This is why you wear a mask, no matter what you think.

Jul 7, 2020 11:40 AM

Biigs

Views

116448

Likes

2381

Dislikes

68

Pretty simple really. 78% of those tested feel perfectly fine while testing POSITIVE for corona

stupid_people

infection

coronavirus

A Houston hospital is getting CT scans of all the no symptom ++ & finding significant damage. There will be a lot of emphysema in 30 years.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It’s estimated to be 35% asymptomatic in the most recent study but it’s still a decent proportion. Wear a mask.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

If that's the case than how do we know the tests are even accurate? Could we be experiencing false positives?

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I think I had it. Low grade fever, mild headache, touch of diarrhea. No other symptoms. All testing is booked, though.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Back in Italy, totally unrestricted towns they recorded 1/3 of cases were asymptomatic

5 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Where I live they won’t test you unless you have symptoms.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We've known for months that the vast majority are asymptomatic.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I always wear a mask in shops and on public transport. But I still hold my breath when passing ANYONE, whilst maintaining social distance

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

BUT MAH RIGHTS!!!!!

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just putting it out there but this survey was of just over 100 people, that's a tiny sample size.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Still statistically significant though.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Maybe it's because the tests were proven to be bullcrap but nobody wants to remember? Didn't a leader of one country test a several liquids>

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(I.e. oil from a car, honey, juice, water) and they came back as positive? This ain't some scifi bullshit virus that can survive anywhere.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This could be because a massive portion of the population are asymptomatic or they hadn't shown symptoms YET.

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

In other words, for 78% of the people who get it, it's not worth worrying about. For <1% it is. Much like any other disease we ignore.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

For those people, they should be self quarantining. For the rest, we'll be fine.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

5 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

Cant you test positive during the two week incubation period and not have symptoms yet???

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm 100% sure that 78% of everything said 80% of the time is 100% people giving 1/2 ass opinions.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just wait...even asymptomatic patients are reporting issues after a time. In 15-20 years, we’ll likely see a lot of people with issues...

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

ok, but where are those tests from and what is the accuracy rate on them?

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 6

So, serious question, why are we wasting tests on people with no symptoms at all?

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

We have the capacity to test asymptomatic people now. It's helpful since you can spread it without showing any symptoms.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

We're still mostly testing people who have a reason to suspect they may have been exposed. If you were exposed, you'd want to know as early>

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

as possible, symptoms or no, so you can prevent spreading it as much as possible.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In my county in Oregon you still need to be sick, get a doctor's approval, and make an appointment. It's fucking embarrassing

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So serious answer: outside people/workers going into places were more vulnerable people are, e.g. care homes, hospitals etc

5 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Also, people traced to others with it getting tested so they can self-quarantine to protect others by not spreading it too

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sorry link to BBC news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

5 years ago | Likes 133 Dislikes 8

Good man

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is quite interesting too, though not overly clear. https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/09/who-comments-asymptomatic-spread-covid-19/

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The study only uses 120 results - not a very high confidence level.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

we need to reduce testing so there are far less people testing positive for this virus! Though saying that, i got some nice masks to wear :)

5 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 16

Is that black humour because it certainly is dark!

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

5 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Agree. My doc says that I'm 55 now & need a mammogram. I said, no thanks, I don't wanna get breast cancer! That's how it works, right? /s

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Some people didn't see the sarcasm...it was sarcasm right, right...??? Lol

5 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

always

5 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

At least one hospital sent in completely sterile swabs, which also came back positive.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Source?

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sorry, no sauce on that. There's supposed to be a video, according to my cousin, but I haven't found it. Did find lots of false results +&-.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Appreciate the effort of looking tho thanks!

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

actually this is very good news. its further proof that for most people, this virus is at worst a mild nuisance and at best not even noticed

5 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 5

In the larger picture, yes, that is good news. But it also means people take it less serious and spread it more readily--including to those>

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

for whom it IS a big deal. If for 90% of people it's a bad cold & only 1% die, if everyone in America got it we'd still have 3,500,000 dead.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

but they're spreading it to those who are not so able to withstand it.

