Let me emphasis the: will NOT provide ANY protection against COVID-19 or other virus or contaminants.
Posted on 08/11/2021 10:18:39 AM PDT by Ben Mugged
you recall incorrectly.
the 3m mask does better at filtering lower than the rating than that actual numeric rating.
it’s physics.
Their engineers have a document that explains the mechanics on their site.
It’s counterintuitive and lay people keep getting this wrong.
Notwithstanding that the virus attaches to a matter than makes it larger.
” respirators are not designed for children or people with facial hair”
Yep
Civil war with long beards and “moustaches”. Then to WWI time, men chopped all the beards and moustaches off cuz of the gas masks.
Fit and trim and shaved was in.
Then Gable and the no tee shirt.
Then Kennedy and the no hat.
Form follows function.
How many people that wear the N95 actually know how to put it on or have ever been fitted
For a N95 to be useful you have to have the proper size to fit your face and you have to wear it correctly.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010-133/pdfs/2010-133.pdf
I think that anyone that doesn’t have to wear a mask is a fool to do so.
In my career I have worn full face respirators and SCBAs. Both are a pain in the keester to put on, wear and take off. And as you say make breathing difficult, even just standing around. I had to wear it climbing up and down ladders in hot summer weather.
But what baffles me most is I have seen people in their cars, alone, wearing what looks like N05s.
All newer cars have cabin air filters which I believe are HEPA filters. Which are superior to N95s.
Why on Earth would you wear an uncomfortable mask in your car when you are alone, sitting in filtered air?
People don’t think.
Let me emphasis the: will NOT provide ANY protection against COVID-19 or other virus or contaminants.
That is a legal disclaimer to prevent lawsuits.
If you chose to deny physics that is up to you.
But Einstein probably understands it better than you.
Why would they need a legal disclaimer if the masks were effective?
They wouldn't. They need the disclaimer because it is the TRUTH. Viruses are much smaller then the openings that are in masks (which openings in the mask not even viable to the human eye). The load means nothing. Even if only 1% of the virus load gets through the mask, it is still enough of a load to infect a person.
The best analogy that I have yet seen is this: a mask is as effective at stopping a floating virus as a chain-link fence is at stopping mosquitoes.
I can show you at least 3 randomized clinical trial in the real world that are peer reviewed and show they do not work.
Woven cotton (or other fabric masks) and improvised protection: Reduces the transfer of large respiratory droplets to others. Can filter ~50% of large particles provided they have a tight weave (ACS Nano. 2020 Apr 24: acsnano.0c03252)... four-layer silk can filter up to 85%.
• An economist at Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz in Germany used statistics (synthetic control method) to conclude that 20 days after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45% (PNAS. 2020;117(51):32293-32301 first published December 3).
protective goggles;and an appropriate respiratory protection device, such as a half-mask air-purifying (or negative-pressure) respirator with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with HEPA filters. Follow local and state requirement regarding pulmonary function and fit testing before beginning any work requiring the use of a respirator.
Personal protective gear should be decontaminated upon removal at the end of the day. All potentially infective waste material (including respirator filters) from clean-up operations that cannot be burned or deep-buried on site should be double-bagged in appropriate plastic bags. The bagged material should then be labeled as infectious (if it is to be transported) and disposed of in accordance with local requirements for infectious waste.
Cloth masks and ordinary medical masks have a very limited protective effect for the wearer. They are more useful to protect others from spit droplets sent flying by coughs and sneezes by the mask wearer.
For a virus with a relatively low inherent R0 factor, like the first COVID-19 variant, cutting the effective R factor in half is helpful since 50% of 2.0 is 1.0 which would in theory stop the spread of the epidemic statistically speaking. For a virus with a higher R0 factor, like the Delta variant of COVID-19 with its R0 in the range of 6.0, cutting that in half still results in an effective R higher than the original variant.
In terms of personal protection in any situation it is true that something might be better than nothing. But assuming a 50% effective filter is going to make a difference is like wearing body armor on 1/2 of your torso. It probably helps, but isn't worth relying on.
Oh what ever you physics guru.
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.