Quantcast
  • We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Facemasks

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Terry - Somerset

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2012
Messages
534
Reaction score
52
Location
Taunton
This is not strictly off topic, although the reasons for asking are.

We are probably all fairly familiar with the regular threads about dust protection and what the best masks are in terms of cost, comfort, effectiveness in a dusty woodworking environment. We are also very aware that the larger particles may be a major immediate irritant, but the very small particles are the ones that cause the most damaging long term health problems.

So with the benefit of all this knowledge, could the forum advise me what the best protection would be should the Corona virus reach and start spreading in the UK.

I am assuming that (a) the risk of infection may be fairly small at present, and (b) obvious risk mitigation strategies are adopted - eg: avoid crowded places.
 

Trevanion

Greatest Of All Time
Joined
29 Jul 2018
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
555
Location
Pembrokeshire
I read somewhere that there's a massive shortage of medical masks because of the scare of the Coronavirus.

I'd assume something like an Elipse P3 or a 3M 7500 with carbon filters fitted would be just about as good as you'll get without a full hazmat suit.
 

Trainee neophyte

[Insert witty and amusing title here]
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
132
Location
Greece
It depends on your age and physical condition, more than anything. From what I can see, the vast majority of deaths have been in either the very elderly, or the very, very young. If you fit into one of those groups, then you ought to consider taking precautions, otherwise, it is just a (not so) common cold. It seems to be affecting the lungs particularly, so if you have already spent years abusing them with sawdust...now might be a really good time to start wearing protection.

I would worry more about influenza than this scaremongering excuse for a world recession. (In three weeks time I could be proven monumentally wrong, but for now I see no reason to panic).
 

Blackswanwood

Still Learning
Joined
17 Nov 2018
Messages
665
Reaction score
196
Location
North Yorkshire
There was an article on the BBC website that surprised me as it pointed out that surgical facemasks are pretty ineffective against airborne viruses as they leave the eyes exposed. They do however reduce hand to mouth infection.

As I am due to fly to the Philippines via Hong Kong a week on Monday I am reading anything I see on the topic and apart from the view that it’s scaremongering agree with the earlier post that it seems to be more dangerous for people with existing health conditions ... but it’s a bit of a fact free zone at the moment!
 

MikeG.

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2008
Messages
10,176
Reaction score
666
Location
Essex/ Suffolk border
Trainee neophyte":3dwue92e said:
.....I would worry more about influenza than this......
Yep, absolutely.

Blackswanwood":3dwue92e said:
.........surgical facemasks are pretty ineffective against airborne viruses as they leave the eyes exposed. They do however reduce hand to mouth infection........
I suspect the point of surgical masks is not to protect the wearer but to protect those people they might sneeze over.
 

Trevanion

Greatest Of All Time
Joined
29 Jul 2018
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
555
Location
Pembrokeshire
Thing is, the media love a pandemic and will blow it way out of proportion. I have strong doubts that it will have an actual impact in Britain if any, but nothing is impossible. The "Preppers" in America seemed to have started panicking about it from what I can see and have bought all the medical masks on Amazon, and have stockpiled more petrol, diesel, food, and water... In preparation for something that probably won't affect them.
 

Sideways

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2017
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
39
Location
United Kingdom
Listening to Radio 4 science program, it's described as a lower respiratory tract issue - very small, aerosol droplets from breathing can infect at upto 200 feet. Oh, and it settles and can be picked up from contact with keyboards, etc etc.
From some of the stories my wife tells me about the hygiene issues with shared laptops in schools, I'd say the school age population of the entire country should be exposed within a matter of days....
Tongue severely in cheek - the world has an overpopulation problem and we need something to thin us all out !
 

treeturner123

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2009
Messages
386
Reaction score
11
Location
Worcestershire
I agree with Trevanion

A real panic has set in which is fed by the media. I remember when there was a previous 'Panic' and I was working for a well known charity looking after disabled people. Each home was required to buy in huge stocks causing financial problems AND problems of storage. Two years after the panic was over, I was still finding store cupboards full of masks, anti-septic solutions etc.

Have a few central stores where items can be obtained from IF needed.

BTW, what is the death rate from flue? I bet it is grater than this epidemic

Phil.
 

Just4Fun

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2017
Messages
531
Reaction score
36
Location
Finland
ScaredyCat":10epll6i said:
Imperial Collage are saying that an infected person will, on average, infect 2.6 others
OK.

making it as virulent as influenza.
Do they really say that? I thought the equivalent figure for seasonal strains of influenza averages about 1.28, with the figure for swine flu being in the range 1.4 to 1.6, making novel corona virus much more virulent than influenza.

To see what this means, if 100 people have influenza with an R0 value of 1.28 this means after 1 infection cycle they will have infected 128 others. At the end of the next infection cycle those 128 will have infected 164 people. Continue this for 10 infection cycles and there will be 1,181 people infected.

Do the same calculations for 100 people infected with the novel corona virus with an R0 value of 2.6. After 1 infection cycle they will have infected 260 others. After another infection cycle that 260 will have infected 676 others. After 10 infection cycles there will be 1,411,671 people infected. Rather more serious than for influenza.

Now I don't have any knowledge or expertise in this area, I just know how to operate a calculator. If I have got this wrong then please feel free to point out my error. If not, it is not surprising that some people are taking this seriously.
 

