Covid-19 and your business?

MBR wrote in post #19106645
Remember a mask only reduces the risk to others should the person wearing it be infected, a mask does not protect the wearer.

Not entirely a true statement. In a recent study, over 1200 firefighters in the SFFD (San Francisco) were tested for COVID over a prolonged period of time, and only THREE out of the >1200 had ever acquired COVID, in spite of the proximity of living together for days at a time, and in spite of numerous exposures to COVID patients in the course of performing their duties.

A N95 with valve will prevent INHALATION of 95% of things by the wearer, but it fails to protect others when the wearer is infected.

An N9 with no valve will provide 95% bi-directional protection, albeit imperfect protection when not properly worn. A standard non-surgical N95 (or similar) respirator can be worn to help reduce thoseworkers’ exposure to patient-generated airborne viruses and bacteria, but these lack any resistance to fluids.
A surgical grade N95 provides a greater level of protection than industrial N95 masks. Within limits...experience indicates that respirators can function within their design specifications for 8 hours of continuous or intermittent use. Then they need replacement, which is behind some of the complaints voiced by those working in healthcare settings and are told to reuse PPE due to shortages.

An additional problem is the existence of COUNTERFEIT N95 masks!

"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has become aware of a counterfeit N95 Respirator on the market. While the TC number and private label holder (KOSTO) are valid, this unapproved unit can be identified by the misspelling of NIOSH on the front of the respirator. "

Wilt wrote in post #19107087
The HOPE for herd immunity...if 1.5% of the US are confirmed to have had virus to date, and we assume truth behind quantification that '40% of those with virus have no symptom', then really 12,500,000 have had the virus, not merely the 5,000,000 confirmed cases to date.
The COST of 12,500,000 getting antibodies therefore is 160,000 lives lost to date. So in order to attain 200,000,000 in US (60% of population) to have herd immunity requires 16X more people to die, or 2,560,000 total deaths -- at that ASSUMES that antibodies last. One study has shown 60% antibody loss within 4 months...I hope that does not prove truy, because herd immunity is not achievable. Scientists have already abandoned the concept of natural herd immunity; only vaccines might achieve that goal, as losses of life are too great otherwise.

Yes. There can be no herd immunity without a vaccine. No reputable immunologists speaks of "herd immunity" without a vaccine. Herd immunity has never, ever been achieved without a vaccine or some other immense human effort (such as draining swamps or mass use of insecticide). Humanity cannot die our way to herd immunity with this disease any more than humanity ever died our way to herd immunity with smallpox or polio.

Wilt wrote in post #19107089
Not entirely a true statement. In a recent study, over 1200 firefighters in the SFFD (San Francisco) were tested for COVID over a prolonged period of time, and only THREE out of the >1200 had ever acquired COVID, in spite of the proximity of living together for days at a time, and in spite of numerous exposures to COVID patients in the course of performing their duties.

A N95 with valve will prevent INHALATION of 95% of things by the wearer, but if fails to protect others when the wearer is infected.
An N9 with no valve will provide 95% bi-directional protection, albeit imperfect protection when not properly worn. A standard non-surgical N95 (or similar) respirator can be worn to help reduce thoseworkers’ exposure to patient-generated airborne viruses and bacteria, but these lack any resistance to fluids. A surgical grade N95 provides a greater level of protection than industrial N95 masks. Within limits...experience indicates that respirators can function within their design specifications for 8 hours of continuous or intermittent use. Then they need replacement, which is some of the complaints voiced by those working in healthcare settings and are told to reuse PPE.

An additional problem is the existence of COUNTERFEIT N95 masks!

"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has become aware of a counterfeit N95 Respirator on the market. While the TC number and private label holder (KOSTO) are valid, this unapproved unit can be identified by the misspelling of NIOSH on the front of the respirator. "

Something to remember as well: "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."

Much of the test-produced information about the efficacy and use of various masks is predicated on a worst-case scenario: Medical workers in a covid-19 ward. In that case, the presence of a continuously heavy dose of covid-19 virus is assumed. In that case, perfect protection with perfect protocol is required.

But that's not the case with the average lay person. If we follow simple procedures of avoiding enclosed spaces, keeping social distance, avoiding large gatherings (particularly indoors)--basically avoiding rebreathing other people's exhalation--we will rarely encounter a heavy dose of covid-19. When I make a trip to Home Depot, I might pass within six feet of one person with covid-19, and I will likely brush past him too quickly to encounter an infectious dose of his disease.

"Might" and "likely," I said. I'll still wear a mask because even though the risk is low, the weight of the risk is heavy. But the fact that lay people will rarely encounter a heavy dose of the disease means we will vary rarely need the most perfect protection.

