Frequently Asked Questions About Respirators and Their Use – CDC.gov

Frequently Asked Questions About Respirators and Their Use

This document is intended to address frequently asked questions about respirators and their use.

Respiratory Protection

1. Should I wear a respirator in public?
   1. CDC does not recommend the routine use of respirators outside of workplace settings (in the community). Most often, spread of respiratory viruses from person-to-person happens among close contacts (within 6 feet). CDC recommends everyday preventive actions to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses, such as avoiding people who are sick, avoiding touching your eyes or nose, and covering your cough or sneeze with a tissue. People who are sick should stay home and not go into crowded public places or visit people in hospitals. Workers who are sick should follow CDC guidelines and stay home when they are sick.
2. What is a respirator?
   1. A respirator is a personal protective device that is worn on the face or head and covers at least the nose and mouth. A respirator is used to reduce the wearer’s risk of inhaling hazardous airborne particles (including infectious agents), gases or vapors. Respirators, including those intended for use in healthcare settings, are certified by the CDC/NIOSH.
3. What is an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR)?
   1. An N95 FFR is a type of respirator which removes particles from the air that are breathed through it. These respirators filter out at least 95% of very small (0.3 micron) particles. N95 FFRs are capable of filtering out all types of particles, including bacteria and viruses.
4. What makes N95 respirators different from facemasks (sometimes called a surgical mask)?
   1. Infographic: Understanding the difference between surgical masks and N95 respiratorspdf icon
   2. N95 respirators reduce the wearer’s exposure to airborne particles, from small particle aerosols to large droplets. N95 respirators are tight-fitting respirators that filter out at least 95% of particles in the air, including large and small particles.
   3. Not everyone is able to wear a respirator due to medical conditions that may be made worse when breathing through a respirator. Before using a respirator or getting fit-tested, workers must have a medical evaluation to make sure that they are able to wear a respirator safely.
   4. Achieving an adequate seal to the face is essential. United States regulations require that workers undergo an annual fit test and conduct a user seal check each time the respirator is used. Workers must pass a fit test to confirm a proper seal before using a respirator in the workplace.
   5. When properly fitted and worn, minimal leakage occurs around edges of the respirator when the user inhales. This means almost all of the air is directed through the filter media.
   6. Unlike NIOSH-approved N95s, facemasks are loose-fitting and provide only barrier protection against droplets, including large respiratory particles. No fit testing or seal check is necessary with facemasks. Most facemasks do not effectively filter small particles from the air and do not prevent leakage around the edge of the mask when the user inhales.
   7. The role of facemasks is for patient source control, to prevent contamination of the surrounding area when a person coughs or sneezes.  Patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear a facemask until they are isolated in a hospital or at home. The patient does not need to wear a facemask while isolated.
5. What is a Surgical N95 respirator and who needs to wear it?
   1. A surgical N95 (also referred as a medical respirator) is recommended only for use by healthcare personnel (HCP) who need protection from both airborne and fluid hazards (e.g., splashes, sprays). These respirators are not used or needed outside of healthcare settings. In times of shortage, only HCP who are working in a sterile field or who may be exposed to high velocity splashes, sprays, or splatters of blood or body fluids should wear these respirators, such as in operative or procedural settings. Most HCP caring for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients should not need to use surgical N95 respirators and can use standard N95 respirators.
   2. If a surgical N95 is not available for use in operative or procedural settings, then an unvalved N95 respirator may be used with a faceshield to help block high velocity streams of blood and body fluids.

Source: Frequently Asked Questions About Respirators and Their Use

‘MAD MAX’ IN AUSTRALIA – The New York Times

MAD MAX’ IN AUSTRALIA

By Tom Buckley

• June 14, 1980

See the article in its original context from June 14, 1980, Section 1, Page 13Buy Reprints

VIEW ON TIMESMACHINE

TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

Along with such pests as jackrabbits and kangaroos, Australia ”a few years from now” is being afflicted by predatory motorcycle gangs. An elite leather-clad highway police force has been established to oppose them.

