Posted on 06/26/2020 8:50:20 PM PDT by Grandpa Drudge
Yes, legalese. Maybe it’s not written in the same dense language that, for example, the settlement papers for a house you are buying is written, but that warning is there for legal reasons.
The face masks reduce virus transmission. More and more studies are showing this. But no company wants to be sued by someone who used a mask and still got Covid-19, because they don’t want to have to stand up in court trying to explain to a jury that’s out for their blood that reduction of risk is not elimination. Hence, they are all putting warnings on their packages.
I am well aware of how difficult it is to breathe through a mask. As a medical researcher, I have had to use masks for various purposes for years. I have also used them when performing various household repair tasks and during fire season in CA when the air was hazy with smoke particles. Yes, they do increase the effort needed to draw air into the lungs. Yes, they are uncomfortable. Every time I wear a mask, I feel like I’m about to suffocate, and the claustrophobia can become overwhelming if I do not concentrate on keeping it at bay.
I would never recommend wearing a mask for prolonged periods of time. You only need to wear it when you expect to be around other people. As soon as you exit a building and there are no other people around, it is okay to remove the mask. And if you place it in sunlight, you will help to dry it faster and expose it to UV rays, both of which have anti-viral properties.
If you find wearing a mask is incredibly difficult, you can always look into acquiring a PAPR (Powered Air Purifying Respirator). This is the type of device worn in laboratories where dangerous virus research is going on. It will protect you from getting Covid-19, but will not protect others from catching it from you. Although I suppose you could attach a few layers of cloth at the bottom to filter the air you exhale.
Also, I think it rather amusing that you quoted a passage on HIF-1alpha; this protein is very closely related to the work I did in graduate school, and I knew the people who discovered it. The passage was a little incorrect; HIF-1 refers to a dimer, which is two proteins bound together. Only HIF-1alpha is actually inducible by low oxygen conditions. HIF-1beta, more commonly known as ARNT, is always present.
We buy boxes of face masks at the store. We don’t reuse them, so we go through quite a few. On the back of the boxes it says this...
Not for use in a healthcare setting.
If masks work, why aren’t we issuing them to the inmates of correctional facilities instead of turning them loose?
I have been making masks. They are 2 or 3 layers of cotton material, with a pocket to insert a filter that I obtain by dissecting a vacuum cleaner bag (the filter is the inner layer of the bag).
I don’t know what is the difference between the masks you buy at the store and the surgical masks that we would buy for use in the medical research labs.
As for how to protect inmates, I totally agree that setting them loose to prey on the neighboring population is totally the wrong thing to do. I would guess that the best protection for them is to screen all visitors and staff, and if a case is identified in the prison, to test them all and isolate the affected prisoners. In their cells, prisoners are pretty much protected from each other (unless they actively try to spread disease) because the cells all face the corridor.
All fibers used in the masks have electrostatic capacity. Didn’t you ever see any electrostatic demonstrations in high school?
How many folks wearing masks have gotten infected? How many hospital workers wearing masks have become infected?
You say "Yes, legalese. Maybe it’s not written in the same dense language that, for example, the settlement papers for a house you are buying is written, but that warning is there for legal reasons."
My answer: You seem to be implying that since it is "legalese" it should be ignored because it is simply there to protect the manufacturer, rather than the user. That is nonsense.
The WARNING, in very large, bold print, is there to clearly inform users that this product will NOT accomplish what many potential users may expect from it given the current political pressure to use it for.
You say "The face masks reduce virus transmission. More and more studies are showing this."
My answer: The point of this thread is that Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses, and several scientific studies confirm that.
Secondly; there are many intuitive analysis that conclude masks will "reduce" transmission, but so far NO studies have been conducted to determine the degree of reduced rate of transmission they might provide.
However; there was a scientific study a number of years ago, that determined that surgical masks were NOT effective at all in reducing transmission of the influenza virus.
My answer to your next 3 paragraphs advising how to deal with difficulties using the mask: No argument.
When I use the mask, I consistently suffer with severe hypercapnia within about 15 minutes. This is a serious, dangerous problem, which affects MANY mask users to some different degree.
Finally you say "Also, I think it rather amusing that you quoted a passage on HIF-1alpha; this protein is very closely related to the work I did in graduate school, and I knew the people who discovered it. The passage was a little incorrect; HIF-1 refers to a dimer, which is two proteins bound together. Only HIF-1alpha is actually inducible by low oxygen conditions. HIF-1beta, more commonly known as ARNT, is always present."
My answer: You should consider being a little more careful when arrogantly claiming superior knowledge and experience.
You happen to be challenging Dr. Russell Blaylock, the author of that passage. I recommend you re-read the article, then apologize.
It would be useful if you could point to any study that actually tests any mask that is effective in preventing transmission of viruses, and that is available for general use by the public.
And I could probably point to several very powerful political entities who deliberately don't want to know.
To me, it seems that the line dividing the mask vs no-mask people is their relationship with Christ. People who have a solid relationship have peace in their hearts and don’t live in fear. At least that’s what I’ve noticed among those I know.
Surgical Mask vs N95 Respirator for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Workers: A Randomized Trial
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19797474/
So exactly what does this scientific study mean in the context of our currently ongoing Covid-19 battle over mandatory use of masks to prevent (or even reduce rates of) infection?
