h a l f b a k e r yI think, therefore I am thinking.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A mask for the lower half of the human face, made from a hypoallergenic elastomer, and shaped and coloured to make the wearer look to some extent like a sheep.
Has an elasticated strap to hold it against the wearer’s face, and two simple low-restriction valves – inlet, and outlet – but no filtration.
The outlet valve feeds through a noisemaking device, which produces the characteristic sheep “bleating” noise when the wearer exhales.
Wear it as an ironic statement, to send up the mindless herds of mask-wearing morons who think that a mask that doesn’t seal, and that doesn’t cover the mucous membranes of the eye, will somehow protect them and others.
NPC facemask
https://www.ebay.co...ztW7-oaAlPWEALw_wcB
[Voice, Jan 10 2021]
Foot Mask
https://sodabred.tu.../640012720858611712
[xenzag, Jan 11 2021]
Masks
https://www.google....AMoQ3bBo7Vhfhr4LBQ1
A starting point ... [8th of 7, Jan 11 2021]
https://fingertips....england-latest.html
[hippo, Jan 11 2021]
The objective is to get the R number below '1'
https://www.healthl...reproduction-number
[AusCan531, Jan 13 2021]
An in-depth study of masks using advanced modeling
https://www.ncbi.nl...rticles/PMC7301882/
Yes, they do help. [RayfordSteele, Jan 13 2021]
When you need to conform, but a full mask just won't do
https://townsquare....9-AM.jpg?w=980&q=75
[Voice, Jan 18 2021]
Fortunately the military is immune
https://pic8.co/sh/cNi1rq.jpg
[Voice, Jan 18 2021]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
//[...] that doesn’t cover the mucous membranes of the eye,
will somehow protect them and others// |
|
| |
Unless you sneeze out of your eyes, a mask that doesn't cover
your eyes can still provide at least some protection for others
from you. However, I admit that this would be relevant only
if you were interested in the safety of others. |
|
| |
Face shield with INGSOC logo perhaps. |
|
| |
See link to illustration/idea I created several weeks ago. It's not a sheep! |
|
| |
//this would be relevant only if you were interested
in the safety of others// - and *reducing* the risk
to yourself; just because a mask isn't a top-spec
medical-grade full-face covering, it doesn't mean
it's not providing some useful protection. |
|
| |
It makes, on average, an 8% difference (the error bars on the study were ± 4%). And that's when the mask wearer uses them properly. |
|
| |
A properly fitted mask, used as part of a PPE protocol along with decontamination procedures, does indeed make a big difference. But the vast majority of the bleating sheep have absolutely no idea of how to do that, so why bother ? |
|
| |
// this would be relevant only if you were interested in the safety of others. // |
|
| |
What at truly surreal concept. |
|
| |
// Face shield with INGSOC logo perhaps. // |
|
| |
Nice, you should post that ... |
|
| |
Manfred Werner once described NATO as "A sixteen inch manhole cover for an eighteen inch manhole". |
|
| |
Half a loaf can indeed be better than no bread, but sometimes it merely prolongs the moment at which you starve to death. A lot of the time, things need to be fully functional (parachutes, lifejackets, SCUBA sets and such) or they're not only worthless, but may lead you to make inappropriate decisions with bad outcomes. |
|
| |
Seconding the request for the study. |
|
| |
On this topic I'm having a very difficult time getting good statistics about covid. There are arguments that alleged covid deaths are actually misreported flu, aging, etc deaths. The only way to tell is to compare the numbers in absolute terms. So if flu, other lung conditions, aging related problems, lung cancer, etc deaths all fell enough in absolute terms over what's normal to make up the covid numbers, then it's more than fishy. If flu, etc numbers are normal in absolute terms and covid deaths are in addition to that then the deaths are being reported accurately. |
|
| |
But all I can find on the interwebs are causes of death in relative terms, which is useless for this. |
|
| |
"It is clear from the literature that masks are only one component of a complex intervention which must also include eye protection, gowns, behavioural measures to support proper doffing and donning, and general infection control measures. " |
|
| |
That's just the start point and refers mostly to HCWs. Further links will be added as time permits. |
|
| |
// why are you still bothering to breathe? // |
|
| |
To spread doom, gloom, alarm and despondency, and indulge in bitter misanthropic gloating, of course. Why, do you have a different reason ? |
|
| |
// all I can find on the interwebs are causes of death in relative terms, which is useless for this // |
|
| |
A very recent statistic released by the ONS in the UK is the total registered deaths from all causes in England and Wales for 2020, from all causes. It's about 660K, and up only slightly on 2019 (links to exact figures follow) - about 2% |
|
| |
That means that no-one has died who was not expected to die. |
|
| |
We regard it more as a vocation, actually ... |
|
| |
//no-one has died who was not expected to die// There
have been 69,925 'excess deaths' in the UK since 21
March 2020 (see link). |
|
| |
70k/660k = 10.6%, and that's only since March 2020. |
|
| |
The numbers vary up to 5% from year to year; it's statistically significant, but only just. Nothing to be excited or worried about. |
|
| |
2000 610k