5 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

and with no idea what makes you immune to the symptoms of it, theres no clue as to who is most susceptible to the havoc it wreaks too =S

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Right, so practice Universal Precautions(assume EVERY person & item is infectious) & act accordingly(stay home, mask up if you can't)

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

In Finland, totally we have 261,400 tested and 7,262 of those were positive. Only people with symptoms are tested.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Still, the numbers have been decreasing to ~10 new cases per day. Where does the infected people without symptoms fit in?

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No masks used and not many use disinfectant. Restaurants and public places have been open for a month now. Only large +500 events are banned

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is why widespread testing is important. It may inconvenience some people, but if the tests are reliable we can slow down the spread

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Finland tends to be more nationally and socially distant than average.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I wore a mask religiously but still got it. with the country open its not IF you get it anymore..its WHEN.. trump's administration fucked us

5 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 7

China, the word you were looking for was CHINA! fucked The World! And Trump doesn't control the fucktard anti mask trash.

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

My understanding is the mask doesn’t protect the wearer, it keeps the wearer’s germs from spreading.

5 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

From the graphics going around. Its a 30 percent reduction in infection chance if you wear a mask.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That is the biggest reason to wear a mask, yes. It's not to keep the germs out, but to keep them IN. That's why surgeons wear masks, too.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

yeah but if everyone is wearing them the transmission rate should still be much lower, hopefully...

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Exactly. Masks are not 100% effective for a lot of reasons, but they sure as hell lower the rate and slow things down A LOT.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's like sex in a way. Only 100% solution is total avoidance. But short of that, wearing a mask is like wearing a condom. A very small>

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

portion will still get through, but damned if you don't lower the odds of something living inside you by a very significant amount.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who’s all ready for the massive deaths from pulmonary and organ issues in late-middle ages folks in 20 or so years?!?! Anyone?

5 years ago | Likes 106 Dislikes 13

may be already happening. there are reports of higher than expected "background" death rates. of course, trumpers argue staying home kills

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Don't be so negative. Maybe by then they can treat it. So you'll have plenty of time to emigrate to a country where that'll be affordable.

5 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

That's fear assumptions, its not HIV where it takes years. If no damage was done during infection, then no changes in years to come.

5 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 16

That's a hot take, my man. We know stuff like chicken pox can come back later in life. We have no idea how that looks for COVID-19.

5 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

One, you don't know that. Two, that's not what the experts are saying. Three, there is already evidence of neurological damage, which is bad

5 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

I said if no damage happened DURING the infection, none will sneak up later. The damage is done during the infection.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 8

One, you don't know that.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Good to know!

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yep, basic biology and common sense. But that is seriously lacking in the world rn and fear spreads.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

Shingles develops later in life as a result of having contracted chicken pox. Something similar may happen with Covid-19 for mild cases. We

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

2 simply don't know at this point and we definitely won't have a vaccine ready for the first cases of a secondary disease that may arise.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I'm ready for the spikes in deaths after the 4th of July weekend - give me time before I think about the long term effects.

5 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 1

Daily deaths is on a downward slope according to worldometers, and I'm HOPEFUL that's the new trend. Too bad there's no organ damage chart.

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I hope that's the case. It's disheartening reading comments from people who wish death on others in hopes of having a toldyaso moment.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You should look at the death rates for FA, TX, CA, etc individually. Death rates are still climbing or holding steady in these areas.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

But regardless of that, your point on long term damage is still valid and enough reason to be cautious.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I live in California, gratefully, in a county that has like 1400 cases total. I'm well aware. Hence my downcast hopefulness.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

wait two weeks after each public gathering to see the real impacts.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

People take this to mean “Rona isn’t that bad and media overblown” instead of “my god I could be unknowingly infecting and killing people”

5 years ago | Likes 424 Dislikes 18

The truth is there are several strains. The asymp strain doesnt transform into a symp strain. That's what the WHO admitted 2 weeks ago. So

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

There ARE 'rona strains that are NBD which is good news, but good fucking luck getting a vax that will stop all the strains. That's the bad.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

I think both might be true, that it's incredibly dangerous and you could unknowingly kill, but also perhaps not as bad as we thought.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

I think it comes down to "do anything for others = communism" and therefore "NAW!!"

