TotallyHow is it not the medical consensus and a popular parrot point when it was stated by the WHO.

Because the stance has since changed? Try checking their homepage, or the CDCs.

Vayra86You're giving a nice little summary of what panic looks like,

Our state is actually doing really well sans panic, but thanks:

PS: We get all our gear from China, and we were the first hotspot, yet we are still outperforming most. Hmmm.

Vayra86Not exactly the situation of everyone's day to day.

In my state it is literally a crime to go out without a face mask. For some odd reason, our curve is better than many, and we just returned FEMA help. Funny. My state is Washington, btw

Vayra86Newegg right here being a prime example. Do you realize this?

Are you really asking if I don't see this for the commercial ploy it is?

Come now. I'm not an idiot and just assumed everyone saw that, it's called marketing. I just know if I got them for free, I'd not irrationally fear them either.

Vayra86In fact, if you believe doctors saying they really need them, you should be advocating every available mask to go to them instead of yourself.

No, the doctors need N95 and above. You? Strap some fabric on.

R-T-BBecause the stance has since changed? Try checking their homepage, or the CDCs.

CDC is not the WHO, which doesn't have to balance policy public health, civil order, and answer to the administration above them. So to the CDC, Does an ineffective opinion matter if it inconsequential?

R-T-BNo, the doctors need N95 and above. You? Strap some fabric on.

And right there you are contradicting yourself.

TotallyCDC is not the WHO, which doesn't have to balance policy public health, civil order, and answer to the administration above them.

I'll take the CDCs on this one. But you are free to do what you want. The science regardless on homemade masks is well established before this pandemic with influenza testing:

See, we've tested this before with the flu, and they (homemade masks) work. They are approximately half to a third as effective as a doctors N95 mask properly applied, but they do work:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24229526

TotallyAnd right there you are contradicting yourself.

I hate to break it to you but these masks newegg is giving you aren't N95 or above, they are simple cloth/fabric surgical-style face-masks, so no, I've been consistent all along.

Again, you are free to believe what you want but a lot of this is blatantly false. Please don't repeat things you have neither verified nor know to be true.

Back on topic, is it this face mask? :p

NOW with FREE CORONA BEER

R-T-BSee, we've tested this before with the flu, and they (homemade masks) work. They are approximately half to a third as effective as a doctors N95 mask properly applied, but they do work:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24229526

Did even you read the article? It concluded that it was a third as effective as a surgical mask(not N95, referenced but no comparison was made, no point in having an Olympian competing in the Special Olympics) which it pointed out was only good for preventing droplet transmission and not effective against aerosol transmission and they're very blunt about it "As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols." And pretty damning towards homemade mask pointing out they should only be considered if all other options are unavailable and are presented with a high-risk setting, e.g. in a hospital waiting room with obviously sick people.

To the average person going about they're daily lives excercising social distancing all these masks offer to the average person is peace of mind.

TotallyDid even you read the article?

Yes, did you?


That looks an awful lot like a comparison. And it's in the friggin summary. Also, try reading my post. I referenced the 1/3rd to 1/2 as effective figures, so I obviously read it.

Totally... no point in having an Olympian competing in the Special Olympics

Overt discrimination is obvious.
You do realise all competitors are Olympians right?

R-T-BYes, did you?


That looks an awful lot like a comparison. And it's in the friggin summary. Also, try reading my post. I referenced the 1/3rd to 1/2 as effective figures, so I obviously read it.

From linked articleFull conclusion

A protective mask may reduce the likelihood of infection, but it will not eliminate the risk, particularly when a disease has more than 1 route of transmission. Thus any mask, no matter how efficient at filtration or how good the seal, will have minimal effect if it is not used in conjunction with other preventative measures, such as isolation of infected cases, immunization, good respiratory etiquette, and regular hand hygiene. An improvised face mask should be viewed as the last possible alternative if a supply of commercial face masks is not available, irrespective of the disease against which it may be required for protection. Improvised homemade face masks may be used to help protect those who could potentially, for example, be at occupational risk from close or frequent contact with symptomatic patients. However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols.

There was no comparison made between an N95 and the surgical mask that was used as a control. The N95 was briefly mentioned when testing for fit and never again thereafter or any following tests (hmm, I wonder why). That 1/3rd to 1/2 effective is a comparison between the surgical mask and improvised, to boot that's effectiveness against droplet transmission nothing to do with what I'm "parroting," no effectiveness against aerosol transmission. Yes a comparison was made but it is not relevant to the argument. I bolded that last bit, because there a recommendation on the CDC homepage, that you place so much trust in, that is in direct opposition to the article you linked.

Caring1Overt discrimination is obvious.
You do realise all competitors are Olympians right?

Yes, I'm aware. I was just being lazy, that was enough to get the gist of the point across so I stopped there. If you're offended, after this reply I couldn't be bothered to care,

You have me on the N95 point, it must've been early and I missed that detail of it being a surgical mask vs N95.

I still maintain they are better than nothing, and Washingtons performance is evidence of that, but I do recognize that is more opinion than fact. I concede to that.