2003 612k
2011 552k
2015 603k
2018 616k
|
|
| |
Those figures aren't corrected for population growth; they're simple the "total deaths", which will increase anyway with increasing population. |
|
| |
Besides, 69K out of 67 million ? That's 0.102%, and right on the money for the predicted attrition rate. A population of 67 million can sustain a loss of 0.1% without noticing. |
|
| |
On 01 July 1916, the British Army lost over 19,000 young, fit, healthy males IN A SINGLE DAY. The original 14th. C Black Death pandemic killed over 30% of the general population. |
|
| |
Get a sense of proportion ... |
|
| |
I think 8th should be impeached - for no other
reasons than to annoy him and to amuse me, both
of which are very good reasons. Everyone's getting
impeached these days. It's popular, so there's no
need to alienate 8th. |
|
| |
//it's statistically significant, but only just// -
that's almost [8th] admitting he was wrong! |
|
| |
That's also an impeachment issue. |
|
| |
How about being made do an extended public
mime of trying to escape from an invisible box? |
|
| |
Only if the box is filled with cats |
|
| |
Stop ganging up on poor 8th! |
|
| |
Hey ! Who are you, and what have you done with [xenzag] ? We'll tell SWMBO that the account's been hacked, you know ! |
|
| |
The idea of being at a useful* height with a load of cats, above a hard surface, so that they can be thrown out sequentially, might persuade us to take the risk of rotary wing. |
|
| |
It's difficult to know which is better; the experience of throwing the cats out and watching them plummet, or the experience of watching them hit the ground, limbs flailing. |
|
| |
Are they the ones that come in a can, with syrup, or the sort that have to be peeled ? |
|
| |
Either way is fine ... is there a choice of cream, ice cream, or custard ? We would like vanilla ice cream with ours, please - the proper stuff, with real Madagascan vanilla pods. |
|
| |
// Class, repeat after me: "8th is never wrong." // |
|
| |
You're wasting your time, none of them pay attention, even some of the bright ones (and there aren't many of those). |
|
| |
<Stomps away to indulge in bitter, resentful muttering/> |
|
| |
*sufficient for effective autorotation. |
|
| |
//By constantly changing the context, he will always right about whatever it is he's talking about at the moment.// If that's impeachable you'd better prepare a lot of judges, we're going to be indicting the internet. |
|
| |
Thankyou, [Voice]; your education in electronics will continue when you have completed your term paper. We don't think it will present much of a challenge to you, as it's on your favourite subject - "The Bleedin' Obvious". |
|
| |
Seeing as how I don't grossly inhale through my
eyes, I do see them as having a smaller risk of
infection than my piehole. |
|
| |
It's the simple fact that the eyes are exposed mucous membranes; just as vulnerable to the tissues of the respiratory and digestive tracts. |
|
| |
For this pathogen - unlike some other viruses - it's a primary route. Compare that to Norovirus, which is highly infectious, but spreads almost exclusively by the oral route. |
|
| |
The risk isn't smaller at all. If you want to protect yourself, you need a mask that covers your entire face, and that seals; and on removal, you need to follow a proper, rigorous decontamination protocol. |
|
| |
//covers your entire face, and that seals// sp. those seals, or that seal. Either way it would be a big mask. |
|
| |
Alarmingly, Amazon don't sell respirators for seals, or indeed any pinnipeds. Even more surprisingly, Alibaba don't, either ! |
|
| |
We spy a Market Opportunity; masks that seal, for seals. |
|
| |
They would of course require a seal of approval from some competent body. That would be the seal seal seal ... |
|
| |
Yes, I know that they are mucus membranes. My membrain is
not lamebrained. But they do not experience a higher
volume of airflow. That has to count for something. |
|
| |
Protecting your "other" mucous membranes is done by
OTHER people also wearing (normal, mouth'n'nose) masks.
That's the whole point of the "everybody wear a mask" rule.
You mask isn't (just) to protect you, it's to protect others. |
|
| |
Sneezing through a loose weave forces the big, heavy
droplets that would otherwise quickly fall to the ground
through what's essentially an atomizing diffuser,
aerosolizing the virus and causing it to linger in the air at
the respiratory level. [+] |
|
| |
Do you have a source for that [21]? |
|
| |
It's at least as valid a theory as Bill Nye blowing at a candle
flame and saying "See, flame no move! Proof mask works!" |
|
| |
That 8% (or even 4%) is useful if, combined with other
measures, reduces the reinfection rate (the 'R' value) below 1.0
Think of the power of compounding interest. See Link |
|
| |
I have some serious doubts about your atomizing diffuser
hypothesis, [21Q]. It doesn't seem to hold water. Once
there
is a minimal amount of liquid film on the mask, for
example,
the dynamics would have to change significantly. |
|
| |
Here's a summary of their conclusions: |
|
| |
"...We computationally investigated the flow physics of
respiratory droplets arising from coughing around and
through a face mask. We considered a mask consisting of
air-permeable filtering material made of porous fibrous
layers. The fluid flow and cough dynamics significantly
influence the droplet transmission and, in turn, the overall
mask efficiency: |
|
| |
1.
