Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk |
The mask debate |
Post Reply |
Author | |||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: March 21 2006 at 3:18pm |
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
This is the most distrubing thing that I've read in a very long time.
Please go back and read it again. Does anyone think that it's a good idea for policy makers to even think of this as a source of info..... Some are scouring medical histories, original source material from past disease outbreaks and even"historical fiction looking for clues about how effective measures like the wearing of cloth masks across the face were during earlier outbreaks of infectious diseases. "I
find it very useful, not as a case control study, but as a historical
reference point to study some of the original records from the various
pandemic experiences and see: What did societies do?" Cetron said."
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Ont. nurses want better masks for avian flu
Updated Sun. Mar. 19 2006 11:33 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff Ontario nurses say the federal government wasted money by purchasing standard surgical masks incapable of blocking avian flu. "It was two of our nurses who died during the (SARS outbreak)," Lesley Bell, of the Ontario Nurses Association, told CTV News. "We're just saying we don't want to go through that again. Let's make sure that the nurses and health care workers who are on the front lines are protected." The government bought 4.5 million standard masks for about 10 cents each. Ontario nurses say the masks are inadequate protection against avian flu, and the government needs to buy N95 surgical masks at about 10 times the cost. Nurses demanded and received N95 masks three years ago during Toronto's SARS outbreak. The World Health Organization recommends the N95 mask as protection against both SARS and avian flu. The mask has become popular in the United States, where they are mailed to relatives living in countries affected by the virus. "They came in a bought cases at a time, and they would ship them home to their families," Home Depot worker Jake Zacharias said.The government says there is no evidence to show N95 masks are more effective at blocking the virus than standard surgical masks. "There is certainly confusion, in the health care community, and globally, about how this disease is transmitted, and what the optimal method of protection is," said Dr. Arlene King, a microbiologist at the Public Health Agency of Canada. The N95 masks are manufactured in Quebec, but have to be pre-fitted for every user and can only be worn for a few hours. Dr. Donald Low, a microbiologist, said that N95 masks also become useless if the user touches them, adding another problem. "In some circumstances they may be no better than a surgical mask, and in some cases they may even be worse," she said. However, Ontario's nurses say the government is simply interested in saving money, not which mask is more effective.Meanwhile, Israel confirmed its first outbreak of the H5N1 strain Sunday – the worst mutation of the virus. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060319 / bird_flu_060319/20060319?hub=Health |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
heheheheh
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Subject:WHO Pandemic RR&C protocol
Mar 17 draft "elimination of any reference to masks" -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxxo@xxx.xxx.ca [mailto:xxxxxx@lxxx.xxx.ca> On Behalf Of Dr. xxxx xxxxxx, ROH Sent: March 17, 2006 8:12 PM To: xxxx@xxxxx.ca Subject: OccHygPro: WHO Pandemic RR&C protocol Mar 17 draft This evening, WHO posted the latest iteration of its Rapid Response and Containment protocol resulting from the deliberations at the Global Technical Meeting, Mar 6-8. http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/guidelines/draftprotocol2006_03_17/en/index.html Progress includes: - clarification that the considerations could apply not only to H5N1, but also to other viruses with pandemic potential - assignment of responsibility for national plans to "be updated frequently to take account ofinternational developments" - elimination of any reference to "masks". The matter of PPE is deferred to the parallel document Avian influenza ... WHO interim infection control guideline for health care facilities Revised 9 February 2006 http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/guidelines/infectioncontrol1/en/index.html . Further work is in order. In keeping with the 2nd bullet above, you may want to reconcile your corporate / municipal / provincial-territorial plan with the latest WHO guidelines; hopefully, our national authorities will be similarly diligent. Regards, xxxxxxxx ____________________________ xxxx xxxxMEng,PhD,CIH,ROH Environmental Hygienist / Toxicologist |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
How on earth are you supposed to put it on without touching it?!?!
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Yes I watched the same report. Excuse my Latin but what a bunch of Crxpxla ! This is the same fellow that worked in a hospital that was telling nurses to put their used N95 masks in a plastic bag so that they could be re-used by co-workers during the SARS epidemic, according to Barb Wahl president of the Ontario Nurses union, who testified to this during an 2003 public inquiry. I know someone that worked in this hospital. This same hospital told nurses that they were dealing with SARS, 2-weeks after doctors were informed. Once the nurses were aware, they were double-gowned and double masked. Mmmm....... Fudge! I gotta move this thread. I'll do it when I regain cons..... |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
That is shameful of him to tell them to re-use the masks especially if he believes touching them makes them useless. Is it true that touching them makes them useless?