With regard to "counterfeit" masks, I consider them the same way I consider "counterfeit" batteries: A battery marked "Canon" but not marketed by Canon is counterfeit. A battery marked Wasabi or STK is not counterfeit.

There is a difference between a mask that is illegally marked with branding and certification that it does not have authority to use, and a mask that is properly made but yet doesn't have those markings. It can be "qualified, although not certified."

And then there are reports like this one... https://science.thewir​e.in …asks-cdsco-bis-standards/

"Bhattacharya’s team jury-rigged one using an air-pollution monitor. They then tested their device on masks from established N95 manufacturers, like Magnum, and found the results to be reliable.

But when the team began testing other purported N95 masks, they were surprised. Some of the masks were “nowhere close to N95,” Bhattacharya said.

These poor-quality masks filtered only some 60-80% of 0.3-micron particles, putting healthcare workers at risk of infection. Intrigued, Bhattacharya began scouring online marketplaces for more N95 masks. He found many of them were indulging in false advertising.

For example, masks that were only effective against particles larger than 3 microns – which would work against bacteria but not virus aerosols — were labelled N95. Other N95 respirators claimed to be washable. Bhattacharya said this is unlikely because most such masks use electrostatic charge to trap small particles.

“You will kill it if you wash it, because it will lose the charge,” he said.

Still others claimed to be certified by agencies that don’t certify masks."

Wilt wrote in post #19107530
And then there are reports like this one... https://science.thewir​e.in …asks-cdsco-bis-standards/

"Bhattacharya’s team jury-rigged one using an air-pollution monitor. They then tested their device on masks from established N95 manufacturers, like Magnum, and found the results to be reliable.

But when the team began testing other purported N95 masks, they were surprised. Some of the masks were “nowhere close to N95,” Bhattacharya said.

These poor-quality masks filtered only some 60-80% of 0.3-micron particles, putting healthcare workers at risk of infection. Intrigued, Bhattacharya began scouring online marketplaces for more N95 masks. He found many of them were indulging in false advertising.

For example, masks that were only effective against particles larger than 3 microns – which would work against bacteria but not virus aerosols — were labelled N95. Other N95 respirators claimed to be washable. Bhattacharya said this is unlikely because most such masks use electrostatic charge to trap small particles.

“You will kill it if you wash it, because it will lose the charge,” he said.

Still others claimed to be certified by agencies that don’t certify masks."

I noticed that article was only about miscellaneous companies that have popped up in India.

But it points back to my rant that no effort has been made to encourage increasing the number of US companies that could have begun ramping up to produce certifiable masks...which should have been six months ago.

It's a good thing the country knew how to ramp up for WWII. If we had been following the same kind of governmental policies in 1940 that we've been following since Eisenhower, we'd all be speaking German today.

RDKirk wrote in post #19108130
I noticed that article was only about miscellaneous companies that have popped up in India.

But it points back to my rant that no effort has been made to encourage increasing the number of US companies that could have begun ramping up to produce certifiable masks...which should have been six months ago.

It's a good thing the country knew how to ramp up for WWII. If we had been following the same kind of governmental policies in 1940 that we've been following since Eisenhower, we'd all be speaking German today.

We see LOTS of ads in many places for face masks...eBay, Amazon, to name two. Just HOW are we to know if the products advertised are truly EFFECTIVE? They could be just as bad as what were found in India. In the early part of pandemic, substandard products were shipped to organizations in the US who had the capacity to test samples, and to REJECT THEM. How is the layman suppose to know they purchase effective masks?

Wilt wrote in post #19108170
We see LOTS of ads in many places for face masks...eBay, Amazon, to name two. Just HOW are we to know if the products advertised are truly EFFECTIVE? They could be just as bad as what were found in India. In the early part of pandemic, substandard products were shipped to organizations in the US who had the capacity to test samples, and to REJECT THEM. How is the layman suppose to know they purchase effective masks?

At least we know that China can make proper masks. But we should not have to depend on China for such simple, yet essential PPE.

But it points back to my rant that no effort has been made to encourage increasing the number of US companies that could have begun ramping up to produce certifiable masks...which should have been six months ago.

It's a good thing the country knew how to ramp up for WWII. If we had been following the same kind of governmental policies in 1940 that we've been following since Eisenhower, we'd all be speaking German today.

I feel like I just said that.

There are people around the world thinking seriously about how to innovate the mask concept, and they've got some prototypes that look very promising. But innovation seems to be lacking in the US...nobody in government seems to recall how the Jeep came about.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=fcva1zv-szI

Back on topic, somebody started a thread about wedding photography in today's setting. I replied with this

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19108418

Taking the advice of one doctor with a lot of covid-19 experience in what he has bought for himself, I've bought one of these room air purifiers for my studio. It uses both HEPA filtration and UV light, and it has a throughput suitable for the space I've got it in. It's also not too loud. I think, though, that I'll get two to combat dead air spaces in the area, running one all the time and turning on the second right after a client leaves.