Without wearing a mask, droplets travel to about 70 cm. |
|
| |
2.
Wearing a mask, the bulk of droplets will travel about half
the distance. |
|
| |
3.
However, in both cases, there are still isolated droplets
transmitted beyond 70 cm. |
|
| |
4.
Mask efficiency is dynamic (not constant). It is reduced
during cough cycles. The fluid dynamics and the
interactions between the droplets, the filter, and the face
influence mask efficiency. We show that after ten cough
cycles, efficiency can drop ∼8%. The above is a
conservative prediction considering that we model a mild
cough incident and ten cough cycles. We should expect
more significant efficiency reduction for severe coughing
events, as well as when wearing a mask for a longer period. |
|
| |
5.
The dosage and time of exposure to a virus affecting a
human are not known and will vary across subjects. We
examined 10% and 32% of droplets, which are smaller than
their corresponding initial size, and found that they reduce
in number during cough cycles when wearing a mask. |
|
| |
6.
The diameter of the transmitted droplets is larger across
cough cycles when no mask is worn. |
|
| |
7.
The accumulation of droplets in the surrounding
environment increases as the cough continues and is more
significant without a mask. |
|
| |
8.
With a mask, droplet penetration approximately reaches a
mean value. Without a mask, the rate of the droplet
penetration increases with cough cycles and tends to
decrease after several periods. |
|
| |
9.
The mask to face fitting is important. Even in the case of a
tight fitting scenario, if there exist some small openings,
this can lead to additional leakage of droplets around the
mask, which cannot be ignored. It contributes to an
additional reduction in the mask efficiency with respect to
efficiency reduction induced by the cyclic behavior of the
coughing incident. |
|
| |
10.
By wearing a mask, it will also provide greater protection
to the wearer as it blocks the droplets expelled from
another subject and further decelerates the incoming jet. |
|
| |
11.
The complex droplet interactions and fluid physics lead to
interesting phenomena such as hot spots downstream of
the mask and flow recirculation associated with buoyancy. |
|
| |
According to the results of this study, we make the
following recommendations: |
|
| |
1.
Although masks will reduce droplet transmission, we should
not ignore that several droplets will be transmitted away
from the mask. The use of a mask will not provide
complete prevention from airborne droplet transmission.
The above is particularly important for both indoor and
outdoor environments. As Dbouk and Drikakis3 showed,
respiratory droplets can be transmitted to several meters
away from the subject due to wind conditions. Therefore,
social distancing remains essential when facing an evolving
pandemic. |
|
| |
2.
The above recommendation implies that we can protect
healthcare workers only if we equip them with a complete
PPE, e.g., a helmet with a built-in air filter, a face shield
together with a disposable suit over the whole ensemble,
and a double set of gloves. |
|
| |
3.
The manufacturers and regulatory authorities should
consider new criteria for assessing mask performance to
account for the flow physics and cough dynamics. We
provided a simple criterion that takes into account
efficiency reduction during a cyclic coughing incident. |
|
| |
Further research is required to advance the understanding
of the following: |
|
| |
1.
Droplets breakup and coalescence phenomena that induce
a liquid film barrier on the fibrous porous surface of the
face mask, e.g., at the pore microstructure scale. |
|
| |
2.
Cough dynamics across subjects that experience different
medical conditions. |
|
| |
3.
Saliva droplet composition effects on cough dynamics and
droplet transmission. |
|
| |
4.
The effects of a high-filter efficiency offered by more
advanced mask designs relative to breathing comfort." |
|
| |
There's no reason in 2021 for the standard mask not to be powered and offer a replaceable filter. It doesn't have to look like a gas mask. |
|
| |
See my foot mask illustration. It features a
removable filter. |
|
| |
// powered and offer a replaceable filter. // |
|
| |
// It doesn't have to look like a gas mask. // |
|
| |
There's a crowdfunded design that looks like a motorbike helmet; but most of the powered ones are industrial, with a beltpack-mounted fan/filter/battery unit, and make no pretence of being anything other than what they are. |
|
| |
Which would be why I didn't say, "Here's a new idea"... |
|
| |
I've yet to see a sheep mask, so I think this a totally original idea and deserves numerous croissants. |
|
| |