Coronavirus
Technology Solutions
Mask Revenues will Depend on the Yearly Usage by
Various Individuals
Logic, Facts, and Niche Expertise Should
Determine Mask Selection
Ultramasx also has an Electrically Ventilated
Mask
______________________________________________________________________________
Mask Revenues will Depend on the Yearly Usage by
Various Individuals
One of the major factors in assessing the future
market for masks is the number of hours of use
per year for each wearer. This depends first of
all on the risk reduction sought by the wearer.
There are some willing to take high risks and
avoid masks completely.
Those who are making mask choices based on risk
reduction will make decisions based on the
positivity rate at any point in time Two years
from now their mask usage might be down
considerably from that at the height of the
pandemic.
Another factor is the hours of usage per year.
Even after the pandemic subsides, air pollution
will be a variable. Hundreds of millions of
people in Asia will wear masks on days when
there is a high smog level.
Another factor is the environment. An individual
on a subway has a greater incentive to wear a
mask than when he is walking in the park.
Usage is greatly impacted by the work
requirements. Masks are needed for many hours
per year by personnel in meat packing plants.
But sales executives are likely to have similar
needs.
Here is a brief analysis of the range of masks
needs measured in terms of low and high hours
per year for both business and personal
activities. For children the two categories
would be personal and school.
Here are estimates for a Worker at meat
processing plant with the total number of hours
spent and the number of hours where a mask would
be worn.
So at this point in the pandemic the average
worker in a meat processing facility is going to
need a mask for over 1600 hours per year.
A sales executive could have similar
needs.
These hourly examples represent the high range.
Many people will have similar needs. At the
other end of the spectrum you have people who
live alone and are not employed and rarely
venture outside.
It is anticipated that most people will wear
reusable CATE (comfortable, attractive, tight
fitting, efficient masks). Disposable masks will
continue to be used by healthcare workers who
are exposed to a number of potentially
infectious people during the day. But the cost
to make a mask tight fitting and comfortable is
significant. So the reusable mask becomes the
best option to achieve CATE.
The number of CATE
masks
per year per person is a function of
·
number of hours used
·
environment such as dust particles
·
attractiveness loss
·
damage
If a mask is worn in a wildfire area or in a
city with high air pollution levels, dust will
be lodged in the mask and increase the pressure
drop. This will lead to replacement of masks
which do not have filter inserts.
Mask attractiveness is also a factor. Stains or
signs of age will be important to people in both
personal and business situations. The decision
to discard a mask will be a function of wealth
of the individual. The extreme case could be
likened to a Michael Jordan T shirt. It is
discarded by the original purchaser in a wealthy
country but ends up being used by another
individual in a poor country.
Another analogy is second hand winter clothing
donated to poor people. There may be some
deterioration in performance but compared to
alternatives it keeps the new wearer much safer.
The conclusion is that mask life will be
a function of wealth of the wearer.
Attractiveness will be a significant factor in
shaping the market. People set a premium on the
appearance of any item of clothing with high
visibility. So attractiveness will be a factor
in mask life.
Damage can be done by cleaning. Sanitizing
wipes, alcohol sprays or hand washing will
provide periodic cleaning of the masks. Exposure
to sunlight is also effective in destroying
virions. Lipstick and other substances can
create a challenge. Problems with straps can
cause leakage around the mask. Given all these factors mask life could be anywhere from 50 to 1000 hours. For the impoverished African one mask will continue to be used despite deterioration in appearance and performance. For the person buying $200 sports footwear and with a closet of seldom worn options, the average life of his multiple masks may be only 50 hours ($.80/hr.).
If the impoverished African wears masks only 500
hours per year, his mask will last two years.
So the cost per year is $20 ($0.04/hr.)
The wealthy business executive wearing masks
1600 hours per year would need 32 masks per year
costing
$1280.
If masks are only used 200 hours per year the
wealthy person would spend $160 vs only $8 for
the poor person willing to wear the mask for
much longer.
Another factor is the environment. This includes
the COVID positivity rate, air pollution levels,
wild fire contamination etc. The COVID risk will
fall but it is very likely that mask wearing
will continue for not only various environmental
threats but in situations where others are at
risk.
There are already studies showing that if
visitors to see hospital patients wear CATE
masks hospital acquired infections would drop
considerably. Those visiting elderly relatives
in nursing homes will very likely be required to
wear masks for the foreseeable future. The
courtesy mask attitude in Asia is likely to
prevail worldwide.
McIlvaine continues to analyze the world market
for masks and determine present and future
revenues.
Here is a rough calculation of the 2022
market.
This total of $310 billion is less than our
initial estimate of $675 billion.
It is, however, still the largest market
opportunity ever for the filtration industry. We
are analyzing what is likely to happen as the
COVID threat diminishes. The preliminary
analysis would show no more than an 80% drop
from the peak.
However, even at $60 billion it would
still be the largest filtration market by a wide
margin.
Over the next few weeks we will be completing
the World Mask Market report.
