Discussion in 'Packs & Accessories' started by theoctagon, Feb 1, 2018.
Gratuitous pic opportunity...
I think your blue ink is running out.
Hi Guys - I hope everyone is coping with the current situation.
I'm in need of some help spreading the word: We want to use our now shut down workshop to assist the NHS in any way we can. if you are on twitter can you please give us a follow and retweet the following https://twitter.com/atom_packs/status/1242505798816804864 - I am hoping that we can un-furlough the staff and get production of masks etc underway before the end of the week. I need advice on what materials to use and who to direct this enquiry to!
Huge love to all
Can't help with the technicals Tom but I hope you get the info you need and you can get cracking asap, a great gesture and best of luck with it
Masks EN 149 2001 will be FFP3 which was updated in 2001 and offers 99% protection.
The older EN149 before 2001 will be FFP2 and offers 94% protection.
The situation in Spain is also critical, with a serious shortage of medical supplies. We at As Tucas are volunteering in a local government call to manufacture masks. Manufacturing of FFP2 / FFP3 masks is beyond a typical sewing workshop. However, simpler cloth masks are also needed (at least in Spain) for non-medical personnel like shopkeepers, drivers...
Yep aware of the FFP2/FFP3 that’s why I typed it in the FFP3 is only what the NHS is using against the virus
I certainly wouldn’t put anyone in any other mask. The advance of the Virus within Spain is alarming and I’m trying
to find info on friends out in the Alicante region but to no avail.
I wish you safe and well.
Cloth masks may not be a good idea.
Marco wrote "simpler cloth masks (...) for non-medical personnel like shopkeepers, drivers". The study indicates that cloth masks are no substitute for real protection for health workers working in high-risk wards.
Low filtration masks have a role to play in the general population although this is mostly as a protection for those around the wearer.
Depends on what the mask is for...
1. To protect the wearer. There's not great evidence that any of the usual paper/cloth masks protect the wearer; Coronavirus not appearing to be particulalrly airborne spread. Seems more likely people get it from touching surfaces (including masks) and then transferring it to their orifices, especially on the face.
2. To protect others. This is a socially altruistic approach and no bad thing. Its an alternative to a hanky or the crook of the arm to catch coughs and sneezes. Trouble is it doesn't seem very effective as masks are handled by the wearer and/or not well-used, so the spread to surfaces happens anyway.
3. A societal /placebo/ reassurance effect. In some Asia countries it is heavily frowned upon to be out and about without a mask. A mask can be a reassuring image for the wearer and others. However, it can also have a negative effect by providing a false sense of invulnerability and reduce the adherence to more effective measures such as social distancing.
I'm knee deep in reading infection control and prevention (IPC) and such currently as it's likely I'll be back at work soon.
This was a comparison between cloth and the fairly standard paper surgical masks, not N95 masks. Currently my reading of the literature is there is no evidence that cloth masks are of any benefit in protection against airborne viruses. That's not saying they are or are not, just we don't know. There are also arguments put forwarded that they might be harmful.
Agree with @Foxster.
Very, very, good evidence that hand hygiene matters a huge amount.
Overall I'm against masks outside of health care because of the dangers of risk compensation and people behaving less sensibly as a consequence, and the lack of any evidence they are of benefit. Not saying I don't understand the very real psychological appeal.
Is CV airborne, I thought it was transmitted by droplets?
Haven’t been following the thread though I’ll be honest
@Foxster, @Michael_x, I've no disagreement with either of you and, indeed, I should have qualified my statement by saying that any benefit depends on proper use which is far from straightforward and that improper use can easily compound the problem for the reasons you mention.
Best to check the official online sources but from my reading it seems to be unclear still.
Contact with infected surfaces and transfer to eyes, ears, nose and mouth seems likely to be a strong vector as good hand hygiene has been shown to be effective in reducing spread. Droplets from coughs and sneezes breathed directly to the airways might be less of a vector, as some limited research has shown.
As far as we know, it's not airborne in the technical sense. Contact with contaminated surfaces, including fellow humans, seems the main way it spreads.
As for aerosol and droplet spread, very probably, but respirable particles that flow around side of IIR masks probably not.
I was avoiding using plain English in a technical way with usages that are, within a particular field, strictly defined in ways not quite the same as everyday usage.
Note though that the US's CDC puts these at the other way around, with the main way it spreads as via coughs and sneezes direct to other's airways. Trouble is that everything from the US these days is heavily politicised and who knows whether this is true or just the self-serving opinion of their president.
It's my understanding that it isn't airborne but that the force of a normal cough or sneeze could spread the droplets to a distance of approx 2m.
I’m very impressed (seriously) with how well informed everyone is here.
Our micro and ID people get info from on high; the current reckoning is that as with other coronaviruses it’s a droplet transmission (ie coughs, sneezes), not aerosol. The advantage of that is that droplets fall, so that at a distance (distance is your friend here) the viral load falls substantially. It also sinks over time so that after 20 minutes it’s all on flat surfaces, floors etc, not in the air.
So your best bet is stay far apart, wash your hands loads and don’t touch your face. That’s almost impossible, I’ve found.
The only bad bit is if you actually artificially generate an aerosol in the airways, such as on intensive care; then you need all the gear.
[QUOTE="Henry, post: 147951, member: 3474"
The only bad bit is if you actually artificially generate an aerosol in the airways, such as on intensive care; then you need all the gear.[/QUOTE]
The dentists have been told "no drilling" - due to production of aerosols.
On the up side if aerosols are not being produced by coughs + sneezes, then a regular surgeons mask is probably a bit more useful as protection than was initially thought.
The latest WHO Situation Report, number 66, has a relevant issues in focus, https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...ation-reports/20200326-sitrep-66-covid-19.pdf
Following ref 9 will take you to the latest ICP technical guidance documents.
The guidance on masks states "Cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstances"
Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak
19 March 2020
True. This kind of masks provide little protection. However, I guess in Spain (and probably other places) is a last resort choice. In our country the shortage was so serious, that medical personnel in many areas had no masks. The collaboration call came firstly from small hospitals. I'm sure they're aware of the real value of this kind of masks, but if you have to choose between little protection, and no protection at all... I hope our authorities learn the lesson and this kind of situation never happens again.
Thanks @FOX160 . I hope yopur friends are safe and sound. Situation in Alicante is not as bad as in Madrid or Cataluña, but we haven't reached the peak yet.
Yes. An incredibly difficult situation. Hopefully things will improve soon. Hoping you and yours will come through this safely.
Separate names with a comma.