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

5 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 2

I love these.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

i was about to say that

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yep. How people take that statement tells me A LOT about who they truly are at heart.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That "on the day of the test" right at the end of there is really important

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Not to mention the whole point is that you're infected/contagious before you know you're sick, not that 78% *never* develop symptoms.

5 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

"I feel fine, so if I accidently kill you that's your problem. You genetic weakling."

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

This guy gets it! Plus the demographic most at risk votes red. Lose the mask save the world.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Inner cities would like to disagree with you.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

They'll be fine just hold your breath when you go out

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I tested positive no symptoms, stayed away, went to get antibodies test to start donating. I came out negative. No COVID-19 found. Confused

5 years ago | Likes 355 Dislikes 0

Maybe the conspiracy theory nuts have been right and the virus isn't real? God I would hate to admit they are right about anything.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 6

Absolutely, I would've to hate it too.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Anecdotally people are noticing that people without symptoms are less likely to generate antibodies that stay around.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think there are a lot of studies showing poor antibody formation after you beat the virus. This is especially true for asymptomatic covid

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Data’s showing people who were confirmed + for COVID can def test - for antib. It’s testing flaws, & rapidly fading antibodies.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

what was your first test? RT-PCR? antibody?

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

It was nasal test

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So it was probably RT-PCR which looks for the virus by trying to amplify gene sequences specific to that virus.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The science is so flawless, I'm going to spend my day arguing about it on the internet with someone!

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I disagree.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They have found that many people without antibodies still have a T-cell response, but that's hard to test for.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

One of the last studies I saw as well the antibodies stick around long enough to kill the current infection and then fade away.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Antibodies can take a good while, weeks

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

there are fairly large margins of error in the test, its very possible you had a false positive for the test and never had it

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I saw something where some doctors sent some tests in that weren’t used came back as positive.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

there are plenty of tests for various viruses that are notoriously inaccurate

5 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Same for my son, had Corona but no Antibodies according to test. Dr told us that in many cases with asymptomatic, antibody test is negative

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Possiblity, but what are the chances my husband and kids are asymptomatic as well? They came out negative. I wish this virus to be old news.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Could be that they didn’t have it. I had it, my wife didn’t.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People with mild symptoms tend to have a myeloid respose rather than an antibody one, so immunity is much higher than what antibody 1/

5 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

tests suggests. The question is if these people will continue to be spreaders on repeat infections though.

5 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

What's the difference between a myeloid and antibody response?

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I didn't take the immune system course, but I think myeloid controls the innate immune system, i.e. the part that reacts the same to all 1/

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

intruders that looks obviously suspicious. It doesn't create any disease specific response like the adaptive immune system.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

A false negative antibody test is FAR more likely than a false positive viral assay.

5 years ago | Likes 155 Dislikes 3

I'm thinking you need to wait at least 6 weeks before antibodies will trigger a +. 8 weeks is better.

5 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 0

Hi man. According to Cochrane review the antibody tests were created with severe people's samples from hospitalisations 1

5 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Therefore, mild and asymptimatic cases are more likely to have negative tests. There still has to be more research to have a test for the 2

5 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Mild cases. It does not mean you don't have immunity. There is at least a little that might last a couple months. But you still might be a3

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

A carrier. So social distance and mask anyway.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

How long did you wait between the virus test and antibody test? It can take a couple weeks for antibodies to build up to detectable levels.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It was 3 weeks and 2 days.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's enough time for antibodies to develop. That is confusing.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Right, that's why I'm confused. If all people my husband would have definitely have gotten it as well.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not always. My PT has had the virus. Tested positive on the first test she got. Now we are over 8 weeks further along the road and she still

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Has more than enough antibodies to donate plasma for a precautionary immunization for severely reduced immune system people, like myself...

