Posted on 10/30/2023 5:54:45 AM PDT by logi_cal869
Thank you...virus SIZE matters.
False Arguments:
1) “The pores in a mask do not have to be small enough to stop the passage of viral particles as viruses are always contained within droplets and can only survive within droplets of around 10-200 microns in diameter, although survival is limited at the lower end of this range. So, as long as a mask can filter out particles larger than 10 microns, it will protect against virus transmission”. Masks can filter particles according to their charge or hydroscopic properties. Droplets are both charged and aqueous.
2) There are plenty of scientific studies that show the efficacy of masks for decreasing transmission of viruses. (laboratory experiments and observational studies but not real-world randomized use, RCT).
3) Studies have shown that masks made of three layers of fabric are just as good as N95’s to protect from droplets as long as they cover your nose and mouth.
4) The goal of masks is to simply reduce the amount of virus you are exposed to, such that if you get sick you are less likely to get really sick.
Reality: Larger droplets can dry on the mask and can pass through or wick their way across the moisture. Even if they did work, they need to be properly fitted. Facial hair or an atypical face size likely makes it near impossible to form a good seal. Additionally, the average person touches their face over 20 times an hour. No RCT in humans shows any protective effect of masking to reduce the severity of an infection, this is a pipe dream.
An N95 mask is rated to remove 95% of particles that are 300nm in diameter or greater.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t think that’s correct. They’re rated to remove 95% of particles that are 300nm in diameter but they’re actually more effective on particles both above and below that size. There’s sort of a notch at around 300nm where they’re least effective, and that’s where they’re rated.
It’s been a while since I’ve read about it, but I want to say the notch exists at the turnover region where the filtration transitions from being primarily mechanical to primarily electrostatic.
BTW, there is no lower limit to the size of particle that can be trapped by the electrostatic effect. This means the analogy about BB’s and a chainlink fence is bogus.
YEP YEP YEP YEP!
Yea, my little btother went there. I looked at their website and at the bottom was their full name as a university. Never heard it called anything but Va.Tech.
All you are doing is throwing around vague justifications. I listed what it is rated for. Sure a chain link fence will bounce back a BB occasionally but it is still effectively useless in stoping the BBs.
N95 is useless in stopping covid. If the mask was rated to have any rreal effectiveness for something less than what is was rated for they would up-rate it and charge more. What is the point of making it only to undersell its performance..
I provided the manufactures specs, you provided disingenuous opinion.
I am so tired of the lies people are willing to tell to push a narrative that only serves to deceive and cause further harm to others.
Show the studies where masks were effective, good luck since literally the studies have demonstrated the exact opposite.
.
Also as I pointed out hardly anyone in the public was even wearing an N95. My wife is an RN and worked with some of the worst type of isolation patients (Typhoid etc..) So there is some experience here. Not an expert but also wise enough to not blindly accept some “experts’s” word unchallenged. The age of experts has fallen from grace, time to realize they are paid whores for some political narrative.
So regardless the whole mask thing was insanity, those paper maks wer enot helping. anyone
oh and one more thing, since you seem to put a high value on the N95 electrostatic charge, the second layer which provides the charge wears our, some have shown they can be recharged, but tell me, who do you know that even aware of that?
N95 just is not effective enough against covid or any other illness the government would have you believe is some real life threatening illness of such small particle sizes. Forced air respirators or cartridge filtration with 99% or better at a minimum.
Also surely you realize if you truly need an N95 then one should also be wearing a face shield or goggles right? The eyes are an entrance vector for such small viruses, but hey lets ignore that inconvenient detail.
No, I’m being pretty specific in pointing out the error in what you said. You said an N95 is rated to filter out particles 300nm or larger. I’m pointing out that an N95 is actually rated to filter particles both larger *and smaller* than 300nm.
I’m bringing this up so that people don’t get totally trounced in an argument with a pro-mask person who knows some basic facts about how the masks work. If you try the BB/fence analogy with someone like that, you’ll just wind up looking ridiculous.
The idea is they’re disposable. You throw them in the trash when they lose their effectiveness and you get a new one.
Is anyone actually replacing them that often? Of course not. N95 masks are expensive so you’re not going to cycle through them unless you’re rich. And no one is wearing N95 masks in the first place because they’re so uncomfortable.
And those few who are wearing them don’t have them fitted right and aren’t wearing goggles, etc, etc. And so, yes, the whole thing is a joke.
My point isn’t to argue for the masks. It’s to correct bogus arguments that will make you look dumb if you try to make them to an informed person. It’s hard to win hearts and minds when you look like a dumbunny.
The perfect such mask is a plastic trash bag with duct tape around the neck. But it only works for liberals.
I get where you are coming from, yes I was wrong not to state the “smaller” I am aware that is the case but chose not to mention it. Yes some smaller particles are captured but that is by no means unlimited in how small. Also for covid they usually say it attaches to a carrier aerosol like water molecules, problem is they credit the molecule as being so large that is captured but fail to account that the carrier particle evaporates easily shrinking down to 10 times less than the original size.
You are correct but it only presents an opportunity to deceive without a much deeper conversation. While not technically accurate functionally my statement is, the masks is in-effective against covid and what it can filter against.
All that just to say, even with electrostatic capture, the covid virus whether on a carrier or not is so small the N95 is not effective, even with it’s electrostatic properties.
Thank you for your discussion, I will add on the point of an informed person, if they are arguing for a mask as protection against covid we are not winning them over. If they are actually informed they should already know that it is in-effective and at that point the argument is not about facts, it is about them pushing a false narrative. I have literally had a Dr. walk away unable to continue a conversation because of that very discussion. The could not further stand on the facts of the mask effectiveness beyond an assertion. He knew full well it was not very effective, he (actually the whole medical group) also had big bonuses tied to pushing the jab and thus the narrative.
If paper masks work so well, why do they need those expensive Bunny Suits at BSL-4 level labs?
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.