It will then be continuously updated and
include forecasts in each country for each
application by mask type and media for the next
seven years
Logic, Facts, and Niche Expertise Should
Determine Mask Selection
Tight fitting and efficient masks can vanquish
COVID quickly. Yet the U.S. president, a large
minority of Americans, and many people around
the world believe masks are not a solution. How
can this be possible and how do we overcome
this?
Here are some of the ways
·
Communicate the difference in performance of
good masks to bad ones
·
Debunk the use of the “appeal to authority”
fallacy
Many millions of hours have been spent pondering
how to capture air pollution particles in the
same size range as viruses (0.1) micron.
Capturing viruses in masks is much less of a
challenge than capturing air pollution particles
or even viruses in a pharmaceutical cleanroom.
However, this resource is being overlooked.
Instead, people are coming to conclusions
based on the “appeal to authority” fallacy.
Because a so called expert says something
is true does not make it true.
If the person has niche expertise which
would make him the leading expert on the
question then his statements will provide
support for the conclusion. But the validity of
the conclusion ultimately depends on thorough
analysis.
The problem with the advice being given on masks
is that much of it comes from doctors and
epidemiologists
who are not experts on the fate of
aerosols and droplets in flowing air at various
velocities. The most egregious example of the
Appeal to Authority fallacy has been displayed
by the White House.
Scott Atlas, coronavirus adviser to the White
House tweeted the following: Masks work? NO",
alongside a link to an article that argued
against the success of face coverings.
Dr. Anthony Fauci in an interview this week said
he thought Atlas was smart but did not know what
he was talking about. President Trump, indicated
his unhappiness with these remarks and indicated
that Fauci would be fired after the election.
At a campaign rally in Opa-locka, Florida,
yesterday Trump expressed frustration that the
surging cases of the virus that has killed
more than 231,000 people in
the United States this year remains prominent in
the news, sparking chants of “Fire Fauci” from
his supporters. “Don’t tell anybody but let me
wait until a little bit after the election,”
Trump replied to thousands of supporters early
Monday, adding he appreciated their “advice.”
The avoidance of logic is clear in the way the
mask question is posed. It is masks or no masks.
this is the equivalent of pills or no pills. The
Daily Alerts are showing overwhelming evidence
that CATE (comfortable, attractive, tight
fitting efficient) masks are effective while
loose fitting inefficient masks are relatively
ineffective.
This failure to distinguish between mask types
makes it easy for people using meta analyses to
show the ineffectiveness of masks.
Atlas references articles such as posted by
Colleen Huber who is an NMD which is
considerably less impressive than an MD.
She uses the meta-analysis approach and
selectively picks research which does not
consider differences between masks.
David Johnson
is a professor at Kings College
specializing
in
logic. He summarized the Huber research with
“all Huber does is present one-sentence
summaries of articles that she claims show that
masks don’t work (or are dangerous). But she
only mentions articles that “support” her theory
and ignores those
that don’t. Worse
still, the articles she says support her
position don’t actually say what she claims they
do—and, in many cases, they actually openly
contradict her conclusion.
One part of her research worth citing is
some of the studies which support the thesis
that loose fitting and inefficient masks are
ineffective.
“Masks have been assumed to be effective in
obstructing forward travel of viral particles.
Considering those positioned next to or behind a
mask wearer, there have been farther
transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from
masked individuals than from unmasked
individuals, by means of “several leakage jets,
including intense backward and downwards jets
that may present major hazards,” and a
“potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to
several meters.” All masks were thought to
reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over
wearing no mask. However, Schlieren
imaging showed that both surgical masks and
cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered
upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing
any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively,
vs none discernible with no mask. Backward
unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with
all masks compared to not masking.
For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found
that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron
were deflected around the edges of each mask,
and that there was measurable penetration of
particles through the filter of each mask.”
McIlvaine would contend that the amount of
deflection is directly related to the fit. The
CATE masks which McIlvaine says should be worn
by everyone can be designed for a tight fit.
Vogmask, for example, keeps leakage to
less than 2%
“A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6%
penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks
had over 20% penetration, while “general masks
and handkerchiefs had no protective function in
terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency.”
The study found that “Medical masks, general
masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide
little protection against respiratory
aerosols.”
It may be helpful to remember that an aerosol is
a colloidal suspension of liquid or solid
particles in a gas. In respiration, the relevant
aerosol is the suspension of bacterial or viral
particles in inhaled or exhaled breath.
In another study, penetration of cloth masks by
particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.”
“This meta-analysis found that N95 respirators
did not provide superior protection to facemasks
against viral infections or influenza-like
infections. This study did find superior
protection by N95 respirators when they were
fit-tested compared to surgical masks.
This study found that 624 out of 714 people
wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting
on their own masks.
“So the study shows that the efficiency is a
function of fit. If high efficiency filter media
is used the virus will be captured
“This study found that medical masks have a wide
range of filtration efficiency, with most
showing a 30% to 50% efficiency. A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols.