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's what I assumed would be the case with this one, since that's what happens with the other coronaviruses in the human population.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Is it common for people not to show symptoms. I didn't have non, like non at all. It was scary. I took every precaution. I my heart dropped

5 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

why do they combine their news and opinion sections. Those two are very different things.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes but sadly not no more. Opinion informs the news not vice versa

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

That *sucks*. It implies immunity isn't going to happen (like after catching chickenpox or measles).

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Can also just be rampant bad tests. Remember the country that tested a cantaloupe and it came back positive

5 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 3

Call me paranoid, but are we sure melons can't get it? Seems pretty transmissible by and to melonheads.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That cateloupe was a huge slut, though and everyone knows it.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I hadn't heard that one but, yes. Maybe try to find out which test it was & what lab ran it. A local health dept may have info on accuracy.

5 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

True but I've my test results 8 days after they tested me.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I'm not sure how that changes anything.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, how long your antibodies last appears to be linked to the severity of the illness you got. Worse = more antibodies

5 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

That seems very likely. Light cases might be due to having very few virus particles attaching and activating.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I wish I remembered where I saw it, but a couple months ago they were postulating the level of exposure had some correlation to the severity

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I haven't see anything come out since that has either made that more firm or debunked that theory yet

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Two scenarios: 1. screening test was false positive 2. You didn't produce any (or little) igG antibodies (possible in non-severe cases)

5 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 0

Yes and as others point out the antibody tests can be a bit dodge

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Third scenario: antibody test result was false negative.

5 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Hmm very interesting. When I receive my copy of results from the first test they had my DOB completely wrong.

5 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I like to think they mix my results with another. I'll never know . Sad

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

That would be very unfortunate, but many countries still run on improvised infrastructure, so gaffes like this can happen

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And I live in a hot spot state Dallas tx. Oh God!

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yeah, I finally caved and bought some nicer cloth masks. I've been wearing the inexpensive surgical masks, but COVID isn't going away soon

5 years ago | Likes 526 Dislikes 4

Inexpensive? What country do you live in? Our disposable masks are ridiculously priced. But good you’re wearing one.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Big Mask is having a field day getting rich off this!

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Got 5 for 12.50 at old navy. They wrap around the ear but its either that or fuller masks now, which with heat aint great. Here I though thr

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The heat killed covid....

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sameee

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

*in America. It's pretty close to going away everywhere else it seems.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Soon is the critical term. The Spanish Flu ended in the U.S. in 1920.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, it won't be OVER over until a vaccine is widely available, and that takes years

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There was no vaccine for the Spanish Flu 1918-1920. Enough people survived and developed immunity where it burned itself out.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I haven’t found a cloth mask that I prefer over wearing the surgical mask.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We visited my brother in law in Australia for New Years, so we already had nice N95 masks for the fires.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Was it reported more recently that it does not spread asymptomatically?

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The WHO later clarified that they don’t know yet. Also, what they mean by asymptomatic is not “not showing symptoms yet”. 1/2

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or some people never display symptoms and they're still asymptomatic. We should look to any other source besides WHO/Fauci, by the way.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6

it's wierd that here in finland when corona was "a new thing" on march it was recommended to not buy masks bc healtcare professionals ->

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

would need them more, and there was shortage of them.. after that the situation already was getting better and not many people on the town->

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

i live in never wore a mask (to be fair here lives only 120k people). There was anyway discussion is the mask even worth it since people

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

dont wear it right or / and keep touching their face when they put it on and off.. and now i look usa and this political satire and i wan't

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

to just jump off the roof.. like if your professionals say that WEAR IT, then just friking do it or argue if u got degree on Epidemiology :D

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ive worn a mask out since day one. I posted due to a clip i saw here of a man yelling "i dont have corona" while having a tantrum in a shop