Droogs

Is that chisel shar ... Ow
Joined
14 Mar 2013
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
594
Location
Edinburgh
The Chinese have already stated to WHO that they expect 100K deaths per 5m infections
 

Trainee neophyte

[Insert witty and amusing title here]
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
132
Location
Greece
From Wikipedia, so it must be true: (tabular information has lost its formatting - 3 columns. Hope it's not too awful)
Disease Transmission R0
Measles Airborne 12–18
Diphtheria Saliva 6-7
Smallpox Airborne droplet 5–7
Polio Fecal-oral route 5–7
Rubella Airborne droplet 5–7
Mumps Airborne droplet 4–7
Pertussis Airborne droplet 5.5[2]
2019-nCoV Airborne droplet 3-5[3]
HIV/AIDS Sexual contact 2–5
SARS Airborne droplet 2–5[4]
Influenza
(1918 pandemic strain) Airborne droplet 2–3[5]
Ebola
(2014 Ebola outbreak) Bodily fluids 1.5-2.5[6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_r ... ion_number

As long as you are not very young, or very old, or have breathing issues there is not too much to worry about.
 

Just4Fun

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2017
Messages
531
Reaction score
36
Location
Finland
Trainee neophyte":2nztn4tm said:
From Wikipedia, so it must be true:
Influenza
(1918 pandemic strain) Airborne droplet 2–3[5]
The problem with the Wikipedia figures is it gives the R0 for the 1918 pandemic strain of influenza but most of us think of the regular seasonal strains. So perhaps you have drawn the wrong conclusion. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the novel corona virus has an R0 similar to the 1918 version of influenza, which Wikipedia tells us
infected 500 million people around the world, including people on remote Pacific islands and in the Arctic. The death toll is estimated to have been 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million (three to five percent of Earth's population at the time)
I don't usually take much notice of these scares, but if the figures are correct this one could be more serious. Of course the R0 value reflects the infection rate but tells us nothing about how serious it is if you do get infected. I haven't seen much data about that.
 

Trevanion

Greatest Of All Time
Joined
29 Jul 2018
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
555
Location
Pembrokeshire
What does concern me slightly is the possibility of the spread of the infection amongst densely populated nations with little or no healthcare systems in place such as many South Asian and African nations, in which there are a lot of Chinese infrastructure projects underway. Then it could potentially be very lethal if that were to happen.
 

ColeyS1

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2009
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
8
Obviously it's truly awful that lives are being lost. In the back of my mind I wonder if its natures way of trying to reduce the population and save the planet. All the problems we face with over population, global warming NHS being stretched to the limit etc are all down to the world having too many people. Perhaps if rapists and paedophiles got steralised and capital punishment was brought back it would help with the excess ? I know it sounds proper harsh. I watched a Tom Hanks film the other day where some nut job was releasing a virus to cull the population. It does make you think though...

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

SammyQ

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2005
Messages
2,363
Reaction score
110
Location
A wee house on a hill
I suspect the point of surgical masks is not to protect the wearer but to protect those people they might sneeze over
As a regular visitor (4-6 hour stays) to a ward full of immunologically compromised patients, I can confirm this is correct.

Sam
 

Just4Fun

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2017
Messages
531
Reaction score
36
Location
Finland
Trainee neophyte":16y16yef said:
I would worry more about influenza than this scaremongering excuse for a world recession. (In three weeks time I could be proven monumentally wrong, but for now I see no reason to panic).
Now we are more than 3 weeks down the road so can I ask if your view has changed?

Certainly the media coverage is considerable and spread does seem to be rapid. The death rate still seems open to some debate but a figure of 20 to 25 times higher than for the flu has been quoted. Is it time to worry? Is anyone taking any action, and if so, what are you doing?

I do not normally pay much attention to these scares but I have been following this quite closely. I have been trying to work out why that is and come up against a chicken & egg situation. Am I paying more attention to this one because it is more serious or does it seem more serious because I have been following it more closely? Or is it just that modern online media makes information more, and more quickly, accessible?
 

Trevanion

Greatest Of All Time
Joined
29 Jul 2018
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
555
Location
Pembrokeshire
Until we start seeing cases in say London I’m not going to worry about it at all. As I said earlier, the media love blowing things way out of proportion and the tinfoil hat brigade get all worked up about it thinking it’s going to kill everyone.

If you weren’t actively looking at the stories you also wouldn’t be worrying about it. Deaths are unfortunate but the numbers are still very low in reality, the media loves to make a mountain out of a molehill so to speak, it gets more clicks than “Everything is OK”.
 

John Brown

Established Member
Joined
25 Sep 2008
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
25
Location
Stinchcombe, Gloucestershire
ColeyS1":36xu6w09 said:
Obviously it's truly awful that lives are being lost. In the back of my mind I wonder if its natures way of trying to reduce the population and save the planet. All the problems we face with over population, global warming NHS being stretched to the limit etc are all down to the world having too many people. Perhaps if rapists and paedophiles got steralised and capital punishment was brought back it would help with the excess ? I know it sounds proper harsh. I watched a Tom Hanks film the other day where some nut job was releasing a virus to cull the population. It does make you think though...

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
"Nature's way"?
Things don't work like that. Nature has no goal or target, anymore than evolution does.
If all rapists etc. were sterilised it would make approximately zero difference to anything.
 

Just4Fun

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2017
Messages
531
Reaction score
36
Location
Finland
Trevanion":n20dhi7y said:
Until we start seeing cases in say London I’m not going to worry about it at all.
Probably wise but since I posted about this earlier today the local news has reported 2 possible cases that are close to home for me. They are 2 people who have just returned from Tenerife. One of the suspect cases is in the town (population 140 000) where my wife's office is located and the other is in the town (population 50 000) where my son is studying. I will visit both towns this weekend. I assume there is little to no risk at the moment but I will monitor what happens. It is certainly a tad more real for me today than yesterday.
 
Top