Having never used an officially reusable respirator, I’m wondering what the advantage is over disposable ones.
I use my disposable ones for many hours total, until they either look or smell a little dirty, before I discard them. Do you know if this is significantly bad? I’ve been assuming not.
With reusable respirators, there’s still a disposable filter that you have to replace regularly, right? Plus you have to clean the reusable parts. Do you expect that filter replacement frequency, supply reliability, and cost to be approximately equivalent between N95s and the filters for reusable respirators?
I can imagine the filters are probably cheaper. But it’s easier for me to store a few silicone-sealed N95s in the car and house. It’s also less unusual-looking to wear them at high-risk locations like the pediatrician’s office. Finally, if one gets irreversibly dirty for some reason, it’s no big deal to toss it.
I’m not trying to convince you that disposable N95s are better than reusable respirators (though I do feel those particular Softseal ones are less widely known about than they ought to be). I am genuinely confused why people would prefer reusable ones and think I might be missing something.
Is the eponymous difference between 95 and 100 really due to the filtration of the fabric itself? Or is it mainly due to the assumption of an excellent seal on the P100 and only a moderate one on most N95s? A comparison of N95s to KN95s suggests it’s not the latter reason, since KN95s have very poor seals; but since that also mixes different countries’ standards, I’m not sure it means much.
The Psmiths have a good parable about the origins (and impending decline) of democracy that involves similar ideas. Search for “parable” to skip to that part.
https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-miti-and-the-japanese-miracle