You Should Get a Reusable Mask
10MetallicDragon
12jefftk
10ChristianKl
6Seth Herd
9Douglas_Knight
6Seth Herd
2Douglas_Knight
2jefftk
1Stu Walker
2jefftk
3cubefox
1[comment deleted]
6Eli Tyre
5papetoast
5jefftk
4RHollerith
4joec
3jefftk
3d_el_ez
3River
2jefftk
3James Camacho
4jefftk
1Herbert_W
2jefftk
1Herbert_W
2jefftk
1Stu Walker
New Comment
I noticed that mask has an exhalation valve. Aren't those less effective at protecting other people than using a mask without a valve?
Aren't those less effective at protecting other people than using a mask without a valve?
Yes. On the other hand they have less condensation, are easier to breathe in, and are generally much easier to find in higher protection factors (I'm not aware of any valveless 99%+ efficacy masks)
I like geeking out over masks and there are a lot of options. I have a bunch of models, and if you'd like to come try them sometime (next EA Boston meetup on 10/26?) I'd be happy to show you what they're like.
I think it would be great if you can gather some data about how many people prefer which of the options and publish it.
1I think it would be great if you (whoever is reading this) would gather some data and publish it.
Accordingly, I did a little and settled on the EnvoPro N95 (but it's curiously $45 now, ten dollars or so more expensive now than when I bought it a few months ago, after Jeff's last reminder post). But my research was a bit rushed and the p100 filters on the 3M 6200 Jeff linked above are much better (IDK how much more uncomfortable to breath through). The EnvoPro is comfortable to wear and easy to breath in, and seals well and easily, even with my large nose and prominent bridge. But it's got a valve, so it wouldn't be ideal for protecting people from me if I might be sick.
I did some cross-comparison after looking up other reviews (my primary source was from Lockdown era, so some of these might not have existed). But it was kind of cursory.
Any of us can do what you ask almost as easily as Jeff (unless you meant gathering data from his mask trial parties? That would be useful even in cursory form of just going from memory).
Here's Jeff's useful list reuable masks with good seals, which he linked early in this article but didn't clearly label. It doesn't include reviews, but the Amazon pages do, and I found more thorough reviews after some pretty obvious Google searches.
Without disagreeing with the conclusion, I think this is a poor discussion of the pros and cons. The big con is weirdness points. That's basically why people don't do it. Probably if you articulate that it's easy to see that it's a win, but if you don't articulate it...
Yes, they're supposed to be more effective. I think this is emotionally difficult because it sounds like a Pascal's Wager. Yes, you should invest at the prepper margin, but how far? How many other points are comparably far down the list? What should I do before this? Here's a concrete point: if I have a beard and an N95, I will achieve more by shaving than by switching to a reusable mask. Shaving is pretty low cost (especially, conditionally shaving in the event of crisis), not a tradeoff with changing masks, but knowing to shave is important and competes with mental resources.
Here are two other advantages over paper masks: you say elsewhere that it is more cost effective than paper masks. If you are already committed to having a stock of masks, this makes it much less like a Pascal's Wager and more of free lunch. And I suspect that they are more comfortable, which is important for actually using them.
I think you're misunderstanding. The pitch here is to buy it now, not to wear it now. If there's another serious pandemic, wearing a slightly larger mask isn't going to cost many weirdness points.
TBF weirdness points did prevent me from wearing my fancy EnvoPro on my last flight, and sure enough I caught a cold, probably from the flight - so for that purpose a disposable would've been better.
The flexible fitted masks are probably far better than the disposable masks. Some studies indicated that disposables barely do anything, because they don't seal around the nose for many people. They work when fitted carefully by professional nurses in hospitals.
During the last pandemic people were sometimes not allowed to wear reusable respirators, but required to drop down to N95. This is pretty strong evidence that people think they are weird.
All the cases I can think of were for valved masks in situations that required everyone to be wearing unvalved masks; is that also what you're thinking about?
During the pandemic, the main function of the cheap masks was probably to protect other people a bit if you were infected, or even make them feel less scared (like airport security). They probably helped a bit over no mask.
A badly fitting disposable mask probably isn't going to do too much against an airborne pathogen if you are surrounded by it in sufficient quantity, but maybe it stopped the pathogen being in the air as much / stopped people touching their faces etc, or the masks made people feel safe and like they were doing something.
Proper respirators don't tend to filter exhaled air (so may let more nasties out easier) and may make people feel scared as they are anti security-theatre. You are actually well protected if they fit you properly but they would appear make other people unhappy / scared if they don't have one.
If there's another serious pandemic, wearing a slightly larger mask isn't going to cost many weirdness points.
I don't know, I felt too awkward to wear a big brightly colored respirator during COVID, even taking into account that I'm a weird guy (I walk around barefoot in cities, I post here) and I was making substantial sacrifices to avoid infection (isolating with my household for over a year). If it were clearly much worse than COVID I think it would be different, but in some cases (ex: a stealth pathogen) there might be a large difference between how worried I was and how I expected others to view it.
We don't need to shave ahead of time anyway (we can do it when the pandemic is already here), so it doesn't compete with mental resources now.
I don't doubt the conclusion, but I think we would be buying (life expectancy - age) life years instead of 1 life.
You're can substitute your own value for "what would I pay not to die", but unless your expected number of remaining life years is really low I doubt this changes much?
Also useful for filtering out the smoke from forest fires although it gets tedious to wear one all day for days in a row, so in addition to a mask it is nice to own an air purifier with a HEPA rating or a MERV rating for when you are indoors.
