Check this out: Facebook is posting false fact checks and hiding this video of a man testing oxygen levels, that they claim is a woman saying something that he never says.
Posted on 06/26/2020 8:50:20 PM PDT by Grandpa Drudge
(excerpt copied from this article)
Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.
In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks.
(Excerpt) Read more at sott.net ...
p
In the first place, a home-made mask of a scarf or handkerchief is about pointless. Masks - like the n95 - are a sort of general catchall for pathogens in general. The purpose of the mask is to prevent breathing in dangerous pathogens. The n95 is fabricated in such a way as to allow breathing in without allowing too many pathogens to pass the barriers designed into the mask. As for Coronavirus, the viral pathogen is so small that the n95 mask would prove nearly useless; that is why you see those conducting COVID-19 testing wearing a plastic face shield in front of their masks.
People who say that they cannot breathe and so leave the mask loose or only covering their mouth are laughably misguided. Once air freely passes around the edges of the mask all protection is lost. One of the still poorly answered questions about Coronavirus is how dangerous it is as an airborne pathogen, and how long it can survive in droplets suspended in the air.
As to wearing masks over and over - medical professionals DO NOT do that. Once a mask leaves a threatening environment it is discarded. Some masks are rated for a few washings, but that is only if replacement masks are not available. Early on that was an issue, but now that masks are commonly available there should be no need for washing.
The idea of fashionable masks is also laughable; fashionable enough to repel dangerous pathogens? If the mask has no rating as to the aperture of the filtering material then it is basically a waste of time. True, a homemade mask can help block the sneezing or coughing of respiratory pathogens into the air to a great extent; but such a function is NOT the purpose of medical masks. Medical masks are to protect the wearer from breathing in dangerous pathogens. As I said above, the viral pathogen is so small that even the n95 mask cannot guarantee total protection.
For my part I wear a kn95 mask {made in South Korea} mostly to put others at ease. Whenever I visit a Dr's office or medical facility they require me to wear a mask - and I do - even though we both know it is generally pointless. More is accomplished by the temperature scan of the forehead done at the entrance.
I see a lot of people wearing their masks below their noses. What you describe must be the reason. They may not know why they feel better if they do, but I'm sure this is the reason. I have noticed it as well.
BUMP to your post at #118.
I regularly ask employees in stores how it is to have to wear one for a shift every day. People are forced to wear masks to work in order to keep their job. I constantly hear of complaints of shortness of breath, extra exertion, increased headaches and rashes or severe acne forming around the bottoms of their face.
Their bodies and lung system are designed to reject the use of contant blocking of fresh air flow and breathing in their own exhaust.
“Too Much Carbon Dioxide Is Toxic”
“...However, if you breathe high concentrations of carbon dioxide or re-breathe air (such as from a plastic bag or tent), you may be at risk for carbon dioxide intoxication or even carbon dioxide poisoning. Carbon dioxide intoxication and carbon dioxide poisoning are independent of oxygen concentration, so you may have enough oxygen present to support life, yet still suffer from the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentration in your blood and tissues.
The condition of excess carbon dioxide concentration in the blood is called hypercapnia or hypercarbia. Symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity include high blood pressure, flushed skin, headache and twitching muscles. At higher levels, you could experience panic, irregular heartbeat, hallucinations, vomited and potentially unconsciousness or even death.
There are several potential causes of hypercapnia. It may result from hypoventilation, diminished consciousness, lung disease, rebreathing air, or exposure to an environment high in CO2 (e.g., near a volcano or geothermal vent or under in some workplaces). It can also occur when supplemental oxygen is administered to a person with sleep apnea...”
https://www.thoughtco.com/carbon-dioxide-poisonous-607545
Complete baloney.
Science is NEVER conclusive. Ignore anyone who says that; They are either an idiot or they have an agenda.
For reference, look up the definition of the term "Scientific Method." Read and understand.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894888/
Oh! How easy it is to confuse!
Start with your claim in post 176: "A few days ago, I read a paper that stated that droplets evaporated by 95% in less than a second (I want to say 1/24 of a second) in a room at 50% humidity."
And the relevant passage (in post 178): "Evaporation, being a molecular process, is very fast (Nicas et al. 2005; Morawska 2006); for example, a 20 µm droplet evaporates to a 1 µm diameter droplet within 0.24 s−1 (at 50% ambient relative humidity). Henceforth, we neglect droplet evaporation, and we follow Nicas et al. (2005) to take the post-evaporation diameter (approximately) half the pre-evaporation diameter."
