good news scenario.
There is evidence to support that per aerosol transmission and long “shelf life” on some materials. Then of course there’s always Dr. Harold Kerzner and the famous “unknown unknown”.
They were trying not to test us here even with symptoms if we were under 60 with the drive thru testing a few weeks ago, and were instead just telling us to self isolate. The next day they shut the drive thru testing down due to test shortage. Even if you met the criteria, but were under 60, it was a no-go. I’m sure getting tested now might be easier, at least in VA, but when we needed it, it was a right hassle to finally get tested. Makes me wonder how many weren’t being reported as presumptive positive, and then finally positive.
(I should have screen shot the criteria on the Sentara testing page, as they changed it when the positive cases reached a higher number here).
I personally believe that “they” know these numbers are not telling the whole/correct story, but will continue to hype them as-is because they confirm that all these extreme measures are absolutely necessary to defeat this world-ending virus. When actually, it’s very probably going to end up settling out in the sub-one percent range that was predicted early on. And I wouldn’t be surprised if in reality we could begin to ease off on all these super heavy restrictions (because this little bug has probably spread much further than data suggest and more people have developed their little immunity), but that ain’t gonna happen soon.
But, as always, it’s just speculation on my part. Stimulating, thought-provoking, razor sharp speculation though.
I don’t understand your thinking. In regard to a guaranteed small business loan that would be forgiven the description of your business applies. In regard to 1099, that simply means you are self employed and receiving wages untaxed. The funding for 1099 is to extend unemployment benefits to those on 1099 even though they did not pay into standard unemployment insurance.
Mr. Doug, There will be no insulting. We all know that legislation is inherently convoluted and cryptic. I don’t do my own taxes because of how convoluted tax laws are. Yes, according to everything published including text posted on state unemployment sites they are offering unemployment to people who are 1099. From Michigan:
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ZNOPSBYHYZFLTNH2XYI7GZJQ4M.jpg)
