The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses

Research.net ^ | 4/20/2020 | Dr. Denis G Rancourt, PhD

[Grandpa Drudge]

Well, palmer, apparently you don't even bother to read what you post!

The final sentence in the Results paragraph on page 1 of that PDF reads:

Neither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI cumulatively.

(ILI = influenza-like illness).

Instead, you continue to point out complex stats (that you really don't understand) and quote pseudo-scientific suggestions unsupported by demonstrated fact. I say "enough of your trolling nonsense."

[palmer]

Table 4 is not complex and shows 90% infection compared to the control for face mask only, but P of 0.19 is too high for staistical significance. In other words there is too much chance the reduction in infection was just accidental.

It is what it is: a statistically weak case for a small reduction in infection rates. If masks did nothing there would not be a 0.90 in that cokumn, it would be closer to 1.0 This is science, not pseudo-science, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[Grandpa Drudge]

Perfect, you give me yet one more perfect example of what pseudo-science is, so maybe even you can understand it

First, why is this important?

I, for one, have a minor asthma problem, and cannot wear even the standard procedure mask without suffering from severe hypercapnia within 15 minutes, a well known serious consequence of mask wearing. Many others have the same problem to some degree. (see Blaylock)

In spite of this, government officials at all levels have implemented extreme rules and regulations enforced by large fines and even imprisonment in some cases, forcing us all to wear masks almost everywhere outside our home. The "claimed" justification for these rules is to prevent or at least reduce infection from the Covid-19 virus. The truth, as exposed in this thread, is that masks DO NOT PREVENT virus infections, and furthermore the demonstrated levels of REDUCED INFECTION is insignificant (as reported in several of the scientific studies discussed here).

So now, for the pseudo-science example from you

You say " Table 4 is not complex and shows 90% infection compared to the control for face mask only, but P of 0.19 is too high for staistical significance. In other words there is too much chance the reduction in infection was just accidental.
It is what it is: a statistically weak case for a small reduction in infection rates. If masks did nothing there would not be a 0.90 in that cokumn, it would be closer to 1.0 This is science, not pseudo-science, so I'm not sure what you are getting at."

Well, for one thing, I would rather trust an analysis from a scientist authoring a scientific paper than someone who doesn't understand the differences between a liquid droplet (a liquid held together in a droplet by surface tension), a vapor (a gaseous form of evaporated liquid, like steam or smoke, which by the way may be an airborne aerosol that may include thousands of virus particles), and a molecule (like a water molecule which is 2 hydrogen atoms joined to a single oxygen atom, and is really really tiny compared to a virus particle, which includes many hundreds of various molecules) (see your post 89, above)

Your "pseudo-science" is presentation of this tiny fragment of data, from a complex mathematical presentation that is quite difficult for most people (including me) to easily understand, as evidence that masks are justified.

That conclusion is pure pseodo-science and is FALSE, as the statement from the authors of this study clearly states "Neither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI cumulatively."

[palmer]

"a vapor (a gaseous form of evaporated liquid, like steam or smoke, which by the way may be an airborne aerosol that may include thousands of virus particles)"

No, that's not correct. Gases are molecules, about 100 times smaller than a virus particle.

[Grandpa Drudge]

A "vapor" is a frequently used term for an "airborne aerosol".

Aerosols are a different story. They form when smaller droplets evaporate faster than they fall to the ground, leaving nuclei measuring less than five micrometers in diameter. Without heavy liquids dragging them down, virus particles from these evaporated droplets are able to float through the air for up to half an hour. When a virus travels via aerosols, it’s possible to contract it by entering an empty room that a sick person was in several minutes earlier. This transmission via free-drifting aerosols is how the World Health Organization defines an airborne disease.

Another study (which I don't have time now to find the link) indicated airborne aerosols could remain floating indefinitely (days) and influenza virus could remain viable in airborne aerosol form for up to 41 hours in stagnant air.

