Extensive set up of manikins and analysis of indoor classroom.
2/ Key take away @zeynep@ScottGottliebMD@DrTomFrieden@EricTopol@DrEricDing@ASlavitt: we can all upgrade our masks cheaply. Conditional indoor infection probabilities as low as <0.0001 (0.01%) per hour might be reached with the use of surgical masks and mask fitters alone.
4/ Preprint's p. 67: With the use of a mask fitter, one can achieve an effective filtration efficiency approaching the material filtration efficiency for a mask. @AliNouriPhD
From Abstract: conditional probability of infection for three distinct airborne exposure scenarios: (1) an infectious instructor exposing susceptible students; (2) an infectious student exposing other susceptible students; @j_g_allen and
7/ (3) an infectious student exposing a susceptible instructor.
8/ Field measurements were performed in a classroom using a polydisperse neutralized salt (NaCl) aerosol, generated in a size range consistent with human-generated SARS-CoV-2 containing bioaerosols, as a safe surrogate.
9/ Measurements included time-resolved and size-resolved NaCl aerosol concentration distributions and size-resolved effective filtration efficiency of different masks with and without mask fitters....
10/ @j_g_allen Wells-Riley model results for the different scenarios suggest that ventilation of a classroom alone is not able to achieve infection probabilities less than 0.01 (1%) for up to 10 ACH and an event duration of one hour.
11/ The use of moderate to high effective filtration efficiency masks by all individuals present, on the other hand, was able to significantly reduce infection probability and
12/ could achieve reductions in infection probability by 5x, 10x, or even >100x dependent on the mask used and use of a mask fitter. This enables conditional infection probabilities <0.1% or even <0.01% to be reached with the use of masks and mask fitters alone.
The major conclusions from this work are summarized here:
14/ 1. Particle loss rates for the classroom determined by measurements of air exchange rate for the room match well with those determined from aerosol concentration time evolution in the class room, giving improved confidence in inputs to the well-mixed model.
15/ 2. Based on in situ measurements in a representative classroom with forced air mechanical ventilation, the well-mixed assumption holds to a reasonable approximation (within better than a factor of 2) for the classroom space studied.
16/ 3. Leakage rates around masks are typically in the range of 20-80% when fit reasonably well to the user’s face, resulting in effective filtration efficiencies that are much lower than the material filtration efficiency. @linseymarr@ShellyMBoulder @jljcolorado
17/ 4. With the use of a mask fitter, one can achieve an effective filtration efficiency approaching the material filtration efficiency for a mask. Inexpensive disposable masks used with a mask fitter can achieve approximately 95% effective filtration efficiency in some cases.
18/ 5. Ventilation of spaces with fresh air or well-filtered air is important, ventilation rates greater than > 5 ACH result in only modest additional reductions in infection probability and generally are not merited due to their high cost, energy usage, and increase in…
19/ …noise and room air velocities.
6. With all occupants in the indoor classroom masks, long-range airborne conditional infection probabilities are greatly reduced and reductions of 4x, 10x, or even 100x can be achieved.
20/ 7. In certain scenarios, source control, i.e., providing an individual performing a known high emission rate activity with a high effective filtration efficiency mask (using a mask fitter), may be an effective approach to limit long-range airborne infection probabilities.…
21/ …8. Use of masks and ventilation simultaneously are synergistic (providing multiplicative reductions) and together can provide greatly reduced aerosol transmission infection probability.
22/ The conclusions provided here give guidance on the relative effectiveness of ventilation and mask wearing for decreasing long-range airborne infection probabilities.
23/ The results specifically emphasize the large potential for effective mask wearing and improved masks, or use of mask fitters, to greatly reduce infection probabilities.
See my thread on how to protect yourself, based on this research. Summary: use the @armbrust_usa masks and the @FixTheMask brace to get near N95 fit + filtration. @FixTheMask tested the @armbrust_usa -- 97.7% filtration. Please RT.
This new mask to prevent #COVID19 is on the market. If you need solid comfortable protection, it seems like a solid product. I've not bought one yet. They are going for NIOSH approval as a respirator and I'll think they'll get it. openstandardindustries.com
I looked at their test results. It seems like the best you can get.
Watch this video to learn more about the story of how it came into being.
The only uncertainty I have is how well people can hear you when you have it on. I think it is better than most reusable masks.
So it is probably best for essential workers who don't have to do a lot of talking. So not great for a teacher, for example.
Great article by @zeynep and @jeremyphoward. To answer the question they get asked what and "where to buy proper masks," below is a thread. I have no financial interest in these recommendations. My family uses this near N95 solution that costs 17-60 cents/day.
I'll tell you what to do and then I'll explain why and provide the evidence.
You need a good quality surgical mask plus a mask fitter like the one made by @FixTheMask.
A disposable face mask made out of meltblown polypropylene layer that passes the candle test is likely good.
Those candle grade ones appear to cost 17 cents each on Amazon. Personally I prefer to buy ASTM Level 2 or 3 certified masks. Those run 40 to 60 cents. I prefer the Ambrust, which @FixTheMask found in their testing to offer the best filtration and
1/25 @Gladwell did a brilliant interview podcast with @michaelmina_lab. One of the questions @Gladwell asked is why don’t we have the #dailyrapidtest already to fight #covid? The answer is the FDA. Here is a lightly edited transcript of that part of the podcast.
2/ The rapid tests for #covid look like a pregnancy test, and they work like a pregnancy test actually. It's a little piece of paper, generally speaking.
3/ And you put some of the sample, whether that is a swab that's been mixed with some saline solution, or saliva onto a paper strip, and... and it shows up with line. It turns either, for example, red if it's positive or blue if it's negative.