OT: Covid-19 personal protection ideas, and related

[N_Cook]

Consulting a couple of medics about this, they seem to be as much in the
dark about this and just use what they are given.

With no hand-sanitizing gel available anywhere, use methylated spirits
or isopropal alchohol, decanted into a small bottle , to reduce any fire
hazard, when used in public places. My attempts at gelling meths just
ended up with snot/slime.

Converting a one-way valve-type dust mask , with strong cords around the
back of the head.
Cover the outer surface with micro-fibre cloth that you can spray
coronavirus-specific disinfectant to.
To hold the cloth in place:10 mm /3/8 inch silicone sleeving, length of
the periphery. Cut axially and staple the join, the bit of overlap
giving just the stretch to hold in place and pull out the ruckles from
curving the sleeving.

Converting over-the-specs type of basic plastic goggles to a closer fit.
Again the same sleeving. With a slivver of wood or something pushed
along inside the sleeving , punch a line of holes. Then lines of hotmelt
glue along the goggles edges, squashing the sleeving onto the glue, some
of it splurging thru the holes for holding the silicone in place.

Any other idea?

As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
to get going again?

Ignor ethe sig, cancelled for the duration, like all the other local
scicafs, talks series, repair cafes and similar presumably


--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
<http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm>

[peterw...@gmail.com]

a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus.
c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the healthcare infrastructure.
d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill.
e) But, again, not stop the spread.

As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction, must be at/over 60%. And it does not take much.

As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from spreading the disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets. Consider the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider exactly how a mask will screen it out of the air you are breathing. Similarly, goggles.

Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and sealed. Short of that, never mind.

So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary travel, eat well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[N_Cook]

On 17/03/2020 11:57, N_Cook wrote:
> As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
> likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
> a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
> to get going again?

from someone in the medical world

The local hospital has a very large medical electronics department who
keep all the
kit running with specialist engineers in various modalities. In the
anaesthetics department they have a museum/store of old kit which
includes anaesthetic and ICU variants of ventilator. I would suspect that
equipment is being serviced as we speak. In the past, excesses of
redundant equipment like this would go to 'the Third World' and vets.

So an Emergency Powers Act government requisition of all large-animal
ventillators from vets would make more sense than building new from a
currently next to zero manufacturing base, a concept put out to the UK
media.

[Michael Terrell]

I doubt that obsolete equipment will be allowed to be put back into service. Once the OEM stops supporting it, They cant be insured. Unless the UK system is extremely shoddy, they will not allow it to be used anywhere other than on a movie or TV sound stage. I have personally scraped thousands of pieces of medical electronics that all had a 1/4" hole drilled through the case and the man PC board. It is a process called 'Certified Destruction'.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-4, N_Cook wrote:

> On 17/03/2020 11:57, N_Cook wrote:
> > As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
> > likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
> > a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
> > to get going again?

Two doors down from my office was a Medical Maintenance shop that served two major acute care hospitals, Hahnemann University Hospital, in which basement it was, and St. Christopher's Hospital for Children that sent all its equipment over for servicing. Hahnemann is now closed, and the shop moved over to St. Chris. As Michael suggests, obsolete stuff was obsolete stuff. It would either be sold to 3rd-world nations for a nominal sum (typically, $1.00 per container load) or sent to a crushing yard with a paper-trail. Either method got it 'off the books' for insurance purposes.

I am in an interesting position. Drexel still has a medical school (on hiatus) that is my client, but the hospital is largely a ghost town - and COVID19 is not changing that. I am on orders from my company and owner to work from home when at all possible - not always the case. But, I have access to hand-sanitzer in bulk, toilet paper in bulk, and whatever sorts of other apparatus I might want. But, common sense, clean hands and no hugging strangers about covers it.

[John-Del]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:48:29 PM UTC-4, pf...@aol.com wrote:
and no hugging strangers about covers it.
>

That pretty much puts the kibosh on lap dances...

[peterw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC-4, John-Del wrote:
>
> That pretty much puts the kibosh on lap dances...

Those who engage in that sort of activity - well, my guess is that they really just don't care...

[et...@whidbey.com]

I certainly care. That's why I started wearing rubber suits when I do
lap dances.
Eric

[Michael Terrell]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 6:16:23 PM UTC-4, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>
> I certainly care. That's why I started wearing rubber suits when I do
> lap dances.

Doesn't that kill your tips? ;-)

[Jeff Layman]

On 17/03/20 15:01, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> a) It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
> b) 'Social Isolation' will slow, but not stop the spread of the virus.
> c) And the point of slowing it is to reduce the stress on the healthcare infrastructure.
> d) Which will allow for better care for those who are ill.
> e) But, again, not stop the spread.
>
> As to hand sanitizer - alcohol concentration, whatever the fraction, must be at/over 60%. And it does not take much.