And I'll still have everyone except the person in front of the camera wearing masks and taking all the other precautions.

https://www.amazon.com …_asin_title?ie=​UTF8&psc=1

RDKirk wrote in post #19108865
Taking the advice of one doctor with a lot of covid-19 experience in what he has bought for himself, I've bought one of these room air purifiers for my studio. It uses both HEPA filtration and UV light, and it has a throughput suitable for the space I've got it in. It's also not too loud. I think, though, that I'll get two to combat dead air spaces in the area, running one all the time and turning on the second right after a client leaves.

And I'll still have everyone except the person in front of the camera wearing masks and taking all the other precautions.

https://www.amazon.com …_asin_title?ie=​UTF8&psc=1

A UV-C light is a very good air sanitizer, what pathogens it doesn't kill upon exposure it will damage them to the point they cannot replicate, that stated if you really want a studio that is very safe medically, look into buying an electrostatic air cleaner.

A EAC uses a assembly of thin wires and plates, the wires charge any particles passing by them, the plates are charged of the opposite polarity which causes the particles to be attracted to the plates where they stick and remain until the "cells" are washed out.

I installed one in my old home a long time back, it not only greatly reduced the dust and grit from the air pollution, it also made the home odor free, I could cook up a dinner of sliced rib-eye steak hoagies with onions, which can stink up a home even with the range hood on high, after I installed the EAC all of the odor caused by cooking was removed within an hour, versus lasting many hours often overnight.

After a while my wife and I realized we where not getting colds as often as before either, my son was in grammar school at the time and it seemed he was bringing some kind of cold every few weeks during flu season and we often got sick as well, that ceased after installing the systems.

They are not inexpensive but in my opinion are well worth their cost.

MBR wrote in post #19117332
A UV-C light is a very good air sanitizer, what pathogens it doesn't kill upon exposure it will damage them to the point they cannot replicate, that stated if you really want a studio that is very safe medically, look into buying an electrostatic air cleaner.

A EAC uses a assembly of thin wires and plates, the wires charge any particles passing by them, the plates are charged of the opposite polarity which causes the particles to be attracted to the plates where they stick and remain until the "cells" are washed out.

I installed one in my old home a long time back, it not only greatly reduced the dust and grit from the air pollution, it also made the home odor free, I could cook up a dinner of sliced rib-eye steak hoagies with onions, which can stink up a home even with the range hood on high, after I installed the EAC all of the odor caused by cooking was removed within an hour, versus lasting many hours often overnight.

After a while my wife and I realized we where not getting colds as often as before either, my son was in grammar school at the time and it seemed he was bringing some kind of cold every few weeks during flu season and we often got sick as well, that ceased after installing the systems.

They are not inexpensive but in my opinion are well worth their cost.

I've given that consideration, but unfortunately our house (like many in this part of the country) is not built with air return ducts from each room directly back to the furnace. Rather, they depend on return air wending its way under doors and down hallways to a central intake in the door of the HVAC closet. That means the contaminated air from the front "public area" of the house must drift through most of the house to get to the furnace at the rear of the house.

I am already set to close off the "public space" from the rest of the house for a variety of reasons, so I plan to use room air cleaners to clean the air closest to the sources of contamination.

One issue for me is having to keep my face covered. I've always depended a great deal on facial communication, which is really the primary reason I use a tripod or camera stand whenever possible. I prefer to get my face out from behind the camera.

This is vital to me when photographing children, because I've found they depend on facial communication even more than adults do.

So I believe in wearing a mask, but it's a definite hindrance in what I want to do. I know there are a number of clear masks being innovated in Europe, but the big problem, of course, is getting a mask tested and mass produced. Here is one that could be made effective with a better seal, particularly at the temples. The filter surface is the stretch of material under the chin...that should be made out of an effective material. This is a design I'd like to see worked on.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=G8bxuoyr1eQ

Nice addition to the typical face mask...that one not only protects from direct spray, but also adds protection against virus riding in tiny airborne droplets that would be inhaled, which is absent in most clear face masks.

Been browsing the job ads for work and I'm seeing listings for product photogrpahers with strong skills for social media platforms along with video editing capabilities. These positions are listed at $14-$25/hour.

ra40 wrote in post #19126938
Been browsing the job ads for work and I'm seeing listings for product photogrpahers with strong skills for social media platforms along with video editing capabilities. These positions are listed at $14-$25/hour.

And in southern California, at that.