First: This "example evaporation" formula applies to a 20 µm droplet, which by other discussions in this referenced article would fall to the ground in about 8 seconds. and is NOT oconsidered an "airborn" droplet that would be encountered with a mask. (The Covid-19 airborn aerosol droplets discussed in this thread are less than 2.5 µm droplets)
Second: More importantly, you clearly misinterpret the mathematical formula "0.24 s-1". You have no idea what "0.24 s-1" means in this formula. It certainly does NOT mean 0.24 seconds.
Covid-19 is another name for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) is an RNA virus, with viral RNA
And from that same article you quote: Stability and infectivity of coronaviruses in inanimate environments
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190947/
"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly contagious virus that can transmit through respiratory droplets, aerosols, or contacts.
SARS-CoV-2 can be sustained in air (airborne aerosol) in closed unventilated buses for at least 30 min without losing infectivity. The most common coronaviruses may well survive or persist on surfaces for up to one month.
The half-life of coronaviruses in aerosols was reported to be 86 h at 80% humidity in the environment" (note: italic phrase (airborne aerosol) added by me
And finally, if you believe your cotton mask will absorb and block moisture droplets efficiently I suggest a simple test: Go outside on a cold day (below 32 degrees F) and exhale through your cotton mask. See if you see any fog. (you will).
Thanks, Flyer, and thanks for the CO2 link, That’s good info as well.
I think the Fearpers are also forgetting that the virus can enter through your eyes.
Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
You apparently don't believe either of those terms apply to the research presented in this article. I note that is your opinion, but certainly not mine.
Welcome!
:)
While I am skeptical of the protection against being infected when wearing the masks, especially by the untrained, there are some weird definition things stated here.
But again, look at the details of what the study purports to say.
You could be more helpful and actually explain it.
I misspoke even though I was doing the calculations on my spreadsheet. (Yes, I do make mistakes and sometimes miss them on a proofread.) The right unit is 1/4 (close enough) per second, or the evaporation takes place in just over 4 seconds.
If you wanted to get super technical, you could factor in the acceleration due to gravity in the falling of droplets, and determine the length of time they stay at a breathable height for people at different heights.
The bottom line is that various studies are showing the efficacy of masks and social distancing, the duration of survival of virus on various surfaces, etc. These are all good data to know, since we most certainly do not have the luxury of waiting for a vaccine to come save us. This is not an influenza virus with a mature vaccine technology that can give us a new vaccine in just months.
I have noticed that the world wide death rate dropped below 5% yesterday. Could this mean (at least in part) that the clinical trials are demonstrating more effective treatments of Covid-19?
The studies are looking at real world reductions in transmission achieved by mask use. I interpret that as including mask use by both trained and untrained persons.
Efficacy is how well masks perform under ideal circumstances, i.e. a laboratory setting.
Effectiveness is how well they perform in actual use. At least one of the studies (printed in the MMWR) looked at effectiveness of mask use, and found it beneficial.
It looks to me like legalese intended to protect the company from lawsuit in case the wearer contracts Covid-19 despite wearing a mask.
The data, however, is showing that the use of face masks does reduce transmission of virus.
The "intuitive opinion" held by many "that the use of face masks does reduce transmission of virus" may have some merit and be correct to some small degree, however there have not yet been any significant studies that confirm this opinion. The studies that have been done and reviewed in this thread do NOT confirm that opinion, and present evidence that the "reduction" is probably minimal.
The following report by By Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD – May 13, 2020 highlights the risks of hypoxia and/or hypercapnia from the use of face masks. I quote just one of them here:
"The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome."
From the article I posted in this thread:
“For nanometer-sized particles, which can easily slip between the openings in the network of filter fibers, electrostatic attraction predominates the removal of low mass particles which are attracted to and bind to the fibers. Electrostatic filters are generally most efficient at low velocities such as the velocity encountered by breathing through a face mask.”
-—Colbeck, I.; Lazaridis, M. 5 - Filtration Mechanisms. In Aerosol Science: Technology and Applications, 1st ed.; Colbeck, I., Lazaridis, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2014; pp 89– 118.Google Scholar
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.