I think you'll find it's >70% rather than 60%.

> As to masks, they help ONLY those who are already infected from spreading the disease from coughing, that is airborne droplets. Consider the size of a virus (smaller than a micron) and then consider exactly how a mask will screen it out of the air you are breathing. Similarly, goggles.

So all the health professionals helping to treat Covid-19 are
complaining about a shortage of masks because they don't want to infect
patients? I don't think I've heard so much nonsense from "experts" on TV
about use of masks. So this page is a waste of time?
<https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks>.
I just expand its use to other situations - if you are out in the street
and pass someone coughing, would not think you might have been better
off wearing a mask? Anyway, the sort of mask shown in that webpage looks
to me like a P1, and a P3 (possibly N95 in the USA?) will be much more
effective.

You get idiotic information such as here:
<https://www.livescience.com/face-mask-new-coronavirus.html>. Quote "A
more specialized mask, known as an N95 respirator, can protect against
the new coronavirus, also called SARS-CoV-2. The respirator is thicker
than a surgical mask, but neither Schaffner nor the Centers for Disease
Prevention and Control (CDC) recommend it for public use, at least not
at this point." Why not? "That's because, in part, it's challenging to
put on these masks and wear them for long periods of time, he said."
Junk, as later it's stated "Could they be of some use? Yes, but the
effect is likely to be modest," Schaffner said." If they can be of
*some* use, they should be used in the current situation. Anything that
helps to cut down transmission is better than nothing.

Of course a mask won't stop a particle the size of a virus, but who said
most particles coughed out are virus sized? In influenza, most particles
coughed out were in the 0.35 - 10 micron size
(<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22651099>). Most of these would be
caught by a decent mask.

And why do you think goggles won't help? Even ordinary glasses will help
a little by stopping particles going directly onto the eye.
Close-fitting goggles would be a lot better.

> Isolation suits are a different deal altogether, self-contained, and sealed. Short of that, never mind.

If you don;t want to use any PPE, fine, but don't recommend it to others.

> So, social isolation, common sense, clean hands, limit unnecessary travel, eat well.

No argument there, except I would use "stop" instead of "limit". If it's
unnecessary, why do it at all?

--

Jeff

[N_Cook]

One consideration is the gelling agent must reduce the alcohol content
proportion.

Part of my mask design is the outer micro-fibre cloth , as used for only
an hour is damp, from the disinfectant spray, which I assume is better
at trapping aerosols than dry.
A functional note, the loop of silicone sleeving requires 4 small thin
C-clips to reliably hold the cloth around the underlying dust mask.
I sliced up some crimp connector plastic sheathing.

[Jeff Layman]

I think there is some misconception about the need for it to be a gel.
Of course, a gel stays on the hand for longer, but really even a
non-viscous solution will do the job if you make sure you wipe all your
hands' surfaces carefully. I make my own; see final line here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_sanitizer#Composition>

> Part of my mask design is the outer micro-fibre cloth , as used for only
> an hour is damp, from the disinfectant spray, which I assume is better
> at trapping aerosols than dry.
> A functional note, the loop of silicone sleeving requires 4 small thin
> C-clips to reliably hold the cloth around the underlying dust mask.
> I sliced up some crimp connector plastic sheathing.

That sounds sensible. Anything which adds to the effectiveness of a mask
is worthwhile.

You might also want to consider close-fitting googles (see Screwfix ones
which hold on with an elasticated band around the back of the head - not
one which uses ear bars).

--

Jeff

[gregz]

A mask helps prevent you from touching your mouth area with finger.

Greg

[peterw...@gmail.com]

OK, Guys and Gals - time to put a few facts on the table, if you will have them:

a) Nothing short of total isolation will stop COVID19, and then only if that total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incubation period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up against the vaccine development time-line.

b) Social isolation, hand santizers and any other palliative measures are not intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.

c) Nothing short of an effective virus will actually 'stop' the disease, and that is no less than a year away.

d) There are anti-virals, but unlike antibiotics, they are not very effective and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).

e) The virus is able to live for hours to weeks on ordinary clothing, ordinary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bit longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, with the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Please do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because' some period of time went by.

f) Which brings us to masks and goggles. Against "sneezed droplets", has been suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wearer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.

g) These "sneezed droplets" will still get onto shoes, surfaces remain as micro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.

So, unless one undresses into a laundry bag on one outside stoop, wears sanitizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower when home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nailing Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate *together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make clear.

