Read The Source - Blog Posts

Wearing any type of face covering, even if it’s just a bandana, is vitally important to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.  Please wear a mask.  I would highly recommend reading this paper on the efficiency and potential effectiveness of cloth masks.  I’ve copied the conclusion down below, but I urge you to read the article for yourself; please never accept something just because you saw it in a tumblr post (or any social media post).

Conclusion of the article:

“In conclusion, we have measured the filtration efficiencies of various commonly available fabrics for use as cloth masks in filtering particles in the significant (for aerosol-based virus transmission) size range of ∼10 nm to ∼6 μm and have presented filtration efficiency data as a function of aerosol particle size. We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10 nm to 6.0 μm range, provided they have a tight weave. Higher threads per inch cotton with tighter weaves resulted in better filtration efficiencies. For instance, a 600 TPI cotton sheet can provide average filtration efficiencies of 79 ± 23% (in the 10 nm to 300 nm range) and 98.4 ± 0.2% (in the 300 nm to 6 μm range). A cotton quilt with batting provides 96 ± 2% (10 nm to 300 nm) and 96.1 ± 0.3% (300 nm to 6 μm). Likely the highly tangled fibrous nature of the batting aids in the superior performance at small particle sizes. Materials such as silk and chiffon are particularly effective (considering their sheerness) at excluding particles in the nanoscale regime (<∼100 nm), likely due to electrostatic effects that result in charge transfer with nanoscale aerosol particles. A four-layer silk (used, for instance, as a scarf) was surprisingly effective with an average efficiency of >85% across the 10 nm −6 μm particle size range. As a result, we found that hybrid combinations of cloths such as high threads-per-inch cotton along with silk, chiffon, or flannel can provide broad filtration coverage across both the nanoscale (<300 nm) and micron scale (300 nm to 6 μm) range, likely due to the combined effects of electrostatic and physical filtering. Finally, it is important to note that openings and gaps (such as those between the mask edge and the facial contours) can degrade the performance. Our findings indicate that leakages around the mask area can degrade efficiencies by ∼50% or more, pointing out the importance of “fit”. Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better “fit” and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. In summary, we find that the use of cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of particles in the aerosol size range.”

Source again for if you don’t want to scroll up: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

Of course, a simple cloth mask is nowhere near as effective as a respiratory mask such as N95 masks, and neither even touches the effectiveness of a full-body protective suit, but (a) not everyone has access to a fully-body protective suit or even to an N95 mask and (b) any face covering is better than no face covering.  So if all you have to cover your face is a bandana, please cover your face with a bandana.  If you have access to higher-quality cloth masks, utilize higher-quality cloth masks.  If you have access to N95 masks, wear an N95 mask.  Do as much as you can to keep the virus from spreading.

(Also please note the significantly higher risk if your mask does not fit; obviously this risk would be higher with bandanas, which are not typically made to fit snugly to the contours of one’s face.  Still, bandanas are better than nothing.)

Stay safe! <3

I feel this could have been designed better.