Because best data to date is that sterilization procedures damage the mask in ways that render it unsafe.
When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so, the masks won’t go in the trash. In the meantime, I’d you have the masks to spare, you -should- be using them safely. Masks are pointless if you use them in a way that will get you sick.
Says something about our society, though, that doctors at Stanford can use a mask per chat "just in case", while just across the bay at Oakland Kaiser nurses are working with multiple confirmed coronavirus patients on a single mask...
It seems to me that pretty much every society has struggled to deal with this. Perhaps because it isn't something that has many reasonable direct analogues in our collective experience?
It is very easy to spot deficiencies after the fact. Much harder to spot them before.
I don't think it says that at all. You can't cherry pick two particular institutions and draw some sort of conclusion about "society". In this particular case it seems like the entire conclusion is based on nothing other than preconceived notions of what reactions "Stanford" and "Oakland" trigger in the reader. There doesn't seem to be any particular details about the actual situation at either location and how those institutions are managed.
If anything his comment reinforces negative stereotypes about the two regions. So many people in the Bay Area look down on Oakland like it’s a blighted disease-ridden wasteland and think the peninsula is some kind of haven for the rich and well off.
For reference, one of those institutions is in Palo Alto and the other is in Oakland. While Oakland has been massively gentrified it's still much more affordable to live in compared with Palo Alto.
No, THAT’s untrue. Look at your own link. You can sterilize the mask to preserve its filtration ability, but no one has shown it maintains fit. A poorly fit N95 is no protection at all, which is why hc workers get formally fit tested when starting a new gig. Which is why That link makes “no one knows what it does to fit” one of its top line bulletpoints.
There’s no plausible mechanism of action for masks under which this is true. A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of particles which is less than the kind of hazmat spacesuit with face shield and positive air pressure you’d ideally be wearing if working with someone with Ebola or similar. Maybe it really is impossible to get proper fit on a reused mask. Perhaps it’s only as good as a normal surgical mask which blocks just under 90% of virus sized particles.
Every reduction in the amount of virus that gets into your lungs makes it less likely that you’ll get infected and if infected gives your immune system more time to ramp up. That’s why people care about viral load. Running through someone’s cough is less likely to kill you than being in a small poorly ventilated room with someone coughing uncontrollably for minutes at a time.
You seem confused. This is a complicated topic. That CDC says sterilizing masks is not a safe practice, but in a crisis it's better than having no mask.
> When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so
There's the data and very clear recommendations by the CDC on when and how to do it. Whats' the confusing part? I don't think anyone is suggesting this approach during non-crisis times.
When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so, the masks won’t go in the trash. In the meantime, I’d you have the masks to spare, you -should- be using them safely. Masks are pointless if you use them in a way that will get you sick.