Ray, I think you are missing some critical points.
1) The masks we are talking about are NOT PPE. They would not even qualify as PPE respirators if properly tested for that. We are asked to wear them because we DON'T KNOW who is infectious because it has become clear that infected people are infectious for several days before symptoms appear, if they ever do. Therefore, the only way to break the chain of transmission is to act as if everyone is infections. And in that scenario, the most efficient means of reducing the spread of the infection is for everyone to wear a face mask. When near others not of their household
2) Yes, it would be ideal to be able to protect myself by wearing an N100, or even an N95, and thus not have to worry about what other people are or are not doing, and too hell with those who can't afford such masks or find out how to wear them properly. Unfortunately, from the beginning those devices have been in such short supply that it was important to ensure that those with the highest risk (medical staff, ambulance personnel, etc.) had adequate supplies. To ensure that, you have to get others not to buy up the entire available supply, and that means, at first, telling them not to wear masks (respirators) and then, once the infectiousness of non-symptomatic people was known, to get all to wear a lesser face covering as source controls, not as PPE.
3) If you are going to say, protect those members of the public who are older and/or have those famous underlying conditions, you are telling everyone over 55, and everyone with diabetes, a heart condition, lung issues, or excessive weight to isolate themselves in their homes until a proven vaccine is available widely. You are probably taking out half the workforce in the developed world if you do that. Unworkable. But it is workable for everyone to wear a face mask when in proximity to others not of their household, when you combine that with adequate testing, contact tracing, and isolation of those found to be infected/infectious.
4) Public health measures are always for the other person's good. That may be "Don't allow standing water in your back yard" to prevent mosquito-borne illnesses. It may be "wear shoes and a shirt in a restaurant if you want to be served" or even permitted to enter. It may be vaccinate your child against measles before they enter school (so those who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons can be protected).
When protecting yourself puts others at risk, doing so is at best selfish and may well be "bad."
Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY
PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> On Behalf Of Ray Cook
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 8:36 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Melbourne, Victoria, AU - Facial Coverings
Just my thoughts on this, not here to debate. I respect you all have your own opinions.
The first line of your response Monona defines the problem with this whole mask endeavor (..for my own good). As someone who has spent a career specifying personal protective equipment, I cannot follow the concept of PPE that must be worn by one individual to protect someone else. By definition, it is "personal" protection. I think most people are more than willing to do something for "their own good." If I am concerned about getting exposed to an airborne contaminant, I can wear an N100 respirator and at least feel like I am doing something to protect myself. However, wearing a surgical mask or whatever, is not for my own good. It is supposedly to protect everyone else, which I don't recall being my responsibility (except in a professional capacity). Last I saw, many jurisdictions don't want you to protect yourself by wearing a real respirator with an exhalation valve as you then become a "threat" to others. (So protecting self is bad, protecting others is your duty).
Wearing a seat belt protects me. Forcing you to wear one to protect me does not, nor does it make sense. Not the same, but you see my point. This virus is not a plague. People in high risk groups SHOULD protect themselves using appropriate measures. I am not clear at all on the logic of how responsibility became transferred from protecting yourself (especially the vulnerable) to requiring all other individuals to submit to doing something undesirable/uncomfortable to theoretically protect other people, relying on the possibility that it may have some positive effect on preventing the spread of a 95-99 % survivable influenza. Not a strong driver here.
I do disagree with your statement that by not wearing a mask people are assaulting others. Normal life does not involve wearing a mask. Never has. Living life in fear of a largely survivable disease is unnecessary, and better protection is available for those who need it. I have more faith in our immune system than govts do.
Have a good week!
Regards,
Ray Cook, MS, CIH 2000-2016
=EF=BB=BF
If big brother is sane and asking for me to do things for my own good, I have no problem. And actually, the Oz big brother is only a threat to people who aren't doing what good practice and common sense dictates. Claiming the right to harm others by imprudent behavior in this pandemic is not freedom, it's assault.
I think the problem is you might think the masks that the Australians are talking about need fit testing. That's not what they mean. They just mean that they fit tight to the face leaving no obvious gaps. So surgical masks and well-made cloth masks are fine. And they include direction for making a good mask.
They also require it cover both the nose and the mouth. I'd like to see the Oz Big Brother working over here -- maybe right in my neighborhood.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Hall <oldeddoc**At_Symbol_Here**gmail.com>
To: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com>
Cc: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**princeton.edu
Sent: Sat, Oct 10, 2020 7:44 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Melbourne, Victoria, AU - Facial Coverings
Mt worthy adversary (everyone needs one, superhero or not ( - which I am certainly NOT).
