Recent WHO advice on masks - FFP? Reference to over 60s. Long.

[David]

Not everyone's favourite source, but worth investigating.

It includes:

"This week French health officials advised people to wear surgical masks rather than home made fabric ones as these afford greater protection against highly contagious new variants."

and

"Germany went a step further and followed Austria and Bavaria in making it compulsory for full protective filtering face piece (FFP) masks to be worn on public transport and in shops."

plus

"The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends that medical or surgical masks should be worn by healthcare workers, people with Covid-19 symptoms, those caring for someone with suspected Covid-19,

and anyone aged 60 or over,

and those with underlying medical conditions where distancing of at least

1 metre cannot be achieved."

I especially note the "60 or over" bit, being {cough} years older than that myself. I suspect that a few other posters may have passed that particular (sorry) point as well.

In the diagram there is a reference to FFP2 masks, but no real clarity about the different grades (FFP1-3) and if FFP1 is better than a cloth mask.

The lead picture doesn't seem to be an FFP mask because there is no sign of a filter. Presumably a medical grade disposable mask?

Noting especially that most of the masks featured (as with clinical masks) are designed to stop the wearer infecting other people.

Only those with air inlet valves like the FFP masks are designed to protect the wearer against breathing in particles. However the FFP masks aren't designed to filter your breath when you breathe out, so don't protect others. Which in turn means that if anyone was clued up on this FFP masks wouldn't be allowed in shops and public transport. However, see above!

The WHO approach (as used by Germany, Austria and Bavaria) seems to be to protect oneself and to hell with the rest. Granted that if everyone is wearing an FFP mask then the protection strategy should still work as everyone will be protected. This has an added bonus in that mask deniers would only be risking themselves.

gives more detail on types of face mask and what they are designed to protect against.

Noting that as far as I can tell at the moment FFP2 is the minimum to protect against Covid19. Which is a shame because I have half a box of FFP1 filters in the shed.

"FFP2 face masks are the equivalent of N95 face masks, which meet the guidelines from The World Health Organisation for protection against Covid-19. FFP2 masks have a minimum of 94% filtration percentage and a maximum of 8% leakage to the inside. These masks are not shaped to your face but are simply held in place by the elastic earloop and have a typical lifespan of 3-8 hours depending on environmental factors."

At the moment Screwfix seem to only stock FFP3 masks. Which seem to be the best generally available.

Bottom line; if you believe in wearing a mask, and are over 60, will you be wearing an FFP3 mask to protect yourself?

Nothing is simple, is it?

Cheers

Dave R

[jon]

I have a scuba mask with a twenty sock filter for situations of unavoidable dense mingling.

[Jeff Layman]

(snip)

I'm over 70, and I've been wearing an FFP3 mask when in a shop since early March. 28 April, in a reply to Tricky Dicky about "Wearing a face mask", I posted the following:

============================

What sort of mask? If it was a standard "surgical" type of mask, it will protect others from the wearer rather than the other way round. However, a FFP3 type mask is effective at protecting the wearer.

The confusion seems to arise because viruses are so small, they will pass through (or around) most masks. However, most coughed particles are much larger than viruses (in the range of 0.3 - 10 microns), and will be caught by a P3 mask. SAGE (whoever they are) have been trying to find a way for weeks to back-pedal on this without losing face. I had a couple of unused F3 masks (meant for a dusty job in the loft which I got someone in to do in the end), and checked up on the internet more than a month ago as to whether or not they would be worth wearing. Some papers weren't available in full, but those I could check said more often than not that P3 masks were effective against coughed and sneezed particles, but P1 and P2 masks were not.

============================

On 13 June, again in a reply about "Commercially available face masks" I posted the following long reply:

===========================

Well, the "experts" got it wrong on the timing of the lockdown, quarantining those entering the UK, and letting elderly Covid-19 patients back into care homes. Do you think they got it right on face masks? The only thing which made sense was to keep PPE as much as possible for those who needed it in hospitals and care homes. Even then, much of it was the wrong type of PPE.

Simple masks, such as those worn by surgeons during operations are there to protect the patient, of course, not the staff in the operating theatre. So why are experts suggesting anything should be different with respect to the SARS-Cov-2 virus? What you are missing is that more sophisticated masks, such as "N95" offer greater degrees of protection to the wearer. The problem is that "N95" can cover different degrees of protection, as can the designations FFP1, FFP2, and FFP3, which tend to be used here.

FFP3 masks can take out most particles between about 0.3 and 10 microns, which are the sizes of particles most often coughed or sneezed out. There is also a degree of confusion about single particles of viruses being so small (only a few nanometres), that they will pass through the much bigger "holes" in the filters without problem. That might be true if the holes were a simple, smooth, cylinder. But they are not - they are a convoluted series of "rough" channels which, in fact, a viral particle has difficulty passing through without getting caught on the rough edges. Consider that a mask is about 0.5 mm thick, so a virus particle around 5 nm across has to negotiate a path 100,000 longer than its size. Think of a tennis ball trying to negotiate a series of channels, some covered with Velcro, which is about 7 km long. OK, there are lots of other factors (such as the speed the particles move), but it shows that particle size isn't everything.

On some of them exit valves do have filters. Even so, the humble surgical face mask offers decent protection for others from an infected wearer. This is from "Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks"(

)"These results suggest an important role for aerosols in transmission of influenza virus and that surgical facemasks worn by infected persons are potentially an effective means of limiting the spread of influenza."

That paper was published 7 years ago!!! What were SAGE waiting for? It was common sense - for years we've been told to cover our mouths when sneezing or coughing.

