|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do. (E.E.Hale)
5
3
This article won't open on my computer. If anyone has the time to read it, a little summary of the key points would be appreciated, as making more masks is on my to-do list. Thanks!r ranson wrote:Here is a good article about homemade masks back in 1918/19 and why they didn't work so well. And more importantly, what we can do now to make homemade masks work better
https://elemental.medium.com/why-gauze-masks-failed-in-1918-and-what-we-can-do-better-e735406f0e36
Visit Redhawk's soil series: https://permies.com/wiki/redhawk-soil
How permies.com works: https://permies.com/wiki/34193/permies-works-links-threads
1
...like our relatives who faced the influenza pandemic 102 years ago, we are now covering our noses and mouths in public with cloth masks — because that’s what’s available. Except this time, our masks will be better (we hope) and definitely more colorful.
...
So why not turn back the clock and learn what we can about a time when cloth masks were the gold standard?
Most of us have seen photos of nurses, workers, children, and possibly even cats wearing masks during the Spanish flu pandemic. But despite the widespread use of masks in 1918, some experts at the time concluded that masks made from gauze “failed” to help slow infections on a citywide scale in San Francisco. The main reason for this failure, they decided, was that gauze is a terrible material for filtering respiratory droplets. But they also noticed some other problems.
...
Gauze masks were fairly common in hospitals by the time the great influenza pandemic arrived in the United States in 1918. Two decades of prior research demonstrated that masks could work in both directions: preventing doctors and nurses from spreading germs to their patients — and also protecting doctors and nurses from getting sick.
....
W. H. Kellogg, the secretary of the California State Board of Health at the time, identified five key reasons he thought mandatory gauze masks didn’t help lower the infection rate. He mostly blamed the citizens who made them but also found fault in the instructions they were given. What follows are his century-old criticisms, along with notes on why we will do better this time around.
1. The homemade masks were shoddy
To combat the Spanish flu, Americans were told to make face masks with four to six layers of fine mesh gauze — which is what was used in hospitals. The finer the mesh, the better the gauze would be at filtering out respiratory droplets, or so the thinking went. Unfortunately, Kellogg observed that many civilians’ masks were only made from one or two layers of a very coarse gauze similar to cheesecloth.
This criticism was echoed by others, including the Detroit health commissioner, Dr. J. W. Inches. When he saw the skimpy masks that people were making and wearing, he called them “worthless,” with weaves so loose that “a mosquito could jump through them.”
Why we’ll do better 102 years later: All of us have access to cheaper, higher-quality fabrics than our ancestors did. We can also watch countless instructional YouTube videos and ask our social networks to double-check our work.
Sometimes they only covered their mouth but left their nose exposed. Others constantly touched and moved their masks around, especially while smoking.
2. Shoddy masks gave people a false sense of security
To his horror, Kellogg saw that people who wore poorly constructed masks took more risks than they would have if they weren’t wearing masks. Even though their skimpy masks offered no protection, they felt comfortable and safe — and acted that way.
Why we’ll do better 102 years later: Although most of us will craft higher-quality masks today, we do need to take the social distancing warnings seriously. Taking extra risks will cancel out any positive benefits we reap from wearing a mask.
3. People wore their masks incorrectly
Although the board of health posted fliers instructing people how to wear a mask, Kellogg noticed that people often wore their masks incorrectly. Sometimes they only covered their mouth but left their nose exposed. Others constantly touched and moved their masks around, especially while smoking.
Why we’ll do better 102 years later: Luckily, we have the benefit of a vast media culture that is prepared to show us the do’s and don’ts of mask etiquette.
4. People wore their masks at the wrong times
Because the San Francisco police were enforcing the mandatory face mask law, most people wore their masks outdoors and in permies. However, Kellogg noticed that many people took off their masks “in private offices, and among gatherings of friends.” These places were, of course, where they were most likely to be exposed to infectious droplets.
Why we’ll do better 102 years later: For those of us using face masks today, it is essential to learn which situations are the riskiest and prioritize wearing a mask during those times. For instance, public indoor locations, like the grocery store or a bus, will be riskier than the outdoors.
5. The material they were told to use didn’t work very well against the flu
At first, Kellogg thought gauze masks failed because most people were idiots but that masks could still protect the “intelligent individual.” However, during the 1918 pandemic, 78% of San Francisco nurses contracted the flu even while wearing proper gauze face masks. After a series of experiments, Kellogg concluded that gauze was not a very effective barrier against respiratory droplets. And in order to make gauze a better barrier, so many layers of fabric were required that it became unbreathable.
Why we’ll do better 102 years later: It’s 2020. We don’t have to wait until after the fact to learn what fabric works best. Laboratories are actively testing the filtration efficiency of different fabrics right now and sharing their results with the world.
So, it turns out we got a few things wrong 102 years ago, but history doesn’t have to repeat itself (at least not in these ways). We are going to battle a pandemic in cloth masks again and hopefully, we are going to do it right this time.
2
Pearl Sutton wrote:
Judith Browning wrote:I wonder about using some of the non woven things used in clothing construction like pelon or some other interfacing fabric sold by the yard (or something similar to the vacuum cleaner bags mentioned in Anne's quote above) that might filter but not make such a humidity pocket behind the mask like a cotton fabric does?
If you make it so it doesn't sit right on the face it would help. Ever worn a proper gas mask with filters? The face part is a rubber thing that makes an airspace above the nose and mouth, the filters come in off the side. Some of them have a one way valve exhale ports. That might all be ideas to look at. I'm a recycle type, I'd probably use something like a margarine tub out of the trash that I heat shape, then add filters to the sides, and output with one way flaps and separate filters. hmm. Now you have me thinking...
Thinking on it more, if the input and output filters are separate items, you can change/wash/throw away only the ones you need to. If the mask is on a person with CV, change the output filter more, their inputs will last longer. The caregiver though would change their inputs more, their output will last longer.
This is a paint spray mask, visual of what I'm thinking of... Only homemade, and with the output filtered too...
Nature is a creator who is always right, acting with economy and without error.
|
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes; art is knowing which ones to keep. Keep this tiny ad:
grow your own garden and build your own home in the gardening gardeners program
https://wheaton-labs.com/bootcamp
|