The point about masks is that in the few places we can go, my wife and myself always wear one. She has some injury and medical problems, and we are screened with a screening test and have our temperature taken. Somewhat reasonable. Does cut down on possible transmission. She's tested negative, and if she had it, so would I.
So how many PAPRs and N95s have we got, and who gets them? And fit testing would be desirable, but who's going to do it?":? For everyone?
My wife and I are "old", so we stay home unless her medial condition requires otherwise..
So if the Australians want to go around arresting folks without a "proper" face covering. Big Bother is Watching YOU.
We need a Public Health mindset,, NOT a police State.
Oz has a different definition of "fitted." You think fit-tested. They just mean it hugs the face without gaps. And yes, no one thinks the cloth or paper masks provide much protection for the wearer. But when everyone contains a large portion of their own droplets, the total airborne stuff is reduced enough to make a difference.
However, I'm old and my husband is older. So now way I take him in the car service to a doctors appointment and back without N95s, and fortunately we both still have the lung capacity to do that.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Ernest Lippert <ernielippert**At_Symbol_Here**toast.net>
To: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM>
Cc: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:56 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Melbourne, Victoria, AU - Facial Coverings
Please set me straight. I must have missed something. My impression is that a cloth or paper mask, as generally available, when worn properly over the mouth and nose will effectively protect other people from the egress of your spume. These masks are not designed to prevent the ingress of SARS-CoV-2 for which a fitted mask would be necessary. The egress of the small amount of the possibly virus-laden spume that escapes around the edges of your non-fitted mask is diluted over the 6-foot distance that you maintain from other masks wearers. This dilution effect is enhanced by an outside breeze or by effective ventilation of inside spaces. Isn't a goal of controlling this pandemic is to keep the viral load to which you are exposed as small as possible and to break the transmission link between people with simple mask plus distance behavior?
Ernest Lippert
From: "Monona Rossol" <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 12:04 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Melbourne, Victoria, AU - Facial Coverings
The rules are all here where John told us:
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/facemasks-covid-19 the crux is:
You must wear a face mask when you are leaving your home unless you have a lawful reason for not doing so. From 11:59pm 11 October you must wear a fitted face mask that covers the nose and mouth. This cannot be a face shield, bandana, or scarf on its own. A face mask needs to be worn covering both your nose and mouth.
A fitted face mask is now required instead of other face coverings because it provides better protection. As restrictions ease and movement increases, the effectiveness of a face mask is even more important.
A face mask includes any paper or textile covering designed or made to be worn over the nose and mouth to protect the wearer. It does not have to be medical grade and you can make your own. There are instructions on how to make a mask on the Department's website - How to make a mask. (There is a live link here to directions on what polyester materials to make a mask out of, the dimensions, etc.)
From 11:59pm 11 October you cannot wear a face shield on its own. You can wear a face shield with a face mask. If you have a lawful reason for not wearing a face mask, you can choose to wear a face shield on its own. A face shield means any film made from plastic or other transparent material designed or made to be worn like a visor, covering the wearer's forehead to below the chin area and wrapping around the sides of the wearer's face, to provide the wearer protection.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rahul Nabar <rpnabar**At_Symbol_Here**GMAIL.COM>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Sent: Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:40 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Melbourne, Victoria, AU - Facial Coverings
So how do we define "proper"? Does it mean the mask has to be externally validated to a certain standard? N95 etc? Especially if the cops on the street have to enforce this then needs to be some easy to identify metric.
Faceshields are easily distinguished but a scarf or bandana tied over nose and mouth vs a "proper" but homemade mask may be not obvious? Just curious.
PS Sorry I was too lazy to read the Melbourne regulation! Maybe it says what proper is!
Rahul
ALL,
If you had not heard or read, effective Monday, October 12, 2020, Victoria, a federal state in southeastern Australia, has banned face shields, scarves and bandanas under the Melbourne COVID restrictions. From the Department of Health and Human Services (Victoria) advice, those items no longer meet the test of effectively covering the nose and mouth. Beginning 11:59 PM local time, on Sunday, October 11, 2020, the police can begin fining those people wearing an improper face covering $200AU ($144.67USA). Everyone must leave his/her home or other place of residence wearing a proper mask unless an exemption applies. The Chief Safety Office has recommended a face mask with three layers as the best option.
Do you think that could happen in the United States?
Be Safe, Secure & Sound in Judgement, Vigilant as Always, and Stay Well!
Have a Restful Weekend if you can.
All My Best,
John B. Callen, Ph.D.
3M Personal Safety division - Retired
ACS/DCHAS Founding Member
(312) 632-0195
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
