I can blow a massive holes in the "must wear masks" montra

a reply to: neutronflux
Like I said in my edit, I wasn't referring to that article but the one about the study in nature.

Also, the Washington Examiner is talking about the spread of the illness in a population and the other is just about the masks. That was what my original point was about and that study shows that even leaky masks do something. That study is proof of that.

originally posted by: neutronflux
So like the “ Denmark with 4,800 participants mask study”. I stand by tsunami example that doing something doesn’t always equate to measurable changes in spread.

I never said otherwise.

Ok.

And I posted that cheap masks have no statistical impact on preventing the spread of covid-19.

Do you have a source or evidence otherwise.

By the way.

You, referring to masks what I label cheap masks?

They don't, they reduce the risk the same way a bulletproof vest, which doesn't cover the entire body and isn't rated for every bullet out there, reduces the risk of death from a gunshot.

Vs

Do masks actually work? The best studies suggest they don't


www.msn.com...





He goes on to cite several trials conducted over the past several years, each of which found that cloth masks and surgical masks offer very little to no benefit at all. The one trial that specifically tested masks against COVID-19 was a 2020 study in Denmark with 4,800 participants. The researchers found that “1.8 percent of those in the mask group and 2.1 percent of those in the control group became infected with Covid-19 within a month, with this 0.3-point difference not being statistically significant,” Anderson writes.

So this by you “ I never said otherwise” is false.

a reply to: daskakik

There is no doubt within statistical analysis of a billet proof vest being effective. Not so with cloth masks and procedural masks.

a reply to: neutronflux
No, it isn't false.

I was talking about a "leaky" vest saving "the wearer". In other words in a single situation a vest might save someones life but there isn't 100% certainty in any single instance.

That is different than crunching the numbers of a bunch of instances and coming up with something statistically mesurable.

Again, you are not grasping what is actually being said.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: neutronflux
No, it isn't false.

I was talking about a "leaky" vest saving "the wearer". In other words in a single situation a vest might save someones life but there isn't 100% certainty in any single instance.

That is different than crunching the numbers of a bunch of instances and coming up with something statistically mesurable.

Again, you are not grasping what is actually being said.

No, I can read quiet fine. Your trying to save face.

You quiet clear referred that masks provide protection.

I cited a source that shows wearing a mask vs not wearing a mask of a study over 4,000 showed no statistical difference.

Where I posted this

So like the “ Denmark with 4,800 participants mask study”. I stand by tsunami example that doing something doesn’t always equate to measurable changes in spread.

And you replied “ I never said otherwise”

So. I said cheap mask offer no protection. A mask that doesn’t seal is useless.

You did say a cheap mask is better than nothing. Is that false.

Then I can cite a study of over 4,000 people that wearing a cheap mask is statistical no different than going without.

So yes. You have said otherwise.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: neutronflux
Cheap masks that don’t seal don’t prevent anything.

Wouldn't a mask that doesn't seal prevent airborne droplets from traveling as far as if no mask were worn? Isn't that something?

See. Your assumption was wrong from the start.

Covid has been proven to travel in aerosols.

a reply to: neutronflux
Of course they provide protection, what do you think "doing something" means.

It just isn't using the metric of illness spread throughout a population.

It is a reduced protection depending on the amount of viruses caught by them not being in the environment able to infect others.

I don't know why you can't see the difference but it is there.

ETA:

See. You assumption was wrong from the start.

Covid has been proven to travel in aerosols.

We already went over this.

a reply to: daskakik

You

Of course they provide protection, what do you think "doing something" means.

Do they?

Do masks actually work? The best studies suggest they don't


www.msn.com...





He goes on to cite several trials conducted over the past several years, each of which found that cloth masks and surgical masks offer very little to no benefit at all. The one trial that specifically tested masks against COVID-19 was a 2020 study in Denmark with 4,800 participants. The researchers found that “1.8 percent of those in the mask group and 2.1 percent of those in the control group became infected with Covid-19 within a month, with this 0.3-point difference not being statistically significant,” Anderson writes.

How do cheap masks provide protection against floating around with aerosols. That can hang in a room up to 16 hours.

You

It just isn't using the metric of illness spread throughout a population.

What does that have to do with cheap masks don’t stop covid from being released with aerosols from sneezing and coughing.

You

It is a reduced protection depending on the amount of viruses caught by them not being in the environment able to infect others.

Do you have any proof cheap masks captured enough covid traveling with aerosols from a cough or sneeze to prevent spreading covid.

And remember


Now

Asymptomatic transmission of covid-19

Viral culture studies suggest that people with SARS-CoV-2 can become infectious one to two days before the onset of symptoms and continue to be infectious up to seven days thereafter; viable virus is relatively short lived.7 Symptomatic and presymptomatic transmission have a greater role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 than truly asymptomatic transmission.121213

The transmission rates to contacts within a specific group (secondary attack rate) may be 3-25 times lower for people who are asymptomatic than for those with symptoms.1121415 A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission.16

www.bmj.com...

You

I don't know why you can't see the difference but it is there.

I don’t see anything, because you don’t provide any proof of anything.

Again.


Do you have any proof cheap masks captured enough covid traveling with aerosols from a cough or sneeze to prevent spreading covid.

In the context that people who are “ Asymptomatic” are far from the primary spreaders.

In that coughing seems to be how covid gets airborne to an extent to be contagious.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Do you have any proof cheap masks captured enough covid traveling with aerosols from a cough or sneeze to prevent spreading covid.

I never made that claim.

