Coronavirus
Technology Solutions
February 16, 2021
Mask Strategy
with the Most
Advantages for
the U.S.
Tighter Fitting
Surgical Mask,
Brace, N95 or
CATER
ASTM Mask
Standard has Now
Been Published
Fit, Comfort,
and
Attractiveness
Need to be
Evaluated
Qualitatively
The Pandemic
Could Last Seven
Years According
to Bloomberg
Chicago Opens
Restaurants at
40% Occupancy
What is the Long
Range Impact on
the Restaurant
Industry?
___________________________________________________________________________
Mask Strategy
with the Most
Advantages for
the U.S.
The U.S. is
shaping its mask
strategy. In the
Alert yesterday
we proposed what
could be called
the
“incidentally
Humanitarian
U.S.
Mask
Strategy.
It is a two
stage program.
In the first
stage U.S. mask
suppliers are
encouraged to
greatly increase
production of
effective masks
to meet the near
term needs. As
the need wanes
in the U.S. the
government would
issue coupons to
poor countries
and allow them
to obtain masks
from U.S.
suppliers.
Why is it in the
self-interest of
the U.S to pay
for masks in
poor countries
for the next
five years?
1.
A long term
market is
created for the
mask and media
suppliers. They
can switch from
domestic sales
to exports as
the domestic
market subsides.
2.
The improved
economies and
supply of goods
to the U.S and
purchase of
goods from the
U.S. by poorer
countries will
more than offset
any mask
subsidies.
3.
New variants and
even strains of
the virus will
be prevented
from being
transmitted from
poor to wealthy
countries.
4.
Wealthy
countries need
to be prepared
for the next
pandemic with
sufficient
supply capacity.
5.
Enhance U.S.
image.
One of the
problems in
creating a
national
stockpile of
masks for use in
a future
pandemic is that
masks
deteriorate over
time. A second
problem is that
it would be
prohibitively
expensive to
invest in idle
reserve
capacity.
3M thought they
had made a
sufficient
investment but
did not conceive
of a demand at
the current
level.
The way to
protect the U.S.
from future
pandemics is
create a robust
long term mask
market
including:
·
supply masks to
the poorer
countries to
fight the
pandemic
·
promote the use
of masks to
protect from air
pollution,
influenza,
wildfires, and
other airborne
contaminants
The U.S. short
term need in
mask hours is
three times
greater than the
medical need. So
we set up a
chart where the
present medical
demand = 100.
The
present public
demand is set at
300 .
total
demand is 400.
Present U.S.
production for
qualified public
and medical
masks is only
slightly above
the medical mask
production and
less than 30% of
the total
demand.
By the 1st
quarter 2022
production
exceeds demand
by 5. So a small
amount could be
exported.
By the 4th
quarter 2022
production
exceeds demand
by 135. So this
amount could be
exported. It is
slightly more
than the present
U.S. production.
By the end of
2022 U.S
production would
be close to four
times greater
than at present.
There will be a
continuing
supply of
coupons to
poorer countries
who will not
achieve herd
immunity until
2024-2027.
The result will
be a very large
market for U.S.
made masks which
will continue
for at least the
next four to
five years.
Tighter Fitting
Surgical Mask,
Brace, N95 or
CATER
There are no
longer five
options for
public masks.
Inefficient
loose fitting
cloth masks will
quickly be
unsalable now
that the ASTM
standards have
been published.
This leaves four
choices.
|
Option |
Challenges |
|
Tighter fitting Surgical |
Achieving tight fit |
|
Surgical mask with brace |
Achieving tight fit with comfort |
|
N95 |
Availability and individual fit |
|
CATER |
Availability, life, and cost |
N95 Option
McIlvaine has
used the N95 as
the yardstick by
which to measure
the others. But
there are
negatives to the
N95 as covered
in a JAMA
article.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769441
Here are
excerpts from
the report
“Importantly,
the
effectiveness of
any mask also
depends heavily
on its
real-world use;
variability in
mask filtration
during clinical
care may
fluctuate more
by mask
adherence and
fit than by
marginal
differences in
laboratory-based
filtration
efficiency. In
practicality,
when worn
properly, N95
masks are
suffocating,
uncomfortable,
and difficult to
tolerate for
long durations.
Best practices
for N95 use
require
intermittent,
individualized
fit testing and
a seal check on
donning. Mask
fit varies by
facial shape and
body habitus,
and thus, once
fit tested,
ensuring
fidelity to the
same
manufacturer and
size is
essential.
Filtration
efficiency of an
N95 mask can
also be
compromised by
even small
amounts of
facial hair in
the area of the
seal. Prolonged
use of tightly
fitting masks
may result in
facial bruising
and abrasions,
“Costs have been
a major
challenge in
procurement of
adequate mask
supply, with
prices
increasing in
some cases up to
30- to 100-fold.7 Outside
of pandemic
conditions,
surgical and N95
masks generally
cost
approximately
$0.08 and $0.50
each,
respectively.
Standard pricing
for KN95 masks,
which are
generally not
sold in the
United States,
is unavailable,
but they have
been sold during
the crisis from
$2 to $4 per
mask”.
CATER Mask
Option
These
masks
have been
extensively
covered in the
Alerts. They
have all the
advantages
except
availability and
cost. It is
likely that
higher income
individuals will
choose them
despite cost.
Surgical Mask
with Brace
These have been
covered in a
number of
Alerts.
When you
search under the
key word “brace”
you access 20
articles
including
1. McIlvaine
Coronavirus
Market Alert
... ,
Efficient Masks
Details on Mask
Options are
Available from
Fix the Mask
Essential Mask Brace is
Effective and
Inexpensive
University of
Iowa Researchers
Find That a DIY
Mask Brace is ...
2. McIlvaine
Coronavirus
Market Alert
... masks
is up to 90
days. A $2
upgraded
surgical mask
with a brace might
have an FFE
above 85% . The brace has
potentially 1
year of ...
Tighter fitting
surgical
masks
In the February
3 Alert
we wrote
this about the
TMS masks, “The
general Consumer
Series
single-use face
masks are
designed to
provide enhanced
coverage with a
more comfortable
fit. They are
wider than the
average mask,
reducing the gap
between the edge
of the mask and
the ears. The
nose bridge is
built with
higher
ductility,
allowing it to
bend more easily
and stay in
place without
discomfort. The
ear loops on
their masks are
created with a
thicker, more
comfortable
material that
has been tested
to stretch to
two-and-a-half
times the
original length
without losing
elasticity.”
Comfort and
attractiveness
are independent
variables but
efficiency of
virus removal is
a combination of
media capture
and limitation
of in leakage.
Furthermore this
in leakage is a
function of the
way the mask is
worn and by
whom.
Many cloth masks
have fitted
filter
efficiency (FFE)
ratings which
are below 20%. A
poorly fitted
N95 might have
an FFE below
70%.
A loose
fitting surgical
mask could have
an FFE below
60%. A poorly
fitting CATER
mask can
have an
FFE below 70%.
The big
difference
between the four
options is the
in leakage and
not the filter
media
penetration.
In the
case of
particulate
media capture
the differences
are all within a
10% range. The
in leakage can
be a difference
of 40%. So the
choice of mask
types is highly
dependent on the
fit.
ASTM Mask
Standard has Now
Been Published
The ASTM
standards have
now been
published and
are likely to
completely
change the way
masks are
selected.
the fact
that a label
with the
following
information on
it will be
displayed with
each mask is
very powerful.
In the
example a
mask with 60%
filtration
efficiency is
labeled both to
show that it
meets the
standard but
also how it is
better than the
minimum. The
example of
sunscreen has
been used to
illustrate the
advantage of
showing higher
performance.
There is also a
graphic option
which shows the
range and the
performance of
the specific
mask.
In order for
manufacturers
and brands to
say their face
mask meets
ASTM’s standard,
they have to
prove it. Here’s
how it works:
Brands and mask
makers are
required to test
their face
coverings in
accredited labs.
The tests
certify that the
masks adhere to
ASTM’s
guidelines.
Manufacturers
also have to
complete a
conformity
assessment
indicating that
face coverings
labelled as
ASTM-compliant
have met all of
the requirements
of the standard,
including design
criteria,
performance
criteria, test
methods,
labelling and
user
information.
One area which
needs industry
input is fit or
in leakage.
Here is
what is in the
standard
relative to
fitness.
“Design criteria
include setting
minimum areas of
face coverage
over the
wearer’s nose
and mouth,
prohibiting open
vents or valves,
requiring a
means for
retaining the
barrier face
covering on the
wearer’s head,
and providing a
representation
of product
sizing.
Manufacturers
are further
required to
perform a design
analysis for
assessing
leakage of
exhaled air from
the barrier face
covering.
Manufacturers
are permitted to
conduct
quantitative
testing as
specified in
this standard to
supplement the
design analysis.
NOTE 3—The
principal
performance
criteria for
barrier face
covering
determined by
testing are
sub-micron
particle
filtration
efficiency and
airflow
resistance.
Quantitative
leakage
assessment
testing is
optional for
information
purposes and is
not required.
This testing is
not likely to be
representative
of outward
leakage from the
barrier face
covering and
should not be
claimed to
represent the
amount of source
control offered
by the face
covering.
Bacterial
filtration
efficiency
testing is also
optional and not
required. It is
significantly
different than
sub-micron
filtration
efficiency, and
the results of
BFE testing
cannot be
interchanged or
directly
compared. The
scope of this
standard does
not include
accessories to
barrier face
coverings.
4.1.3 Sub-micron
particulate
filtration
efficiency and
airflow
resistance do
not account for
the leakage of
air around the
perimeter of the
barrier face
covering. A
leakage
assessment using
a design
analysis of the
product is
required to
assess the
ability of the
barrier face
covering design
to provide
appropriate
coverage for a
range of wearer
faces of
different
dimensions. The
design analysis
can be conducted
by the
manufacturer in
a number of
different ways.
The standard
also permits the
supplemental use
of quantitative
information
obtained from a
modified form of
Test Method
F3407 using test
subjects. This
test yields a
reportable ratio
of outside
particulate
concentration to
the
concentration of
particles in the
wearer’s
breathing zone.
Thus, a leakage
ratio of 1.0
indicates the
outside and
inside
environments are
equal and that
particulates
flow through
gaps in the
barrier face
covering (in
addition to any
particulates
that pass
through the
filtration
materials of the
mask).
Fit (leakage) is
a complex
subject and
involves facial
features and
wearing habits
as well as
quantitative
tests.
It is
asking too much
of a standard to
rate fit in the
same way it does
particulate
efficiency.
Fit, Comfort,
and
Attractiveness
Need to be
Evaluated
Qualitatively
The ASTM
standards
provide a
measurement
structure and
while not
providing a fit
(leakage)
standard they do
indicate the
importance of a
good fit. It is
then up to
experts to make
comparative
leakage
assessments.
They in turn
need to
communicate
these findings
to the media.
Let’s use the
example of
sunscreen and
compare it to
masks as rated
by Consumers
Reports.
For sunscreen “Consumer
Reports uses
a testing
protocol that is
modeled on the
one the Food and
Drug
Administration
(FDA) requires
sunscreen
manufacturers to
use. But as is
the case with
other products
we test that
have government
or industry
standards, we
use those
standards as
benchmarks and
develop our own
methodology to
identify
differences in
performance and
give consumers a
comparative
evaluation.
We test only
sunscreens with
a listed SPF of
at least 30 and
are
water-resistant
(for 40 or 80
minutes, the two
time periods the
FDA permits
water-resistance
claims for). We
buy the
sunscreens for
our tests off
the shelf, the
way consumers
would and use
three samples,
preferably with
different lot
numbers, of each
product.
Each sunscreen
is rated on
three
criteria: SPF,
variation from
SPF, and UVA
protection. In
addition, CR's
trained sensory
panel evaluates
the scent and
skin feel of the
products.”
Can CR do the
same type of
evaluation on
mask fit? CR
is
already
anticipating the
ASTM standards
and has zeroed
in on the
importance of
fitness.
CR
advises
“ASTM
International,
an organization
that facilitates
the creation of
standards for a
wide variety of
products, is
working on
developing a
standard for the
design,
performance, and
labeling
requirements for
face coverings.
But until that
standard is
released, a few
tips can help
you figure out
how to make sure
you’re
adequately
protected.
“Wear the most
protective mask
you possibly
can, every
single day,”
says James
Dickerson, the
chief scientific
officer at
Consumer
Reports. “Don’t
skimp.”
“Here’s what you
need to know to
upgrade your
mask. “Check
the Fit”
“The right fit
can go a very
long way even
with just a
simple cloth
mask,” says
Monica Gandhi
(who
participated in
the last
McIlvaine mask
webinar). A mask
should have a
sturdy nose
wire, to help
the mask fit the
natural contours
of your face.”
“But there are
other tweaks you
can make to
improve the
effectiveness,
adds Philip
Clapp, Ph.D., a
post-doctoral
researcher at
the Center for
Environmental
Medicine,
Asthma, and Lung
Biology at the
University of
North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
and co-author of
the
December JAMA
study.
“For instance,
his study found
that simple
steps like
tightening ear
loops (either by
tying them or
fastening them
with a claw-type
hair clip placed
behind the head)
and tucking in
side pleats
significantly
improved a
surgical mask’s
filtration
rates. “Anyone
can do that in
15 seconds, and
it doubles its
efficiency,” he
explains.
“The new study
from the CDC
reinforced
Clapp's
findings. It
found that a
surgical mask
with knotted
ear loops that’s
tucked in on the
sides to create
a tighter fit reduced
exposure for the
wearer by 64.5
percent if a
simulated
cougher was
unmasked, and by
95.9 percent if
both the cougher
and the receiver
were wearing
these modified,
snugly fitted
surgical masks.
“To make sure
your mask is
snug enough,
Clapp advises
that you try
this simple
self-test: Cup
your hands
around your mask
and see if you
can feel the
places where air
is escaping.
“You also don’t
want to see gaps
around your
nose, the sides
of your cheeks,
or under your
chin,” he says.
If you do,
you'll want to
tighten up”.
“Ultimately you
want all the air
you inhale and
all the air that
you exhale to go
through some
sort of
filtration
device,” says
Dickerson. “If
it doesn’t—if it
goes out the
sides or through
a vent—then you
might as well
not be wearing a
mask.”
So we have to
give Consumer
Reports lots
of
credit
for being
current on both
the ASTM
standards and
the need for
ratings
which are
inclusive of all
the important
parameters.
So the industry
has its work cut
out for it.
It has
the ASTM
standards as a
measurement
structure. It
now needs to
help experts and
media such as
Consumers
Reports rate
masks
holistically and
fairly. One of
the tools will
be this CTS
publication
The Pandemic
Could Last Seven
Years According
to Bloomberg
When will the
pandemic end?
It’s the
question hanging
over just about
everything since
Covid-19 took
over the world
last year. The
answer can be
measured in
vaccinations.
Bloomberg has
built the
biggest database
of Covid-19
shots given
around the
world, with more
than 119 million
doses
administered
worldwide. U.S.
science
officials such
as Anthony Fauci
have suggested
it will take 70%
to 85% coverage
of the
population for
things to return
to normal.
Bloomberg’s Vaccine
Tracker shows
that some
countries are
making far more
rapid progress
than others,
using 75%
coverage with a
two-dose vaccine
as a target.
Israel, the
country with the
highest
vaccination rate
in the world, is
headed for 75%
coverage in just
two months. The
U.S. will get
there just in
time to ring in
the 2022 New
Year (though
North Dakota
could get there
six months
sooner than
Texas). With
vaccinations
happening more
rapidly in
richer Western
countries than
the rest of the
globe, it will
take the world
as a whole
seven years at
the current
pace.
Bloomberg’s
calculator
provides a
snapshot in
time, designed
to put today’s
vaccination
rates into
perspective. It
uses the most
recent rolling
average of
vaccinations,
which means that
as vaccination
numbers pick up,
the time needed
to hit the 75%
threshold will
fall.
The calculations
will be
volatile,
especially in
the early days
of the rollout,
and the numbers
can be distorted
by temporary
disruptions.
For example, New
York’s target
date was briefly
pushed out to 17
months this week
after a winter blizzard
prevented some
from getting
vaccinated (it’s
now back down to
13
months). Likewise,
Canada’s
vaccination rate
dropped by half
in recent weeks
following
reports of
delayed vaccine
shipments. Based
on Canada’s
latest rate of
inoculations it
would take more
than 10 years to
reach 75%
coverage. That
might serve as a
wake-up call to
Canadian
politicians and
health
officials, but
it doesn’t mean
the country
is doomed to a
decade of social
distancing.
Canada has contracts
to buy more
vaccine doses per
person than any
other country,
and its
vaccination
rates are
expected to
climb.
Chicago Opens
Restaurants at
40% Occupancy
Mayor Lori
Lightfoot
announced
Tuesday the
expansion of
indoor dining in
Chicago,
effective
immediately, due
to significant
progress in the
fight against
the COVID-19
virus.
As of today,
restaurants and
bars can serve
50 people or 40%
capacity. Table
size remains
limited to no
more than six
people and
alcohol service
still ends at 11
p.m.
The city is
allowing this
after Chicago
recorded fewer
than 400 new
COVID-19 cases
per day, for the
past three days.
“In recent days,
we have made
incredible
progress in the
ongoing effort
to save lives
and defeat this
deadly virus,”
said Mayor
Lightfoot. “I am
thrilled that we
have made enough
headway to
cautiously ease
more
regulations, but
I once again
want to remind
all our
businesses and
residents that
we are not out
of the woods
yet. Only by
committing to
what we know
works will we be
able to continue
moving forward
carefully and
responsibly.”
What is the Long
Range Impact on
the Restaurant
Industry?
The COVID-19
pandemic has
wreaked havoc on
the restaurant
industry, but it
hasn’t ended it.
Thanks to quick
reactions and a
willingness to
adjust,
establishments
of all sizes,
locations and
niches have
managed to stay
afloat. With
more restaurants
reopening, it’s
become clear
that some of
these changes
will last
predicted Emily
Newton,
editor-in-chief
of
Revolutionized
Magazine.
Amid the chaos
of COVID-19,
restaurants
adapted because
they had to.
As 110,000
establishments
closed
permanently, the
industry quickly
learned that it
must adapt to
survive. Now
that the
sector’s lived
with these
adjustments for
some time, their
long-term
potential is
more apparent.
Many of these
changes will
linger after the
pandemic fades.
Restaurants have
learned their
lesson and will
shift to prevent
or weather
future crises.
The industry
will emerge from
the pandemic an
entirely
different
animal, and
here’s what that
will look like.
The most obvious
change to come
to reopening
restaurants is a
renewed stress
on health and
safety. During
the pandemic,
increased health
measures are a
government-mandated
necessity in
some areas.
After the
pandemic,
they’ll be an
optional but
critical part of
preventing
future risks.
Some measures,
like wearing
masks and
mandating a
six-foot
distance between
seats, will
likely fade with
the virus.
Others, like
frequent hand
washing, hand
sanitizer
stations for
guests and
regular
disinfection,
will persist.
Overall, the
industry will
take cleanliness
more seriously,
going beyond
meeting FDA
regulations and
taking a
proactive
approach to
disease
prevention.
Restaurant
health and
safety protocols
may reach a
scientific
level. Some
operators may
look into
metallic
nanoparticle
coatings to
sterilize and
disinfect
kitchen
equipment.
Technology has
proven an
indispensable
resource for
restaurants amid
the pandemic.
From QR
code-based menus
to app-based
reservations and
ordering,
technology has
sustained the
industry
throughout the
past year. These
tools can
continue to help
restaurants
outside of the
pandemic, too,
so the industry
will grow
increasingly
tech-centric.
Technology like
digital menus
don’t just make
restaurants
safer, but more
efficient. As
more restaurants
start reopening
and customers
flood back in,
these efficiency
gains will be
crucial. Even
lower-volume
establishments
will streamline
dining through
technology, as
it creates a
more gratifying
customer
experience.
After some time,
the industry
will move past
digital services
and embrace
automation.
Robots are
already crucial
in food
packaging
plants, but they
could see
service in
restaurants too.
Robotic
cashiers,
cleaners and
even cooks will
augment the
human workforce,
helping
businesses serve
more guests, and
do so faster.
Ghost kitchens —
restaurants that
deal exclusively
in carry-out and
delivery —
predate the
pandemic but are
now far more
enticing. Online
delivery orders
alone generated
$45 billion in
2020, and it
will likely take
a while before
in-house dining
regains its
place of
dominance. Ghost
kitchens
capitalize on
this trend, so
they’ll remain
valuable long
after the
pandemic
subsides.
Even as
restaurants
reopen, the
public may not
feel safe dining
in. Online
ordering has
also made
getting take-out
or delivery
easier than ever
before, which
will carry this
trend further.
Dine-in
establishments
can’t meet this
consumer
segment’s needs
as efficiently
or effectively
as ghost
kitchens.
It’s also
impossible to
ignore the
economic
benefits of the
ghost kitchen
model. Since it
typically
requires less
space and fewer
furnishings, it
reduces overhead
expenses.
Experts warn
that
full-service
restaurants may
not recover
until 2025, so
many businesses
may turn to
ghost kitchens
to recover
faster.
The pandemic has
been a learning
experience for
the industry,
especially when
it comes to
inefficiency.
When business
dropped and
money became
tight, the ways
in which the
sector has been
wasteful became
painfully
apparent.
Reopening
restaurants may
take the
opportunity to
move toward a
circular
economy,
virtually
eliminating
waste.
Proponents of
the circular
economy
typically
highlight its
environmental
benefits, but
there’s an
economic case as
well. Circular
food systems
could
generate $2.7
trillion in
annual
benefits across
the nation.
Since this
approach
eliminates
resource waste,
it makes
restaurants as
efficient, and
therefore,
profitable, as
possible.
The industry
won’t likely
shift to a
complete
circular economy
at once, as that
takes time and
initial
disruption. Many
restaurants and
chains will move
in that
direction,
though,
recycling,
reusing or
upcycling their
waste. This
approach will
ensure that
struggling
restaurants get
all the value
they can out of
their resources.
When people look
back on the
COVID-19
pandemic, it
will represent a
turning point in
history. As the
outbreak put the
status quo to
the test, it
became
increasingly
evident that
restaurants
haven’t been as
resilient or
efficient as
they could.
After a
disruption as
substantial as
that, the
industry won’t
return to normal
once the
outbreak
subsides.
The post-COVID
restaurant
environment will
look entirely
different from
before, and for
the better.
Establishments
will be cleaner,
safer, more
efficient and
profitable than
ever before.
These are the
forecasts of
Emily Newton.
She is
the
editor-in-chief
of
Revolutionized
Magazine, an
online
publication
covering the
latest
innovations in
the industrial
sector. the
McIlvaine
Company found
these views
insightful but
would make
several
observations.
Masks worn by
servers are
likely to be a
permanent
practice. The
average person
is infectious
with colds or
other airborne
diseases 5% of
the time.
This
means 1 out of
20 servers will
be suspect.
Restaurants
could require
those servers
who are
infectious to
wear masks. But
this would have
a negative
impact.
It will
create a much
more positive
image to require
all servers to
wear tight
fitting masks
The full article
is accessed at