This is the flimsy plot line of ”Mad Max,” which opens today at the Embassy 5, but it provides an adequate framework for some vivid chase-and-crash sequences across the unpopulated outback and a heavy dose of sadism with obvious homosexual overtones.

The title figure is a relatively normal member of the police force, played by Mel Gibson, who decides to take the law, such as it is, into his own hands after his wife, played by Joanne Samuel, is dreadfully injured and their young son is murdered by the bikers.

He sets his jaw like Clint Eastwood in ”Dirty Harry,” gets a supercharged black speedster out of the police garage and with a sawed-off shotgun in his holster wreaks a terrible vengeance. In the final sequence, for example, he gives the last survivor of the motorcycle gang his choice of sawing his own leg off or being burned to death.

”Mad Max” is ugly and incoherent, and aimed, probably accurately, at the most uncritical of moviegoers. It’s worth noting that much of the rudimentary dialogue in this Australian film has been dubbed from ”strine,” the thick dialect of the subcontinent, into country-andwestern English. You can tell because the lip movement and sound are often slightly out of synchronization.

The Cast

MAD MAX, directed by George Miller with Mel Gibson; written by James McCausland and George Miller; cameraman, David Eggby; edited by Tony Paterson; music by Brian May; produced by Byron Kennedy; released by American International, a Filmways Company. At the Embassy 5, West 46th Street and Broadway. Running time: 93 minutes. This film is rated R.

Max Rockatansky . . . . . Mel GibsonJessie . . . . . Joanne SamuelToecutter . . . . . Hugh Keays-ByrneJim Goose . . . . . Steve BisleyJohnny the Boy . . . . . Tim BurnsFifi Macaffee . . . . . Roger Ward

A version of this article appears in print on June 14, 1980, Section 1, Page 13 of the National edition with the headline: ‘MAD MAX’ IN AUSTRALIA.

In Delaware, Dams Are Being Removed to Spur Fish Migration – By Jon Hurdle – The New York Times

By Jon Hurdle

• Feb. 25, 2020
• • 1

“WILMINGTON, Del. — When migratory fish follow their ancestral instinct to swim up Delaware’s Brandywine Creek during this spring’s spawning season, they will find, for the first time in more than 200 years, that their route is not blocked by a dam.

The fish — American shad, hickory shad and striped bass — have been unable to return to their traditional spawning grounds in the Pennsylvania section of the creek about 25 miles to the north since a series of dams was built across the creek by early American settlers, starting in the mid-18th century.

This year, the fish will be able to swim past the site of a dam that was demolished by the city of Wilmington last fall, allowing them to move as far as the next barrier, Dam 2, about three-quarters of a mile upstream, where large numbers are expected to create a sudden bonanza for anglers.

Beginning next month, “there will be thousands of American shad sitting here,” said Jerry Kauffman, a University of Delaware professor. “This area will be full of fishermen because it will be a big fish magnet. It’s going to be like Christmas.” “

Trump Has ‘Done Damage That the Soviets Would Have Dreamt Of,’ Former German Foreign Minister Says – Newsweek.com

“Former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and other European officials have lashed out at President Donald Trump and his divisive leadership on the international stage, alleging he has threatened an alliance that took many decades to build.

“He has done damage that the Soviets would have dreamt of,” Gabriel told The Washington Post in a story published on Monday. “We can’t live with Trump,” he warned, before adding: “And we can’t live without the United States.”

Gabriel said that in the beginning, European leaders believed Trump’s unorthodox and aggressive style was just a campaign strategy that would change once he entered the White House. “But he changed the position of the presidency,” Gabriel, who also served as the vice chancellor of Germany from 2013 until last year, told The Post. “I find it shocking that, in such a short time, he has managed to rip apart a relationship that has taken decades to build.”

Source: Trump Has ‘Done Damage That the Soviets Would Have Dreamt Of,’ Former German Foreign Minister Says

Editorial | The Primaries Are Just Dumb – The New York Times

The Primaries Are Just Dumb

There’s a better way to do democracy.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

• Feb. 26, 2020

Credit…Illustration by The New York Times; photographs by Erin Schaff/The New York Times and Getty Images

“How fitting that Twitter — a social media platform apparently built for bickering — co-sponsored a political debate on Tuesday night that often descended into an unintelligible screaming match among too many candidates whose differences belie a vast common ground.