Try not to give bad advice conveying a false sense of security or effectiveness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincerely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining. Please.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

Correction to c): That would be Vaccine.....

[N_Cook]

Where does the doseage effect come into play?
Where a medic , despite normal PPE practices, gets infected, it seems to
be more acute in its effect, presumably because ne/she has had multiple
sources of infection over days and weeks.
If that is the case, then on the other end of the scale, any reduction
of the doseage to a joe-public person rarely coming into contact with
the virus, would be advantageous, ie reducing the doseage, perhaps
redusing the degree of any infection.

[John-Del]

I wondered the exact same thing when I first read of the Chinese doctor who died of Covid19 despite being young and otherwise healthy.

Others have reported the effect being like a cold or even less, so it makes me wonder if the level of exposure is like having a single trooper storming a barricade, or thousands.

Worse, it's speculated that those that have recovered from Covid19 are not immune from reinfection.

Weird times.

[peterw...@gmail.com]

https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number

Please quit speculating and get some knowledge.

There are two (2) strains of COVID19 (at least) in circulation. Similar enough that immunity should cross between.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/03/15/can-you-get-infected-by-coronavirus-twice-how-does-covid-19-immunity-work/#dd8a5695c0f8

But this virus is too new and the tests, bluntly, too crude to be fully certain.

Generally an otherwise healthy individual does not get the same virus twice. But, as with flue, viruses mutate and change about as often as some here change their underwear, and more often than they change their socks. So one may get many cases of the "flu", just not exactly the same one twice.

Once again, this venue demonstrates that speculation, false information, poor logic, false equivalencies, and the need to do things without encumbrance by the thought process are the preferred means for any action, or an excuse for otherwise wretched behavior. If you think I am being snarky - bad information, information based on poor or false understandings, and unsupported advice in this case is, bluntly, fucking around with the lives of Human Beings - and if that is not enough to get one to simply stop doing it....

[peterw...@gmail.com]

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-myths.html

[N_Cook]

It will be interesting to see how much the mortality rate drops, when
antibody testing of the more general public comes in and all the minor
cases are addid in.
I know someone in the UK who probably had "atypical" Covid19, he just
put down to food poisoning and ordinary flu, not the pandemic.

Mid Feb 2020 an extended period of disabling dry coughing. Because of
the early date and no fever/temperature/tiredness or headaches , he
dismissed it.
Also about 3 days before he'd serious diarrhoea, intense tiredness and
nausea for a day but not actually vomiting, eating next to nothing, put
down to food poisoning as no other symptoms. He could not think of a
source of such poisoning though, as totally normal food consumption.
About 2 clear days between the "food poisoning" and the unremitting
coughing,so assumed it was separate issues.
Now there is more detailed symptomology out there, there is such as this.


https://www.sciencealert.com/latest-research-on-covid-19-reveals-the-pattern-of-symptoms-to-watch-for
Early symptoms could also include diarrhoea

The new study also found that patients who ended up in the ICU had more
abdominal pain and appetite loss than patients with milder coronavirus
cases.

The researchers noted some early, "atypical" symptoms as well: They
found that 14 patients developed diarrhoea and nausea one to two days
before their fever or difficulty breathing set in.

This might suggest another way the virus is spreading. According to the
study, one patient with abdominal symptoms was sent to the surgical
department, since the symptoms didn't align with typical coronavirus cases.

That person went on to infect at least four other hospitalised patients
– all of whom showed "atypical abdominal symptoms" as well – and at
least 10 healthcare workers.

[Fox's Mercantile]

And then, you have this.
Where I live, I'm surrounded by fuckwits that think that since
they believe in Jesus, they're immune to this stuff.

So they refuse to do anything to prevent the spread of the
disease. Because, you know, it only affect heathens.

I hope they all get bone cancer.

--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

[Jeff Layman]

On 19/03/20 11:20, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> OK, Guys and Gals - time to put a few facts on the table, if you will have them:

Facts? Let's have some links to what you are stating. Surely that's not
too much to ask.

> a) Nothing short of total isolation will stop COVID19, and then only if that total isolation extends for considerably more than the two-week incubation period. Times bandied about by 'the experts' are long enough to push up against the vaccine development time-line.

Even total isolation won't stop COVID-19 if there are asymptomatic
carriers. Unless, of course, you are proposing we live out the rest of
our time as hermits. So your argument is nonsense as well as spurious.
See my reply to (c).

> b) Social isolation, hand santizers and any other palliative measures are not intended to stop the virus, but only to flatten the infection curve such that the health systems are able to cope with it.