If everyone had been wearing "face covering" (experts' weasel-wording for surgical masks) from the start there would have been a much lower transmission rate, and many fewer deaths.

===========================

It's /very/ simple. The Government (Sage) advice given at the start of the pandemic last year was inaccurate and misleading. There was already information around (in, IIRC, 2016 or 17) to show that an FFP3 (US equivalent N99) would protect the wearer against the flu virus, which is of a similar size to SARS-Cov-2. Whether or not the powers-that-be said this to keep FFP3 masks for hospital staff I really do not know, because until a few months ago I never saw hospital staff with anything but a surgical mask (unless they were wearing full PPE with air fed from a tube).

If you can get an FFP3 mask I advise you to do so.

[GB]

I had a couple of FFP3 masks from before the pandemic kicked off, and I used those. I re-stocked in the summer, when there were plenty of masks around.

These:

Showing as in stock for delivery or C+C.

They seal well and my glasses don't steam up. I've tried the papery ones, but haven't solved the condensation issue.

I strongly recommend wearing glasses, as well.

[nightjar]

On 23/01/2021 15:05, David wrote: ...

...

I do: a half face respirator from my DIY stock. However, if you are looking to protect yourself, rather than others, a simple face screen is about ten time more effective than a face mask. This may be overkill, but is what I wear over the mask:

[Chris Green]

I'll keep wearing my crash helmet then, the pharmacy at my medical centre was quite happy with me wearing that when I last collected a prescription.

[John Rumm]

That's a bit woolly still - FFP rated masks include many with exhalation valves which mean they filter far less effectively on exhalation than inhalation.

(there will still be some benefit though, since they will still trap some moisture, and direct exhaled vapour away from others faces)

ISTM a maker of face coverings has managed to get some free publicity from a journalist about as technically clued up as you might expect given the publication :-)

True - but they will give *some* protection in both directions. Also remember that even a partially effective mask is still much better than none at all, and that you also get increasing benefit the more people using them.

i.e. even if only 50% effective in both directions, that means you get a

50% reduction in infection rate if only one party is wearing one - but if both parties are wearing one, then you get an overall 75% reduction in transmission.

FFP masks are available with and without valves...

Indeed.

Well there are degrees in all of this. FFP1 may be less effective than a higher grade - but is till massively better than no mask.

Also note that no mask alone will give 100% protection - not least because infection entry points are not limited to inhaled droplet or particles, but include contact with eyes, or later formite transmission from contaminated hands to the face.

A mask plus face shield will do better than a mask alone.

I have noticed there is quite a difference between say wearing a 3M FFP disposable mask and one of their 4000 series half mask respirators. While the former will allow smells, smoke, fumes etc to enter freely, the 4000 series ones I use for DIY, block gas, vapours as well as particulates. This *feels* more protective, however whether it actually is or not, I don't know.

yes

Hope to be one day :-)

I will be keeping well away from situations that require one at all as best I can, but using the best I have on hand when that is not an option.

nope!

[nightjar]

Which is exactly what the screens are said to be up to ten times as effective against:

[nightjar]

Strictly, if they have valves, they are respirators, not masks.

[David]

<snip>

FFP3 masks - so many questions.

Type A or B? (Or even C?)

Valve or no valve?

Amazon/eBay seem to be the main sources at the moment, as most places seem to be out of stock.

Cheers

Dave R

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

The problem with that advice is, these are significantly harder to breathe inside for a long period. I myself rejected them in favour of a double layer normal one, and even that if worn for several hours makes you breathless, after all its the reduction of aerosols which is the main issue, I can understand it in an environment where there might be a lot of people squashed together, but otherwise I'm sticking to what I can wear. The last thing we want to be doing is having to fiddle with them or change them all the time, as this will add the hand contact to the equation. Masks are only any good at stopping others getting your germs, the medical grade ones are supposed to be sealed to the face all around and protect the wearer against outside germs, something that would be very hard to enforce since they would be single use and expensive and too uncomfortable for the general population to wear.

Brian

[nightjar]

Do I believe you or a group of researches commissioned by the Israeli MOD? I think the latter are more credible.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

I personally feel that if they do bring this in, there will be far more people not wearing them or modifying them so they can still get air around the sides, they simply are not good for long use and I personally feel something that has pretty good protection all the time is better than something you need to fiddle with or restricts your breathing so much as to render them unusable in general life situations outside of the medical environment. Brian

[Dave Plowman (News]

Did look at them, and the sort you see NHS workers using are quite expensive and single use?

[Max Demian]

People will just use them for ever rather than replace them as they cost money and can't be cleaned (I think).

[Max Demian]

Well misting up specs isn't a problem for you. Positively dangerous if you're trying to cross the road.

[John Rumm]

The 3M 4000 series are described as "disposable" in the sense that they are supposed to last for a month of daily use and then be discarded. So for DIY use, they last a very long time usually. I expect the same would be true if you wore one once a week for a shopping trip. They are somewhat more expensive than the 3M fold flat type - but those are only good for a day really.

But, yup good PPE is expensive - probably one of the reasons that lower income groups suffer more infections.

[John Rumm]

Indeed - although the terminology does seem to vary depending on where you are from.

[RJH]

snip

I'm on my second of the 4000 series - it's amazing how they filter out smell, nothing seems to get through. Surely that's a decent measure of filtration?

[Dave Plowman (News]

Ah- right. Ones I looked at suggested they had to be disposed of daily. If they lasted a few weeks of use in the street etc, a different matter.