[palmer]

That's my understanding of aerosols as well. The unknown for COVID is how many aerosolized virus particles it takes to get infected. For influenza it's usually thousands: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686 Essentially it's a couple hundred genome copies (virus particles) which is TCID, times 30 because most of the time the infection doesn't take hold. But as they note in the article, there are usually about 1000 virus particles per cubic meter (table 3).

It's certainly valid to say that cloth or surgical or loose N95 masks will not stop aerosolized particles. N95 with proper fit can stop 95% of 0.3 micron or larger particles, but that's not what the public is using or doing.

[Grandpa Drudge]

Your facts are wrong, as usual.

N95 masks, by FDA specs, stop 95% of particles 0.5 microns or larger.

A study of SARS-CoV-2 estimated counts of 1000 to 6000 virus particles in individual aerosol droplets ranging in size from 0.1 micron to 0.25 microns.

A single aerosol droplet can contain a large number of virus particles, so just consider aerosols are made up of millions of droplets, all of which pass easily through N95 masks.

[palmer]

all of which pass easily through N95 masks.

N95 masks stop 90% of particles 0.5 microns or larger, as you stated.

A study of SARS-CoV-2 estimated counts of 1000 to 6000 virus particles in individual aerosol droplets ranging in size from 0.1 micron to 0.25 microns.

Not possible. The virus is about 0.1 microns. An aersol of 0.1 microns would contain 1 virus particle.

[palmer]

That first sentence should say 95% not 90%, but with the usual caveats: has to be properly fitted and properly worn.

[Grandpa Drudge]

Oh yeah? prove it, with measured, documented facts.

Soon, I hope, you will realize I have little respect for pseudo science opinions, assumptions, and untested theories.

[palmer]

"prove it, with measured, documented facts."

Science doesn't prove anything. There is only evidence that accumlates to produce stronger theories. We have to rely on instruments that provide the evidence, albeit very strong evidence due to the repeatability of the measurements, different kinds of instruments producing the same results, etc.

The SARS-CoV-2 have a size of between 60 and 160nm,(28) which is very similar to the size of influenza viruses (80–100 nm) (29) https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/jamp.2020.1616 I.e. 0.06 to 0.16 microns.

One thing I did not know before now is that N95 can filter a lot smaller than 0.3 microns and at high efficiency: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2016.1225157 It says they can filter over 98% of 0.1 micron particles.

[Grandpa Drudge]

Stupid nonsense from you, as I am now learning to expect.

Copied directly from the PDF in your first link:

Breathing Is Enough: For the Spread of Influenza Virus and SARS-CoV-2 by Breathing Only

Background: The transmission of respiratory viruses such as influenza and corona viruses from one person to another is still not fully understood.
Methods: A literature search showed that there is a strong scientific rationale and evidence that viruses are very efficiently spread through aerosols by the patient’s breathing only. It is not necessary for the patient to cough or sneeze.
Results: The exhaled aerosol particles are generated by normal breathing in the deep lung through reopening of collapsed small airways during inspiration. These mucus/surfactant aerosols (size range between 0.2 and 0.6 μm) can transport viruses out of the lungs of patients and be present in the room air for hours.
Conclusion: These aerosol particles are difficult to filter out of the air; because of their physical properties, new strategies must be developed to protect people from these virus aerosols.

But much worse, and the reason I am even bothering to respond to you, is that your final comment is a dead wrong LIE!

You say "One thing I did not know before now is that N95 can filter a lot smaller than 0.3 microns and at high efficiency: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2016.1225157 It says they can filter over 98% of 0.1 micron particles."

That link, titled:

A comparison of facemask and respirator filtration test methods

is NOT a test of any masks, and makes NO such ridiculous suggestion.

It is simply a comparison of various test METHODS, as the title states.

So much for your outstanding (NOT) science capability.

[palmer]

A study of SARS-CoV-2 estimated counts of 1000 to 6000 virus particles in individual aerosol droplets ranging in size from 0.1 micron to 0.25 microns.

Are you sure they weren't talking about particles per cubic meter? Or larger droplets?