Coronavirus Technology Solutions
November 3, 2020

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 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/202007/masks-still-work-debunking-more-pseudoscience

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.

Ultramasx UltraOne™ is claimed to be  ideal for everyday use in  cities polluted by the smog generated by fossil fuels combustion, transportation, industrial production, home heating, or wildfires. It is also suited  for commuters and international travelers that are exposed to millions of people in airports and train stations and want no-compromise on security but also comfort and breathability. A mask that provides up to 6.9 cubic meters per hour of fresh and purified air that can be used also for sports activities like running or biking and comfortable even in warm climates thanks to its ventilation.

In its last release, Ultramasx UltraOne™ also includes the exhaust air filter, as requested by many regulators around the world, in order to protect also those around you. It’s price is $89.99.

·         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.