I suppose a posting full of junk will have one correct statement in it.

> c) Nothing short of an effective vaccine will actually 'stop' the disease, and that is no less than a year away

Bullshit. There are many compounds, already used as medicinal agents in
other conditions, which in early testing appear to have antiviral
efficacy against coronavirus. It's about time medical science grabbed
the bull by the horns and started throwing every compound we have
against viruses which have no vaccine, while we try to develop one.
Don't forget that there is no usefully effective vaccine against HIV,
but the virus has been rendered much less of a threat by a mixture of
antiviral chemicals. We really should be doing this with new viruses
which appear out of the blue, and perhaps with all viruses which might
be considered a threat to human health in future. A vaccine is a year
away; we should therefore try anything which can treat this virus while
we are waiting for it.

> d) There are anti-virals, but unlike antibiotics, they are not very effective and come with lots of baggage (side-effects).

See above. If you are dying from Covid-19, side-effects are the least of
your worries. And how do you know they are "not very effective" if they
have yet to be tested in a properly run trial?

> e) The virus is able to live for hours to weeks on ordinary clothing, ordinary surfaces and so forth. It is able to live as an airborne virus for a bit longer depending on ambient conditions. NOTE: "Weeks" is speculative, with the longest absolutely proven survival being ~80 hours to-date. Please do not time it with a stop-watch and think that one is safe 'just because' some period of time went by.

Weeks? Stop spreading FUD. "New coronavirus stable for hours on
surfaces"
<https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-coronavirus-stable-hours-surfaces>
At worse, it was a few days:
"The scientists found that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
2 (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in aerosols for up to three hours, up to
four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three
days on plastic and stainless steel."

> f) Which brings us to masks and goggles. Against "sneezed droplets", has been suggested. Said "sneezed droplets" can (and will) still get onto the wearer of these devices, including clothing, ears, hair, and so forth.

If you are wearing a mask and cough, most of the particles will be
caught by the mask. If you have no mask, see comment under (g) to get an
idea of how many particles could be spread. As I pointed out in my first
reply, particles of the size in (g) will get caught by a good mask.
People need to be shown how to use a decent (N95) mask, although
anything is better than nothing at helping stop spreading particles.

> g) These "sneezed droplets" will still get onto shoes, surfaces remain as micro particles in the air, become bound to dust, and so forth.

We are talking about coughing, not sneezing, with COVID-19. There
appears to be some difference between them in dissemination of droplets:
"Published data have suggested that sneezing may produce as many as 40
000 droplets between 0.5–12 μm in diameter that may be expelled at
speeds up to 100 m/s, whereas coughing may produce up to 3000 droplet
nuclei, about the same number as talking for five minutes. Despite the
variety in size, large droplets comprise most of the total volume of
expelled respiratory droplets. Further data on the behaviour of droplet
dispersion in naturally generated aerosols are needed."
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281//>

Note: "Despite the variety in size, *large droplets* (my emphasis)
comprise most of the total volume of expelled respiratory droplets."

I could not find a reasonable reference to the time expelled particles
stay suspended in air.

> So, unless one undresses into a laundry bag on one outside stoop, wears sanitizer-saturated booties and gloves on the way to an immediate shower when home, "and so forth", those masks and goggles are about as effective as nailing Jell-O. Some material may remain on the board, but most of it does not.

Nonsense. A typical flippant response from a troll. I've provided a link
to an good source on the use of masks (WHO)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is
the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with
a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate
*together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work.
Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete - as
just a glance out a window, or 5 minutes listening to the news will make
clear

More flippant trolling for a very serious subject.

> Try not to give bad advice conveying a false sense of security or effectiveness. Worst of all, if you believe it yourself and are giving it sincerely. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Learn something before opining. Please.

You should try following your own advice, troll. I have provided
references from recognised sources. Where are yours?

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

On 19/03/20 14:08, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-myths.html

You sure know how to find the best links (not...).

I'd already commented about this website in my first reply to you. I
urge those who think this troll knows what he is talking about to look
through the list of staff here
<https://www.livescience.com/62824-about-us.html> and see how many of
these "medical" experts are qualified to write about "virus myths".

--

Jeff

[peterw...@gmail.com]

Common sense isn't.

One cannot fix stupid.

Jeff, thank you for setting such a clear example as one who is entirely unencumbered by the thought process.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA.

[Jeff Layman]

On 20/03/20 01:30, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> Common sense isn't.
>
> One cannot fix stupid.
>
> Jeff, thank you for setting such a clear example as one who is entirely unencumbered by the thought process.

