I recently posted an article On The Karens And Their Stupid Masks.
It’s already far too long. So we need another article for even more mask-related rejection.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has an amazing compilation article of actual scientific studies on fun mask facts.
It’s not pretty:
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Note: A COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers (μm); influenza virus size is 0.08 – 0.12 μm; a human hair is about 150 μm. *1 nm = 0.001 micron; 1000 nm = 1 micron; Micrometer (μm) is the preferred name for micron (an older term) 1 meter is = 1,000,000,000 nm or 1,000,000 microns Droplets
- Virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. Larger respiratory droplets (>5 μm) remain in the air for only a short time and travel only short distances, generally <1 meter. They fall to the ground quickly. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
- This idea guides the CDC’s advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance.
- Virus-laden small (<5 μm) aerosolized droplets can remain in the air for at least 3 hours and travel long distances. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?articleTools=true
- In air conditioned environment these large droplets may travel farther.
- However, ventilation — even the opening of an entrance door and a small window can dilute the number of small droplets to one half after 30 seconds. (This study looked at droplets from uninfected persons). This is clinically relevant because poorly ventilated and populated spaces, like public transport and nursing homes, have high SARS-CoV-2 disease transmission despite physical distancing. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
Objects and Surfaces
- Person to person touching
- The CDC’s most recent statement regarding contracting COVID-19 from touching surfaces: “Based on data from lab studies on Covid-19 and what we know about similar respiratory diseases, it may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose or possibly their eyes,” the agency wrote. “But this isn’t thought to be the main way the virus spreads. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0522-cdc-updates-covid-transmission.html.
Now on to the filter fit section:
Filter Efficiency and Fit
*Data from a University of Illinois at Chicago review https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
- HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters – 99.97 – 100% efficient. HEPA filters are tested with particles that are 0.125 μm.
- Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles)
- N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret (a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge. An electret generates internal and external electric fields so the filter material has electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes. As flow increases, particles will be collected less efficiently.
- N95 – A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained.
- But even these have problems: many have exhalation valve for easier breathing and less moisture inside the mask.
- Surgical masks are designed to protect patients from a surgeon’s respiratory droplets, aren’t effective at blocking particles smaller than 100 μm. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VLXWeZBll7YJ:https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/957730O/respirators-and-surgical-masks-contrast-technical-bulletin.pdf+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
- Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min.
- N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected).
- T-shirts had 10% efficiency,
- Scarves 10% to 20%,
- Cloth masks 10% to 30%,
- Sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and
- Towels 40%.
- All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.
- Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm).
- N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%.
- Medical masks – 55% efficiency
- General masks – 38% and
- Handkerchiefs – 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.
- Conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.
- N95 masks protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control transmission.
- Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients.
- Cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as personal protective equipment (PPE).
“Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn’t they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”
With the absolute best part of the article being the cloth masks section:
*The first randomized controlled trial of cloth masks. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
- Penetration of cloth masks by particles was 97% and medical masks 44%, 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%), 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%).
- Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.
- The virus may survive on the surface of the face- masks
- Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. A contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.
- Cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
*A study of 4 patients in South Korea https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish. “Both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
*Singapore Study – Few people used mask correctly https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601
Overall, data were collected from 714 men and women. About half the sample were women and all adult ages were represented. Only 90 participants (12.6%, 95% CI 10.3%-15.3%) passed the visual mask fit test. About three-quarters performed strap placement incorrectly, 61% left a “visible gap between the mask and skin,” and about 60% didn’t tighten the nose-clip.
*A 2011 randomized Australian clinical trial of standard medical/surgical masks https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo
Medical masks offered no protection at all from influenza.
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
Surgical masks – loose fitting. They are designed to protect the patient from the doctors’ respiratory droplets. The wearer is not protected from others airborne particles
People do not wear masks properly. Most people have the mask under the nose. The wearer does not have glasses on and the eyes are a portal of entry.
The designer masks and scarves offer minimal protection – they give a false sense of security to both the wearer and those around the wearer.
**Not to mention they add a perverse lightheartedness to the situation.
If you are sick, stay home!
Which is no different from another ER nurse’s research study into the whole mask ordeal:
Looking at risk of death from this novel coronavirus, we need to look at real numbers. The models and predictions have not been shown to be accurate. The population in the United States is approximately 326,700,000. As of May 9, 76,934 have been reported to die from COVID, as a complication of it, or with it. Using the real numbers of people potentially at risk (as we all are) and the number of these deaths, it works out to be 0.00023 or 0.023% of the population. That is essentially a 0% death rate in the general population.
It looks like the death rate from this is higher because not everybody has been exposed, so the death rate is higher in those known to be exposed. The problem is we don’t know how many have been exposed. Without an accurate denominator, we don’t really know the risk of dying if you become infected.
An important study using science to evaluate cloth mask use to prevent infection was conducted in March 2011. It is a large, prospective, randomized clinical trial; and the first randomized clinical trial ever conducted of cloth masks. The international team of researchers concluded:
“This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”
For decades, we have known that masks have not been shown to be effective in preventing influenza transmission. How is it that masks don’t work for this virus, but they magically work for the COVID virus? The CDC, as of today, has not changed its advice about influenza.
According to the CDC, “No recommendation can be made at this time for mask use in the community by asymptomatic persons, including those at high risk for complications, to prevent exposure to influenza viruses.”
You might want to save that as a PDF, before it gets censored.
Hell, even in the United Kingdom they are making people wear masks that specifically say they don’t protect against coronaviruses…
“This product is an ear loop mask. This product is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or any other viruses or contaminants,” states the packaging on a standard set of cloth masks currently being sold.
Skeptics have also pointed out that people continually touching potentially infected masks and then touching surfaces could even exacerbate the spread of coronavirus.
“Apart from everything else, the only coverings the Government is insisting on are cloth ones, which every man and his dog knows are COMPLETELY USELESS,”writes Toby Young.
“As Allison Pearson says in her excellent comment piece in today’s Telegraph, “anything other than tight-fitting, surgical-grade masks are utterly pointless – like trying to stop a bullet with a chain-link fence”. I mean, the evidence that the gold-standard N95 masks are effective in non-healthcare settings is threadbare at best – and they have to be disposed of after a single use.”
“There is literally no evidence that re-usable cloth masks are effective in community settings. None. It’s like wearing a tin foil hat in case you get struck by lightening – an ineffective way to protect yourself from an almost non-existent risk. What has become of us?”
In summary, the mask isn’t going to save you. Just like I said in the last article. But now with even more proof.
It’s just a coping and virtue signalling mechanism at this point. And possibly a means by which to encourage people to re-interact with the economy whereas they would otherwise be afraid to go out.
IE: Convince less-intelligent people to go out in public thinking they are protected so they can join in market activity so the unnecessary lock down doesn’t annihilate us even further.
Solid logic to encourage the use of something that is likely to raise infection rates. Not reduce them. All to help the psychologically weak pretend they are protecting themselves.
What country are we in again?
Honestly, all it takes is an average IQ level to think to yourself: “Hey, these guys on TV were telling me not to wear a mask a couple months ago and making fun of anyone who did… now they are saying you must wear one or be fined”. You don’t even need to dig into studies about masks to realize that something is wrong. Even though the studies are on our side.
It’s arguably the most obvious case of George Orwell’s 1984 I have ever seen.
Wear your mask. We have always told you to wear your mask.
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.