Any one of the candidates in the Democratic race would be among the most progressive leaders ever elected to the White House, so common sense suggests that a few contenders bow out, to clarify the choice and ensure that a consensus nominee can emerge. That would be welcome. But disarray has a way of keeping even the slimmest of hopes alive.

As the country learned in 2016 with Republicans, the primaries and caucuses are a mess, giving the illusion of a choice in a situation where in fact voters have just the opposite — no clear choice. This year, Bernie Sanders won close to a majority in Nevada, but in the two earlier contests, in Iowa and New Hampshire, no candidate won more than 26 percent of the vote. This fragmentation helps those candidates with passionate followings, like Mr. Sanders, as it helped Donald Trump in 2016, but it produces nothing like a consensus candidate. Mr. Sanders has won only 2.3 percent of the 1,991 delegates needed to secure the nomination, yet he’s widely considered the front-runner.

Single-winner elections do a poor job of winnowing a large field of candidates down to one who reflects majority agreement, and encourage the type of nastiness we’re seeing now, because it’s all-or-nothing for each candidate. And the winner of this process can be the choice of as little as 25 or 30 percent of the electorate, which is another way of saying that he or she was not the choice of up to three-quarters of voters.

This is no way to pick the person who will challenge a president — one who was himself nominated first by a minority within his party, then elected by a minority nationwide.

There is a straightforward and elegant solution: ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting. Already in use all over the world and in cities and towns across the United States, it’s a popular and proven way of electing leaders who are — what a radical notion! — actually supported by most voters. It is effective in any multicandidate race, but it’s ideal for making sense of a large and fractured pool of candidates.”

Opinion | Trump Uses Kids Sold Into Sex Slavery to Score Political Points – By Nicholas Kristof – The New York Times

By Nicholas Kristof

Opinion Columnist

• Feb. 26, 2020
• • 199

Ivanka Trump embracing Bella Hounakey, a survivor of human trafficking, at an event with President Trump last month about trafficking.Credit…T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

“Few people on earth are so exploited as children trafficked into the sex trade. And now they are being exploited again, by President Trump.

“My administration is putting unprecedented pressure on traffickers at home and abroad,” Trump declared at a White House meeting on trafficking last month. “My administration is fighting these monsters, persecuting and prosecuting them, and locking them away for a very, very long time. We’ve had a tremendous track record — the best track record in a long time.”

I’ve been reporting about human trafficking all over the world since the 1990s, so part of me is thrilled that a president is highlighting this issue. Ivanka Trump has made it a signature issue, and she organized the White House event. The president used the occasion to announce a new White House position to oversee antitrafficking efforts, and all this high-level attention could be very helpful.

Yet it’s increasingly clear that this is less about protecting children and more about exalting Trump, whose administration is actually prosecuting fewer traffickers and making it harder for some trafficking survivors to get help. As a result, major antitrafficking organizations boycotted the White House session.”

David Lindsay Jr.

Hamden, CT | NYT Comment:

Thank you Nicholas Kristof, and god bless you. You keep talking about topics that are unpopular. You continue to bring untouchables into the light.

 

 

Opinion | Welcome to the Age of Pandemics – By Peter Daszak – The New York Times

“. . . .  A radical shift is also needed in the way that tests, vaccines and drugs are designed so that entire groups of pathogens are targeted instead of individual pathogens that are already known. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States is working on a universal flu vaccine that would cover all known strains of influenza; a universal coronavirus vaccine, an Ebola-virus vaccine and others will also be needed.

With a smaller investment, we can also try to get ahead of pandemics by working with communities in hot spots of emerging diseases. Disease surveillance should be focused on farmers, rural communities and anyone who has extensive contact with wildlife, to look for unusual illnesses, test for novel pathogens and work with people to develop alternatives to high-risk activities such as the wildlife trade.

Pandemics are like terrorist attacks: We know roughly where they originate and what’s responsible for them, but we don’t know exactly when the next one will happen. They need to be handled the same way — by identifying all possible sources and dismantling those before the next pandemic strikes.”