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Regarding the point about touching the masks...my understanding is that you do not want to transfer the oils from your skin to the breathing surface of the masks because it reduces effectiveness. I was advised be some medical folks to either glove and put on or to try and be careful ot just handle the edges. Any medical provider types out there have other input?
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
masks are for the sick,to reduce viral spreading,they are not for protection.
real masks are the one with the photo
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
However, Ontario's nurses say the government is simply interested in saving money, not with mask is more effective. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060319 / bird_flu_060319/20060319?hub=Health "Face masks offer the best protection in the fight against SARS, reveals a new hospital-based study from Hong Kong. Wearing a mask can give a person dealing with SARS patients in hospital up to 13 times more protection compared with not wearing one, says Wing Hong Seto, study lead and chief microbiologist at the Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3692 --- For masks to be effective in the filtering function, air must pass through, and not around the masks. They should be fitted tightly and changed when wet or soiled. One must not assume that a high efficiency mask like N95 is capable of providing 100 percent protection to the user. Proper skills and precaution in using masks, together with adequate hand hygiene, may determine the efficacy of the protection provided by the masks. http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pacesetters/1_2a_sarshk.php * A study of Hong Kong nurses working with infected patients everyday, concluded, those that took the proper precautions, did not contract the disease, or had a very low incidence. My 2-cents. |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
eyes must be protected,they are an easy entry too
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
No. |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
[QUOTE=Hermes] eyes must be protected,they are an easy entry too
If you are nursing someone and you are close to them, yes. A quick trip to an ATM, no. My 2-cents. |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
"masks are for the sick,to reduce viral spreading,they are not for protection."
This is a joke, right? |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
no.
no joke.very serious
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Would you please explain why you say that masks aren't for protection?
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
this will help you
.real masks cost money dear
A gas mask, also known as a respirator, is a mask worn on the face to protect the body from airborne pollutants and toxic materials. The mask forms a sealed cover over the nose and mouth, but may also cover the eyes and other vulnerable soft tissues of the face. Airborne toxic materials may be gaseous (for example the chlorine used in WWI) or particulate (such as many biological agents developed for weapons such as bacteria, viruses and toxins). Many gas masks include protection from both types. Unlike other breathing devices, gas masks do not require the user to carry an air supply as in the use of scuba gear. However, this means that the wearer depends on the air in the atmosphere, the same medium of the toxic materials. Thus, the mask must remove them and relay clean air to the wearer. There are three main ways of achieving this: filtration, absorption and adsorption, and reaction and exchange.
< =text/> // [edit]
FiltrationA filter works by having holes that are smaller than the particles to be removed. Since many pollutant molecules and particles are larger than oxygen and nitrogen molecules, this works for many applications. Filtration thus lends itself to defense against particulate hazards. However, the smaller the gap through which the air has to pass, the greater the pressure the wearer's lungs must exert to draw the air through, hereby limiting the porosity of these passages. Thus to extract many toxic gases, masks use other methods. [edit]
Absorption and adsorptionAbsorption is the process of being drawn into a (usually larger) body, or substrate, and adsorption is the process of deposition upon a surface. This can be used to remove both particulate and gaseous hazards. Although some form of reaction may take place, it is not necessary; the method may work by attractive charges (for example, if the target particles are positively charged, use a negatively charged substrate). Examples of substrates include activated carbon, and zeolites. This effect can be very simple and highly effective, for example using a damp cloth to cover the mouth and nose whilst escaping a fire. Most of the harmful vapours and smoke will be dissolved in the water on the cloth, giving you vital extra seconds to escape. [edit]
Reaction and exchange
Gas mask used by the French military This principle relies upon the fact that substances that can do harm to humans are usually more reactive than air. This method of separation will use some form of generally reactive substance (for example an acid) coating or supported by some solid material. An excellent example is resins. These can be created with different groups of atoms (usually called functional groups) that exhibit different properties. Thus a resin can be tailored to a particular toxic group. When the reactive substance comes in contact with the resin, it will bond to it, removing it from the air stream. It may also exchange with a more harmless substance at this site. There are two main difficulties with gas-mask design:
[edit]