Again, I said they catch something. The link you provided shows that. Common sense says whatever is caught in the cheap mask isn't going to be infecting someone else unless they touch your mask. Simple, no?

a reply to: daskakik

You

Again, I said they catch something.

Ok. That doesn’t mean they capture covid expelled as aerosols.

You

The link you provided shows that.

Does the link prove that wearing a cheap mask is better outside statistical analysis than not wearing a mask?

You

Common sense says whatever is caught in the cheap mask isn't going to be infecting someone else unless they touch your mask. Simple, no?

Which has nothing to do with covid Is also spread by aerosols not captured by cheap masks. So, cheap masks are not capturing enough virus shed to prevent a statistical difference is the spread of covid vs people going maskless.


Thus a mask that doesn’t seal is useless.

a reply to: neutronflux
We went over this, guess you didn't try holding a cheap mask over a boiling pot of water or a cool humidifier. That proves they do catch aerosols.

Also, technically not every virus is travelling on an aerosol so the ones stuck on droplets would be caught as well.

Either way it is something, and that was all that was said.

a reply to: daskakik

You

We went over this, guess you didn't try holding a cheap mask over a boiling pot of water or a cool humidifier

You don’t understand steam. Steam water gas is invisible. The “steam” you see is actually water droplets condensing back into water.

When you can see steam, what you’re seeing is tiny drops of water being carried upward by the invisible water vapor. Since the air around steam is usually cooler than the steam, as soon as it evaporates tiny drops of water will condense out of the steam. It’s basically a cloud being carried up by hot air.

www.reddit.com...

Which has nothing to do with aerosols being forced or atomized like what goes on in diesel injection.

When you sneeze or cough, you are literally acting like a diesel injector to atomize your spit and mucus. A change in temperature has little to do with condensing the aerosols atomized through mechanical means back into a liquid like invisible water gas condensing back into liquid on a cooler mask.

a reply to: daskakik

By the way. What is the “N” rating of a cloth mask against airborne aerosols?

a reply to: daskakik

Hanes Cotton Face Coverings - Set of 10

www.qvc.com... 7CL%7CBrandProduct%7Csports+fitness-_-Sports+Fitness-_-dm_66245058864_pla-1163045078049__A399754-JB1-625&cm_mmca1=m&cm_mmca2=66245058864&cm_mmca3=pla- 1163045078049&cm_mmca4=A399754-JB1-625&cm_mmca5=pla&cm_mmca6=816860589&cm_mmca7=Acquisition&cm_mmca8=Acq&cm_mmca9=EAIaIQobChMI1qSs8c228gIVtWxvBB04-wzV EAQYASABEgLoUvD_BwE&cm_mmca12=Vendor&cm_mmca13=Sports+Fitness&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1qSs8c228gIVtWxvBB04-wzVEAQYASABEgLoUvD_BwE&TZ=EST


Make sure you have comfortable coverage for your entire crew with this set of 10 cotton face coverings. From Hanes.

Cloth face coverings are not respirators or disposable face masks and do not protect the wearer from exposures. Cloth face coverings are only intended to help contain the wearer's respiratory droplets from being spread.
Includes 10 reusable face coverings
Two-layer construction
Adjustable nose piece
Front panel pleats
60% cotton/40% polyester
Machine wash, tumble dry
Imported

Funny. No efficiency rating. No mention of aerosols.

There are “studies”. But the manufacturer doesn’t stand by their product to give it a ratting against aerosols?

a reply to: neutronflux
What a bad example, a diesel/fuel injector produces a very visible spray.

Besides you can't get away from the droplets in exhaled breaths/coughs/sneezes so, as I said, they are catching something regardless.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: neutronflux
What a bad example, a diesel/fuel injector produces a very visible spray.

Besides you can't get away from the droplets in exhaled breaths/coughs/sneezes so, as I said, they are catching something regardless.

What is the rated efficiency concerning aerosol for this cloth mask?

Hanes Cotton Face Coverings - Set of 10


Post it with me. Not rated.

Bundle Deal | 2 FOR 1 | White Neck Gaiter

gaiterking.com...

Premium Gaiter Details:

100% Interlock Polyester (4.6 oz)
Moisture Wicking
UPF50 Sun Protection
Anti-microbial
Zero Fade Print
Antimicrobial treated fabric
Reusable / Washable / No-Shrinkage
2 ply
Dimensions:

9.75" Wide by 15.5" Tall (each)
Gaiter King specializes in making the industry’s top of the line premium neck gaiters by using 100% American Made fabric treated with a silver and copper antimicrobial solution. Not only will our gaiters protect you from the elements, but can also become cooling gaiters when wet for ultimate relief in high heat environments. Gaiter King’s fabric is 100% interlock polyester with a UPF50 sun protection rating that will not shrink when washed and dried. If you are seeking two ply protection, simply fold your gaiter in half and get maximum face coverage without ever having to take your gaiter off when it’s not needed.

What is the rated efficiency concerning aerosol for this gaiter?

Not rated. Not evaluated.

a reply to: neutronflux
I never made any claim about rated efficiency.

This is you throwing up another straw man.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: neutronflux
What a bad example, a diesel/fuel injector produces a very visible spray.

Besides you can't get away from the droplets in exhaled breaths/coughs/sneezes so, as I said, they are catching something regardless.

You confusing amount vs atomizing size…

Bosch Common-Rail CP3
Application: '03 to '10 Dodge 5.9L and 6.7L

Injection pressure range (stock):23,201 psi

Amount of fuel it pumps (stock): 200 lph (liters per hour)2
Amount of fuel it is capable of supplying in modified form: 380 lph (liters per hour)

a reply to: neutronflux
You brought up visibility.

This is yet another straw man.