You could learn something here:
<https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56>

But you won't, because you are a troll. I'm not wasting my time on you
any longer.

Killfiled (well, you get the prize - the booby prize, that is - as the
first person I've killfiled in this NG)

--

Jeff

[legg]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 07:54:26 -0000 (UTC), gregz <ze...@comcast.net>
wrote:

<snip>

>
>A mask helps prevent you from touching your mouth area with finger.
>

Check out 3D printing of face masks.

These are design files developed by health care
professionals, to include eye shields.

Cooperative computing at its finest.

RL

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 19 March 2020 11:20:32 UTC, pf...@aol.com wrote:

> Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and Children of All Ages - this is the first time mankind has been confronted with a dangerous disease with a long (and silent) incubation period, a relatively high infection rate *together* with a great deal more understanding of how infections work. Every response created prior to COVID19 is instantaneously obsolete

you actually think no-one planned for a pandemic for which we have no medical cure? C'mon.

[N_Cook]

Silly easy tip that emerged from Scottish Gov TV piece today.
Have a bottle of sanitizer , or as that is Scotch Mist around here, a
small bottle of methylated/denatured spirit , hidden but easy access
near the front door but on the outside of yur house. Everyone who enters
uses some on their hands before touching the door and entering.

[N_Cook]

On 17/03/2020 11:57, N_Cook wrote:

> Any other idea?

>
> As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
> likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
> a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
> to get going again?

Someone must have read this thread
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52094193>

Coronavirus: Tech firm Bloom Energy fixes broken US ventilators
By David Molloy Technology reporter

30 March 2020

A Californian company that usually makes green-energy fuel cells is due
to deliver 170 repaired ventilators to Los Angeles later on Monday after
transforming its manufacturing process.

An engineer at Bloom Energy downloaded the service manual and taught
himself how to dismantle and rebuild them in a day, the Los Angeles
Times reported. ...

[John-Del]

Elsewhere in California, personal injury lawyers are boning up on the technical aspects of ventilators in case one or more of the repaired life saving ventilators should fail.

In the U.S., good deeds rarely go unpunished.

[Ron D.]

Bloom has been asked to repair about 200 Ventilators that have been sitting in a warehouse in my state. So, obsolete ventilators sitting somewhere is possible.

==

We heard that there are disinfecting gizmos being made.

I wonder if these ideas would work:

1. Germicidal lamp. e.g. from an HVAC system.
2. Hydrogen peroxide, say 17%. Delivery methods: nebulizer, hand spray

Both are hazardous. I built a UV-C light source >500 W probably for work. neat design. The lamp was about 8" x 8" made from a snaked 1 cm tube. power source was a very large neon lamp transformer. Eye and skin damage possible.

I use 17% Hydrogen peroxide at home to clean up blood stains. It works a lot better than 3%. Your skin will turn white. baking soda is use for accidental skin contact.

Can the longer wavelength UV lamp be used for detection? Somebody gave be a UV lamp that could be used for body fluid detection such as urine.

re-using any disposable mask has to really be a problem.

I was watching a Korean doctor talking about mask usage and he said you should wear one. He also said that if the virus gets trapped on the outside of the mask, breathing raises the temperature and humidity and may kill the virus.

The message of not wearing the masks is to make more available for health care workers and discourage hording.

I've used the 3M 8511 at home, so I have an almost full box. I also have a half-face cartridge respirator.

[Clifford Heath]

On 17/3/20 10:57 pm, N_Cook wrote:
> With no hand-sanitizing gel available anywhere, use methylated spirits
> or isopropal alchohol, decanted into a small bottle , to reduce any fire
> hazard, when used in public places. My attempts at gelling meths just
> ended up with snot/slime.

20% water, 80% alcohol is just as effective as 100% alcohol, but doesn't
evaporate as fast.

Or use some glycerol.

Or use some Aloe Vera, if you can find some growing (we have lots). Peel
the fleshy leaves and the inside is transparent goop you can mash. It's
a good moisturiser, too.

> Converting a one-way valve-type dust mask , with strong cords around the
> back of the head.

Most methods for making anti-viral masks DO NOT WORK. There are some
good studies showing what does work, and how well. This is one example:

<https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/>

> As I was never anything to do with medical electronics, are hospitals
> likely to have a store of non-working ventilators,for parts-doning, that
> a group of volunteer retired electronic repairers could volunteer to try
> to get going again?

Dunno, but Medtronic has opened the design documents for its certified
products:

<https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/30/medtronic-is-sharing-its-portable-ventilator-design-specifications-and-code-for-free-to-all/>

<https://www.medtronic.com/us-en/e/open-files.html>

Clifford Heath