History and development of the gas maskContrary to some modern day opinion, there is no single inventor of the "gas mask". In fact, there were patents for such devices as early as 1887. A first gas mask to be used by miners was introduced by Alexander von Humboldt already in 1799, when he worked as a mining engineer in Prussia. In the early days of World War I, the Canadian Army made field expedient gas masks to protect themselves from the deadly chlorine gas used by the Germans by urinating on rags and holding them to their faces. One such design began as a "Safety Hood and Smoke Protector" invented by African American inventor, Garrett A. Morgan in 1912, and patented in 1914. It was a simple device, consisting of a cotton hood with two hoses which hung down to the floor, allowing the wearer to breathe the safer air found there. Morgan won acclaim for his device when in 1916 he, his brother, and two other volunteers used his device to rescue numerous men from the gas and smoke-filled tunnels beneath Lake Erie in the Cleveland Waterworks. Dr. Cluny MacPherson of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, while serving in Gallipoli in 1915, where he acted as an advisor on poisonous gas, used a helmet taken from a captured prisoner to fashion a canvas hood with transparent eyepieces that was treated with chlorine-absorbing chemicals. Gas masks development since has mirrored the development of chemical agents in warfare, filling the need to protect against ever more deadly threats, biological weapons, and radioactive dust in the nuclear era. However, where agents that cause harm through contact or penetration of the skin occurs, such as blister agent or nerve agent, a gas mask alone is not sufficient protection, and full protective clothing must be worn in addition, to protect contact from the atmosphere. For reasons of civil defense and personal protection, individuals often purchase gas masks in the belief that they prevent against the harmful effects of an attack with nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) agents; this is not the case, as gas masks protect only against respiratory absorption. Whilst most military gas masks are designed to be capable of protection against spectrum of NBC agents, they can be coupled with filter canisters that are proof against those agents (heavier) or just against riot control agents and smoke (lighter, and often used for training purposes); likewise there are lightweight masks solely for use in riot control agents and not for NBC situations. Although thorough training and the availability of gas masks and other protective equipment can render the casualty-causing effects of an attack by chemical agents nullified, troops who are forced to operate in full protective gear are less efficient in completing their given tasks, tire easily, and may be affected psychologically by the threat of attack by these weapons. During the Cold War era, it was seen as inevitable that there would be a constant NBC threat on the battlefield, and thus troops needed protection in which they could remain fully functional; thus protective gear, and especially gas masks have evolved to incorporate welcomed innovations in terms of increasing user-comfort, and in compatibility with other equipment (from drinking devices to artificial respiration tubes, to communications systems etc). The gas mask has thus now arrived at a 'fourth generation' of development. |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Relative to us and the Avian Flu, there are TWO types of masks:
Those that keep the germs IN the PERSON
Thost that keep the germs OUT of the PERSON.
A surgeon wears a mask not to avoid getting something from the patient, but to avoid infecting the patient. These are the cheap "surgical masks" and they are pretty effective at keeping airborne infectious particles inside the wearer for a short period of time.
The "N95" or better masks, right up to all those rubber masks, are designed to keep the infectious particles out, for varying periods of time.
That's why you can say that masks are for the sick, not the healthy. It depends on the mask and the application.
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
"Face masks offer the best protection in the fight against SARS, reveals a new hospital-based study from Hong Kong. Wearing a mask can give a person dealing with SARS patients in hospital up to 13 times more protection compared with not wearing one, says Wing Hong Seto, study lead and chief microbiologist at the Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3692 |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
gricha56
Valued Member Joined: March 07 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 47 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
No, dear, I’m not asking how a respirator works – I just
bought four North Half Masks.
|
|||||||||||||||
daddog36
V.I.P. Member Joined: February 23 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
I got my n95 masks and nobody is going to tell me not to wear mine.
|
|||||||||||||||
daddog36
|
|||||||||||||||
gricha56
Valued Member Joined: March 07 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 47 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
I think it is a good idea for policy makers to consider fiction during sessions that are brainstorming in nature. There are many valid ideas that might be considered better suited to science fiction than policy formulation. But we seem to have a situation that calls for thinking outside of the box. Or does it? Perhaps we need to apply some basic infection control techniques, such as religious handwashing and insisting that PATIENTS wear masks ( to control the spread of droplets containing viruses ) and that staff wear some form of mask to furthur reduce transmission of the illness. The goal would be not to protect an individual ( which is our goal ) but to reduce the number of infections and reduce morbidity. The only thing that will insure your safety as an individual is to live in a bubble. That level of security is not achievable. Even the N-95 mask has serious flaws as a respirator and will not provide you absolute protection.