5 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 3

I caused a man at an ice cream shop to angrily leave without his ice cream. He walks up to the serving counter with a preorder,

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Takes his mask off to tell the worker while heing about 3 inches from the counter and window, they tell him they dont have his flavor so he

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Leaves. Comes back and says strawberry once again lowering his mask. So I, being the passive aggressive cunt I am, casually say

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No point wearing the mask if you keep taking it off. You can tell IMMEDIATELY this old dude wanted to say something. 30 seconds after

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

sounds like he had mad bro disease. The mask may help, but normally you have to ingest his brain to catch it.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

the C A U C A S I T Y of some people!

5 years ago | Likes 63 Dislikes 16

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yacubian buffoonery is another one I like to use

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

There was an OSHA guy who discussed the diff masks. End result: surgical masks replaced freq best to use

5 years ago | Likes 124 Dislikes 0

The best mask to use is whichever one you actually put on. The rest is just polish.

5 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 1

Hey, Poland is doing pretty well case-wise!

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

?1

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I mean, I'm sure in terms of effectiveness there are differences, but I think what you're saying is the mask you put on is better than none.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

For a lot of people debating "which is better" is just delaying or complicating getting a mask on at all. We shouldn't feed into that.

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yes they are but they are also very unecological. So reusable with added filter is my to go.

5 years ago | Likes 74 Dislikes 0

As long as you clean it frequently you should be good. I spray mine with hand sanitizer everytime i come home, & wash it every couple days

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Yeah I wonder if after the dust settles (deaths stop) anyone will look at the environmental impact of all the ppe

5 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

The gloves are everywhere I go on the ground. The worst

5 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

Environmental impact of hospital waste is so incredibly complicated that there's whole regulation boards for disposal of it.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

probably not great, but we've massively declined in pollution in other sections so it kinda makes up

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

So we looking st a net zero or...

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Do clothes masks filter as good as n95?

5 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

It's kind of a 2nd best option, but cloth masks can be reused and N95s cannot. So I use cloth to keep more N95s available for those who need

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Leave N95s for medical personnel. Simple masks are to prevent you from spreading. It’s social cooperation to protect each other

5 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 3

If your health is at risk (you're immunocompromised, you're elderly, etc) an N95 is absolutely the mask you want.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That isn't the point. The filter really isn't gonna help you much. The point is to stop your spit and snot from spreading the virus you have

5 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

A properly-fit N95 actually *will* help you, which is why medical professionals use them. But not everyone needs an N95

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have an n95 and a filter I'm saving in case the wildfire smoke hits my area again. That shit fucks my asthma. Doing crap masks for covid.

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And also stop other peoples (ESPECIALLY those idiots without masks) spit and snot getting into your airways when you breathe in.

5 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

To some, lesser, extent, sure, but primarily to keep your germs to yourself (& to stop touching your face!)

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The cloth masks are terrible at keeping things out; you're wearing them to save others (as you have noted elsewhere).

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, a properly-fit n95 is still the best, since it does the best job at actually protecting the user from the aerosolized virus. BUT... 1/2

5 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

N95 is more than you need, but exactly what hospital & 911 workers need desperately. Pls donate it

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

That's also what fox news tells everyone. If you have one use it.

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

"more than you need" isn't necessarily true. If you're at risk health-wise, an N95 is the most effective at keeping you safe in public 1/2

5 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I was speaking in general & generic "you"; you make a good & valid point re vulnerable persons & N95

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

2/2 for instance, an elderly relative has to fly across the country to see a medical specialist. He needs an N95 on the plane.

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

2/2 most transmission seems to be from droplets, and almost any mask can help prevent the user from projecting droplets.

5 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 1

Ya I've been using a gaiter since the start of this shit since I couldn't find any masks at the time that would get to me soon enough ?

5 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

But a cloth mask is still far better than no mask. If the decision is cloth mask or no mask, it's a no-brainer.

5 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

5 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1