Peter Daszak is a disease ecologist and the president of EcoHealth Alliance, in New York.

I’m for the men in the middle – By David Lindsay, Jr. – InconvenientNews.Net

For the lasrt six months, and still today, my first candidate is Joe Biden. It is telling that Ross Douthat, one of the new right wing conservatives opinion writers at the NYT, has chosen to write the essay endorsing Joe Biden. Douthat ends his op-ed:

“You lose any immediate chance at sweeping change, in other words, but you gain some room for incrementalism that greater ideological ambition might foreclose.

“Finally, the strongest argument for Biden is nonideological: More than the other candidates, he offers the possibility of a calmer presidency, where politics fades a bit from the daily headlines, where the average American is less bombarded by social-media swarms and cable-news freakouts, where gridlock and polarization persist but their stakes feel modestly reduced.  I’ll be honest: It wouldn’t be good news for political columnists, but as a citizen it doesn’t sound that bad.”

But I am also excited about either Michael Bloomberg or Pete Buttigieg.  Any of these three men in the middle of the political spectrum, and on the right side of the Democratic Party,  are the most likely, according to the polls that I am aware of and have studied, to beat Donald Trump where it matters, in the swing states that tilt the electoral college. Biden and Bloomberg are certainly more likely to attract swing voters, conservative independents and disgruntled Republicans, than either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeeth Warren.  These concerns largely explain why Trump has been calling the Ukraine for investigations into Biden, while quietly supporting, along with Russia, Bernie Sanders.

While I should possibly consider Amy Klobushar in this group of moderates, I don’t think many voters in the mid-west and red states will vote for a female for president, and I am turned off by the story in the NYT of how she mistreated minorities and immigrants when a prosecutor, and she has not impressed the voters in the causcuses and primaries we have had to date.

The United States and the world face some daunting challenges, climate change and the sixth extinction, growing income inequality, voter suppression, hate-based populism, pollution and overpopulation, to name some big ones. With Donald Trump and the current Republican Party on the wrong side of each one of these major issues, the outcome of the next election takes on special importance.

 

Opinion | The Best Case for Each Candidate – The New York Times

Choose Your ChampionOPINION COLUMNISTS MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT FOR EACH OF THE TOP SIX CANDIDATES.

Illustrations by Kelsey Wroten

ELIZABETH WARRENBY MICHELLE GOLDBERG

She wants to purify capitalism so
it works as it should.

MICHAEL BLOOMBERGBY DAVID BROOKS

He’s a practical manager who
can get things done.

BERNIE SANDERSBY JAMELLE BOUIE

Despite his age, he promises a
true break with the past.

PETE BUTTIGIEGBY FRANK BRUNI

He could heal a fragmented nation.

JOE BIDENBY ROSS DOUTHAT

The promise of victory, and then the
promise of (relative) calm.

AMY KLOBUCHARBY DAVID LEONHARDT

She can win over the voters that
Democrats need.

Opinion | Does Anyone Have a Clue About How to Fight Back Against Trump’s Racism? – By Thomas B. Edsall – The New York Times

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.

• Feb. 26, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET
• • 508

Trump supporters at a campaign rally in Las Vegas last week.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

“Can Democrats diminish the bigotry that Donald Trump has unleashed in this country?

Stung by the success of Trump’s anti-immigrant, racist campaign themes in 2016, left-of-center advocacy groups — think tanks, unions, progressive academics and Democratic consultants — are developing tools this year to counter the continuing Republican assault on liberal values, based on the optimistic assumption that the reservoir of white animosity is not so deep that Trump is assured re-election.

These efforts on the left challenge the long history of Republican success in exploiting race and a host of ancillary issues — crime, welfare, social disorder, family breakdown, homelessness — a history that includes Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and Donald Trump in 2016.

That history points to the relentless power of racial resentment in American politics. Despite polling that shows greater acceptance of racial equality, this issue is as potent a source of political strength for Trump today as it was for Nixon a half century ago.

There are myriad studies, as I have noted (along with many others) that show the continuing effectiveness of race and immigration as wedge issues. These studies continue to appear at an alarming rate.”