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
The only two sure things in life are death and taxes. I can't prevent these things, but sure as heck I'm going to try and delay them. If I'm going to gamble, I'm going to play the game where the house does not have the advantage and I'll use a mask. Being ignorant gives the house the advantage. My 2-cents. |
|||||||||||||||
Mtn. Man
V.I.P. Member Joined: March 15 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 40 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
I you got'em, smoke'em.
If you have masks, wear'em.
'nuff said.
|
|||||||||||||||
Business is great, People are terrific, Life is wonderful!
|
|||||||||||||||
Kirby
Valued Member Joined: March 02 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 129 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
My 2 cents...
In the same thought as Bannor said, the surgical masks are intended for the sick person, the respirator mask are intended for the care giver.
Seasonal influenza guidelines call for a surgical mask when withiin 3 feet of the sick person if the sick person cannot tolerate a mask. Normal flu virus is heavy and when expelled, goes about 3 feet and falls to the surface. Surgical masks filter only large particles and are suitable for this.
Airborne particles are light and can float high, travel distances and hang for long periods of time and easily inhaled. TB is a good example of another airborne illness. The guidelines for TB is to put a surgical mask on the patient. It stops the bacteria (TB is not a virus) at the point of exhalation or from the mouth/nose when sneezing/coughing if the mask is worn by the sick person. However; once the bacteria is out into the enclosed area like the room, the care giver must wear a more protective filtered mask to filter out the bacteria before they inhale it.
Problem is that the person who is SUPPOSED to be wearing the SURGICAL mask is generally TOO sick to tolerate a mask or too non-compliant to use it properly, thus we ALL need to assume the bacteria (in the case of AI, virus) is there and wear the N95 mask.
IMHO, the filks deciding to order 50 million sugical masks should be scrapping that order and adding another 50 million N95 masks which can double as a more efficient surgical mask (tighter fit, less gaping, more secure than tie-on masks) when not fit-tested and as a respirator mask when it has been fit-tested. But then we are talking a few more pennies and that makes a difference.....
Perhaps the 50 million SURGICAL masks are for the anticipated 50 million they anticipate DYING so it LOOKS like they made an effort??
|
|||||||||||||||
RicheeRich
Valued Member Joined: February 08 2006 Status: Offline Points: 203 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
My 3 cents:
-- Buy the best particle respirator masks you can for yourself and your family
-- Buy lots of cheap ones for sharing with people who aren't prepping
-- If buying surgical masks will make you feel better, then have at it.
|
|||||||||||||||
Kirby
Valued Member Joined: March 02 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 129 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Great advice.
And don't forget the tuna...
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
I do not think a patient with severe bilateral pneumonia who is potentially bleeding from the nose and coughing up blood will be able to keep any type of mask on. People with lung problems have trouble enough getting air into their lungs and are weak. These patients will also be running fevers and masks are hot and uncomfortable to use for long periods of time. Patients will take those masks off as fast as they can so they can breathe easier. My 2 cents.
|
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
It's difficult to anticipate how the different forms of the H5N1 virus will effect people and how individuals will react. There is no harm in having an extra surgical mask around in case the patient can wear one and help protect the caregiver. |
|||||||||||||||
Guests
Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Rick, the problem will be that it will only take one patient to refuse or to be unable to wear a mask for the virus to spread. Patients will also need to eat and cannot be moved to another isolated location in order to take off the mask to eat. In my personal opinion, I do not think having patients wearing masks would be a feasible option to reduce the spread of the virus. |
|||||||||||||||
Fiddlerdave
Valued Member Joined: February 09 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 259 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||||
Wearing a cheaper, lighter surgical maskwould have one large potential benefit - it would keep you from touching the mucous membranes of your nose, and your mouth with your hands. Plus, whatever blocking is provided of water droplets (which carry the virus) would make a surgical mask WAY better than nothing, and 13 times better protection doesn't sound unreasonable as an estimate.
Having worn fitted respirators for workdays in mines, I would be concerned about my own complance over time for wearing a more cumbersome fitted mask. And the lower price and convenience means you might wear it more often in lower risk situations when the $5 N95 would seem like too much. Have both!
|
|||||||||||||||
Dave
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for us"! |
|||||||||||||||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |