[notacoward]

Which side of the debate were you trying to support? I don't think anyone disagrees that medical personnel should have masks. Some might say that's all the more reason that a finite supply should be allocated to them first.

[trhway]

>a finite supply should be allocated to them first.

i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage. Such things like masks cost nothing in normal times and anyway is expected to be bought in bulk. The medical industry is highly consolidated and even without a pandemic there is always a risk of a supplier going off-line and anybody without enough supplies in stores is going to hang dry. Speaking anecdotally - several years ago a Novartis factory went off-line for whatever reason and we were scrambling to find the vet medicine we needed - normal vets quickly run out, and only one online pharmacy happened to fortunately still have it.

[zamfi]

> i don't understand why medical facilities don't have a several month supply in storage

They might have several months' supply under normal circumstances in storage -- but when suddenly all their staff need one 24/7 and they're overwhelmed with patients, that supply lasts days.

The supply needed to handle every possible contingency might not be reasonable to store.

[PeterisP]

There's nothing sudden or 'every possible contingency' here - they have had months to prepare for this exact thing, knowing what's coming and what measures would be necessary, based on the events in Wuhan. The lack of preparedness by the medical system is astonishing.

[zamfi]

Yes, of course they do now -- I interpreted the poster I was replying to as suggesting that hospitals keep this on hand at all times.

[Aeolun]

I wasn't particularly trying to support either side. I was just trying to make clear that 'some' masks are definitely effective in preventing infection, even if most masks aren't.

I just hate the reporting that says 'masks aren't effective, period'.