That's an interesting recommendation. I'm unfamiliar with buying reusable masks, do you know a good way to decide whether to buy a small, medium or large mask?
The best is to try them on and see how well they fit your particular face. But very roughly the bigger the distance between your chin and the bridge of your nose is the bigger a mask you need.
I have like 5 days of water saved for me/partner. I figure 2 days no water could happen under normal disaster situations (like 9/11 10 blocks away or something idk) but getting out into weeks is beyond my prepper aspirations. Does that track?
The masks you link to have an exhaust valve, which makes sense for the intended non-medical use cases, but in a pandemic scenario that means the mask will protect the wearer from infected others, but will not protect others from a (potentially unaware) infected wearer. Aside from the ethical implications of that, if one lives in a place like Massachusetts or California or New York, it is not likely to satisfy masking requirements. Do you have an alternative suggestion without the valve?
What if you wait to buy the same mask until the pandemic starts? Maybe the cost doubles, but rather than having to buy ten masks over a 100-year period, you only have to buy one.
I think cost much more than doubles: at the beginning of covid high-quality masks were essentially not available at all. If you imagine something like uncontained SARS I expect this would be even worse.
That 3M mask looks to be the same make and model as the one that I use for woodworking, which came from a local hardware store. Please support your local hardware store over Jeff Bezos if you can! (You might still need to order the right kind of filters online.)
This would have persuaded me to get a mask if I didn't already own one, and has persuaded me that I should get appropriate filters.
It would be easy to be nerd-sniped into listing all of the advantages and disadvantages of owning a mask and filters, but a major disadvantage that you didn't consider is the space that it takes up, not just physically but mentally (to remember where you put it). Again, it'd be easy to get nerd-sniped into a discussion of just how much time/effort the longterm storage of an item of this size takes, but I expect that this varies greatly from person to person. I suspect that this is the main impediment, for most people, against having items whose expected value lies in a small chance to be very useful.
Please support your local hardware store over Jeff Bezos if you can!
Why?
You might still need to order the right kind of filters online.
Standard p100 filters should be sold anywhere these masks are, so I doubt that would be needed.
Why?
That's a short question with a long answer. For brevity, we can just say that I'd prefer that money go to businesses which support a traditional retail model, which often include locally-owned small businesses, which often face competition within their niche, rather than supporting a company which isn't that - because this is (slightly) better for humankind in the long run.
If you disagree . . . well, the request still stands as a request.
Standard p100 filters should be sold anywhere these masks are, so I doubt that would be needed.
It seems that you're right - if you'll forgive the n=1 sample size, I can get P100 filters at the same store as the mask. This surprised me, as I'd expect that filters that are fine enough to be effective against viruses would be a separate and more specialized item than the filters which are used for industrial hazardous particle filtration.
Since I was surprised, I've done a little more digging. I'd like to hear more about why you expect P100 filters to be effective in a potential pandemic, and how effective you think that they will be.
P100 filters are tested against particles 0.3 microns in diameter. This is the same standard as N95 masks. Compare that to the size of viruses in a table of representative key viruses in a textbook, or the recent coronavirus. Yes, some viruses are big enough to be mechanically filtered; most aren't. Yet N95 masks are effective against smaller particles down to the size of a typical virus; this is achieved through methods other than mechanical filtration, such as electrostatic attraction. (Notably, under some conditions they become more effective as particle size decreases.) This study has a roughly similar setup for P100 rather than N95 respirators. It isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison because the particle type is different. However, it's noteworthy that (arbitrarily choosing a 100 nm particle, 30 L/min median inspiratory flow, taking the average of the different breaths/min tested) P100 filters do worse by a factor of about 10 than N95! This doesn't change much if you look at particles down to about 50 nm and up to about 200 nm (which is as high as the second study goes).
Perhaps whatever is done to filters to make them oilproof (which is what the "P" stands for) happens to impair their effectiveness against smaller particles? Maybe it interferes with the aforementioned electrostatic attraction?
Going from n=1 again, the store that stocks P100 filters doesn't carry N95 filter for that mask. Do you recommend P100 filters rather than N95 due to availability? Since we're using these filters outside of their rated specifications (we're interested in smaller particles), this might be a case where bigger numbers aren't actually better.
this is (slightly) better for humankind in the long run
We don't have to get into this here if you don't want to, but flagging that I'm not convinced of this.
It isn't quite an apples-to-apples comparison ... do worse by a factor of about 10
Thanks for looking into this! I am pretty skeptical of studies that don't explicitly compare the two options, because there are really quite a lot of variables that can go into measuring absolute effectiveness that are nicely factored out when you measure relative effectiveness.
The way it's supposed to work is that going from n95 to n100 should get you from 95% to 99.97% on the worst performing non-oilborne particle size, and then n100 to p100 would get you coverage for oilborne (which we don't expect to need for a pandemic, but is useful in industry). But I haven't looked into studies to verify that it does actually work that way in practice.
If you want more chance of getting a genuine mask compared to amazon, then find a local reputable business or chain in a town near you where tradespeople / contractors go. Preferably an authorised distributor.
Chances are that if you buy a mask from there with the ratings and markings that you want, then it will be legit if it is from a known brand, and have gone through third party testing by a competent authority. Contractors buy the masks all the time for themselves or their crews, so that they don’t get work related respiratory illnesses, have a long career, satisfy OSHA etc. and not get sued.