Of 446 nurses working in tertiary care Ontario hospitals, half wearing surgical masks and the other half wearing N95 respirators, 98 (22%) of the nurses were infected with influenza. There was less than 1% difference in effectiveness of the N95 mask and the surgical mask. (neither worked!)
And they won't work for Covid-19, either.
I have my own beliefs and a comfortable trust in GOD, which helps me a lot.
The challenge to Christianity and many other religions is clearly a part of the strategy to overcome and destroy the principles of freedom and liberty this great USA was built upon.
I have come to believe this "pandemic panic" (which is actually not much worse than a really bad flu season) has been seized upon by our left wing socialist "one world order" political scientists as a crisis "not to be wasted".
And FEAR is their most powerful political tool, which is being amplified with great skill in too many ways to account for here.
I have done some minimal checks on what masks do the best as the barrier we need. I have looked at one function I would want: The use of a flexible outer border on the mask to seal the edges from outflow/inflow. I have found a spandex version on Amazon made by Kurve costing $16.99 for three. It had a interior place to add an additional filter. This reviewer tells one that the flexible fabric does a good job of sealing the edges:
“Most comfortable masks I’ve had yet! Perfect fit and angle. Covers entire face and I can wear my glasses without fogging up. It also has kept shape very well after laundering.”
Secondly; there are many intuitive analysis that conclude masks will "reduce" transmission, but so far NO studies have been conducted to determine the degree of reduced rate of transmission they might provide.
Do you fall for the fallacy of sacrificing the good for the perfect? I only know about risk reduction, not risk elimination. This applies to the use of facial masks, as well as just about everything else.
SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample of U.S. Navy Service Members — USS Theodore Roosevelt, April 2020, CDC MMWR: "Service members who reported taking preventive measures had a lower infection rate than did those who did not report taking these measures (e.g., wearing a face covering, 55.8% versus 80.8%; avoiding common areas, 53.8% versus 67.5%; and observing social distancing, 54.7% versus 70.0%, respectively)."
Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis, June 2020, The Lancet: "Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings."
In less technical language, these studies found reductions of risk of catching Covid-19 of 10 to 15% using masks or social distancing.
You happen to be challenging Dr. Russell Blaylock, the author of that passage. I recommend you re-read the article, then apologize.
Um... in what way did I challenge him, and why should I apologize for providing a little more detail on the characteristics of HIF-1alpha? I was pointing out the irony in you quoting from someone who is familiar with a topic on which I have MUCH experience. It is not uncommon for experts to use simplifications to describe their point to laypeople, since they know that getting into the technical details is going to immediately lose their audience. I'm certain that Dr. Blaylock is aware that HIF-1 is a dimer, of which the expression of only one of the proteins is induced by conditions of hypoxia and the other protein is constitutively expressed.
My answer: Not at all. Nor do I fall for the fallacy of believing something is "good" just because some pseudo-scientist says it is good.
Both of the analysis you cite (and I've read them carefully) are pseudo-science, based on anecdotal data and provide NO testable data. Even worse, the conclusion that "these studies found reductions of risk of catching Covid-19 of 10 to 15% using masks or social distancing" does not impress me at all, as 10% to15% speculative "improvement" is really not significant at all.
It would be surprisingly easy to initiate and conduct a comprehensive scientific test of the effectiveness of masks against Covid-19 and complete it in less than 3 months. The model of this test would be the same as the 2008 test of surgical masks and N95 masks against influenza, documented in my post #211, above, with 1 test group using surgical masks, a 2nd group wearing N95 masks, and a 3rd third group wearing no mask.
I find it amazing and frustrating that this has not already been done, and have a few suspicions why it has not been done.
Given the extraordinary violations of freedom and liberty resulting from the present bureaucratic and arbitrary restrictions imposed by our government, motivated and "justified" by this pseudo science, I have a few suspicions why it has not been done.
Can you explain why it has not been done?
Note, particularly, this paragraph under
"Third, the 99/95/100 classification system only applies to particulates down to 2.5 micrometers in size. While this sounds exceedingly small – and it is – it’s not actually as small as it’s possible for particulate to be".
From the second paragraph in the SOTT article reference by this thread:
"The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle."
Although masks generally filter out larger droplets just fine, the aerosol droplet that may contain this virus can be as small as 1 μm in size, far too small to be stopped by any standard masks generally available to the public.
note: 2.5 micrometers = 2.5 μm
The obvious conclusion must be that even the best N95, N99, and N100 respirators are NOT designed to filter out the long-residence-time aerosol particles of SARS-CoV-2 virus.
I have learned that they have not determined how much virus taken in is sufficient to causes an infection. Certain low levels may not cause symptoms or result in an infection. That kind of science needs to be done. It may be that constant exposure to low levels may cause the effect of a vaccine. As your immune system fights these low level infections, it develops an immunity. That would be a good thing.
I note that in fact much documented information about that IS available, and some even contained in the SOTT article referenced in this thread under the following heading:
And further down, under this heading, are the following critical paragraphs, with reference to example sources:
"More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):
Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m−3. On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modelling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over 1 hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.
Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).
Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.
On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case."
Good information. It tells me I have been on the right science for the efficiency of mask protection. That includes the selection of the right fabric material for the best filtration and a mask design that has a good fit around the edges. The Kurve spandex design with the pocket for adding an additional filter looks like a good one. I have worn those disposable ones and can’t stand how bad they fog up my glasses. They tell me, there is an outlet as well as an inlet for leaked virus.
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.