In another study, that observed subjects while
coughing, “neither surgical nor cotton masks
effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by
infected patients.” And more viral
particles were found on the outside than on the
inside of masks tested.”
“Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency
for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and
smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various
cloth masks examined in this study were between
74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration
efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33%.”
These points support the need for efficient
masks but not the rejection of mask use. Huber’s paper is found at
https://worldhealth.net/news/masks-are-neither-effective-nor-safe-summary-science/
Johnson comments
“The failure of a few flawed studies to
show that X is true doesn’t mean that X is
false. (That's appealing
to ignorance.)”
He continues with “But the more important
question is “why?” If I published a paper that
cited even one study that didn’t say what I said
it did, I’d be paying for it academically for
years. If I did it 42 times in one paper, I’d be
drummed out of my profession. But Huber may not
face much scrutiny if her readers commit the “appeal
to authority”
fallacy.
Now, the appeal to authority fallacy is somewhat
poorly named. It’s not always fallacious to
appeal to authority. A consensus of scientists
concluding based on research that something is
true is a good reason for a non-expert to
conclude that it is true. And trusting your
family physician when she, say, diagnoses you
with a disease and prescribes a treatment is not
fallacious (unless you happen to know that
her conclusion is contrary to an established
consensus—then you want to seek a second
opinion). But sometimes it is fallacious to
appeal to authority. Let’s call when someone
does this an “inappropriate appeal to authority”
and explore a few examples.
“One inappropriately appeals to authority when
one thinks that the research of a single
relevant expert can settle a scientific issue.
To really settle a scientific issue, you need almost
all the research on a topic (not just some
evidence you select) to converge.
A person also inappropriately appeals to an
authority when they fail to recognize that the
“expert” in question doesn’t actually have
expertise relevant to an issue. Linus Pauling,
for example, was a Nobel Prize winner in
chemistry—but he was not an immunologist. So he
was speaking completely outside his area of
expertise when he said that Vitamin C can boost
your immune system. (It
can’t.)
Likewise, a physicist (like Denis Rancourt) can
tell you about atoms but isn’t a reliable source
about epidemiology (or the effectiveness of
masks). Indeed, even medical doctors rely on the
work of epidemiologists during an epidemic,
because medical doctors don’t have the expertise
to study and evaluate the effects of diseases on
large populations. A medical doctor is not an
“epidemic-ologist.”
“It may seem like Colleen Huber, NMD is an
expert on epidemiology because she has “MD” by
her name. She’s not. Indeed, the “N” before the
MD stands for Naturopathic. And in case you
don’t know, naturopathy
has been described as a pseudoscience.
Now, to be fair, some naturopathic doctors have
some medical training. But (as the American
Academy of Family Physicians points
out)
Naturopathic Doctors “aren’t as rigorously
trained as medical doctors and ... many
naturopathic treatments are ineffective and
potentially dangerous.” Now you can trust an NMD
to diagnose and treat you and your family’s
illnesses if you wish. But if an MD doesn’t even
have all the relevant expertise needed to settle
the issue of mask effectiveness and safety, an
NMD almost certainly does not. “
the article by Johnson is available at
Ultramasx also has an Electrically Ventilated
Mask
The Ultramasx UltraOne. Active Electrically
Ventilated Mask with HEPA and Active Carbon
Filters is Re-Chargeable and Re-Usable.
Ultramasx Technologies was founded in Singapore
in 2019 by Ivan Simetovic, a former banker
turned entrepreneur, with the aim to address the
global pollution impact on human life.
He
realized that the biggest challenge in
developing a protective and comfortable mask was
the trade-off between the filtering capacity and
the airflow. In traditional passive
textile masks, the higher is the filtering
power, the lower is the airflow available to
breathe, making them very often extremely
uncomfortable, especially when it is hot and
warm. We found a solution to the problem:
creating an active mask that is
electrically ventilated.
·
UltraProtection: State of the art four stage
HEPA and activated carbon filter membranes
filtering 99.97% of suspended particles with
diameter of 0.3 micrometers. In our last edition
we have added also an exhaust air filter to
protect those around you.
·
UltraVentilation: Active 2-speed electric
turbofan provides up to 6.9 cubic meters of
purified fresh air per hour. Excellent for
everyday use or even for sports activities,
especially in warm and humid climates. Active
ventilation helps you breathe better in any
condition.
·
UltraComfortable: Medical-grade silicone face
seal and limited surface at contact with face
skin together with light silicone straps
wearable behind the head make it more
comfortable than textile masks. No more fogging
of your glasses.
·
UltraSustainable: Re-chargeable via USB and
re-usable with
Ultramasx UltraFilters cartridges. The
mask lasts three years minimizing environmental
impact. Built in eco-friendly materials that do
not contain any harmful materials as per
European Directive 2011/65/EU.
·
Every box includes one Ultramasx UltraOne
respirator mask, two pairs of silicone straps,
two fitting clamps, two Ultramasx UltraFilters,
two exhaust air filters, one USB cable and a
travel pouch.
|