Some masks better than others

[basketcase]

I do wear a mask, I just dont think they've made any difference in reducing the spread.
...

And what I see is a guy who made up his mind on anecdotal evidence and is desperately searching for actual evidence to reinforce his view. What most confuses me is your idea that we shouldn't bother with masks that are less that 100% effective. If you want 100% effective, I'm sure you can find some high end hazmat suits with self contained air.

Here's one for you. I think the breathing apparatus can be purchased separately though.

DuPont Tychem 10000 Level A Suit

DuPont Tychem 10000 Level A Suit (HM2102), (HM2103). HazMat Suit rear and front entry. Highest level of chemical protection from liquid splash and vapor/gas exposure.

shop.dqeready.com

Facts are facts, even very porous synthetic neck gators take some particles out of the air. But you can continue to argue with actual studies that show surgical masks are only a couple percentage points less effective than N95 and therefore claim they are useless.

 

[basketcase]

There are also lots of qualified people with tons of credentials who say they dont

Yeah, random GP's and internet heroes. Even still, I'm sure if you read any of the reports, you'd find details that aren't what whatever blogger you heard from claims.

Sorry but the science is against you.

 

[basketcase]

...

Dude we are discussing the pores in mask and how free floating viral particles can pass through.
.

Actually we were discussing your claims that surgical masks don't prevent transmission.

Free virus particles are rare. That's why it took months for scientists to find any evidence of them. Being far less common, they cause far fewer infections.

And as I mentioned before you could try looking at the construction of masks and how small particles move. A mask with a 0.3 micron pore size does not mean that there are 0.3 micron holes passing straight from front to back. It means that in any layer, there are gaps of 0.3 microns. Some "smartypants" scientists decided that mass with many layers were more effective so surgical masks are made with many layers. Then there is the fact that tiny particles like that move in seemingly random paths. Those two things combined make it very unlikely that particles can pass through even if they are a bit smaller than the pore size. For further detail, the reason polypro is effective is the actual fibres are a mess and the lack of regular pattern like in a woven mask make particle flow less likely. The main difference with N95 masks is that the fibres in the central layer have electrostatic polarization which means the fibres can attract nearby particles instead of relying on the particles to touch them, not the size of the gaps between the fibres.

But those are facts and they don't stand up to your suspicions.

 

[squeezer]

Here's one for you. I think the breathing apparatus can be purchased separately though.

DuPont Tychem 10000 Level A Suit

DuPont Tychem 10000 Level A Suit (HM2102), (HM2103). HazMat Suit rear and front entry. Highest level of chemical protection from liquid splash and vapor/gas exposure.

shop.dqeready.com

I think this one is better suited for Phil.

At the Tinfoil hat covering for the big head and he will be the talk of the town at the next conspiracy townhall gathering.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

No droplets in your example=no relevance to the discussion. Show us a diagram with droplets.

Dont need droplets, covid-19 can also be spread through free floating particles in the air

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Yes, the first study on covid virions free in hospital air was published in the spring.

But that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion is your claim that masks don't work. The main vector of transmission is either respiratory droplets or aerosols. Both are larger than the 0.3 microns of surgical masks so therefore masks do noticeably decrease the spread of the virus.

If there ever is a study that shows free covid particles are a major source of transmission then we can talk. (and that talk will be centred around the probability that a particle of 0.1 microns can pass through the many layers of a polypro surgical mask without contacting and therefore being caught by any of the fibres.

Have a look at this study: https://nypost.com/2020/12/16/wearing-a-used-mask-could-worse-than-no-mask-amid-covid-19-study/

 

[shack]

Dont need droplets, covid-19 can also be spread through free floating particles in the air

It can be, but coming out of our extremely moist respiratory system they are encased in droplets.

Droplets are bigger than the pores in masks. That is why you keep avoiding that metric. It proves that your "masks are useless" is 100% wrong.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

It can be, but coming out of our extremely moist respiratory system they are encased in droplets.

Droplets are bigger than the pores in masks. That is why you keep avoiding that metric. It proves that your "masks are useless" is 100% wrong.

Only partially true. They can be breathed out in free particles as well:

COVID-19 Spread by Droplets? Free Particles? Or 'A Little Bit of Both'?

Setting plays key role in transmission dynamics, expert says

www.medpagetoday.com

Hundreds of epidemiologists from around the world sent a letter to the World Health Organization (WHO) asserting that people can contract SARS-CoV-2 infection from airborne virions -- free virus particles floating in the air, as distinct from aerosol droplets

 

[Fun For All]

I think this one is better suited for Phil.

At the Tinfoil hat covering for the big head and he will be the talk of the town at the next conspiracy townhall gathering.

So what are you saying, he’s just a big dink?

 

[shack]

Only partially true. They can be breathed out in free particles as well:

COVID-19 Spread by Droplets? Free Particles? Or 'A Little Bit of Both'?

Setting plays key role in transmission dynamics, expert says

www.medpagetoday.com

Citation.

And what is also significant is what percent of covid is "free" and what percent is encased in droplets. Free covid has got to be a very small amount.

Pretty sure you have no evidence.

 

[basketcase]

Only partially true. They can be breathed out in free particles as well:
...

So you admit that droplets and aerosols are a significant vector but still claim masks are pointless?

P.S. Did you watch that video? Nowhere does he talk about free viral particles and gives no studies on it. He does talk about the size of droplets which range from aerosols to large droplets and he reinforces the importance of wearing masks.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I see masks are still working great

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Citation.

And what is also significant is what percent of covid is "free" and what percent is encased in droplets. Free covid has got to be a very small amount.

Pretty sure you have no evidence.

Pretty sure you're wrong (again). You previously asked me to post studies which showed most masks dont work.
You said I couldnt provide those studies. I posted them and proved you wrong.

Now I will prove you wrong (again).
Have a look at this: ( quoted the relevant parts of the article below): https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...airborne-who-aerosol-droplet-transmission-cdc

A part of why the terminology here is so confusing, and there’s so much debate about it, is that the words “aerosol” and “droplet” mean different things to different scientific disciplines.

“An aerosol is a particle in the air,” said Lidia Morawska, an engineer and the director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology. “A droplet is a liquid aerosol.” To her, the distinction between droplets and aerosols doesn’t make any sense. To her, they are all aerosols.

There’s growing theoretical evidence for the airborne spread of the coronavirus. Lab studies, in idealized conditions, also show that the virus can live in an aerosolized form for up to 16 hours (the scientists in this case intentionally created aerosolized droplets with a machine).

Another study tracked with lasers the various droplets expelled from a human mouth during speech. It found “normal speech generates airborne droplets that can remain suspended for tens of minutes or longer and are eminently capable of transmitting disease in confined spaces.”

Multiple studies have found evidence of the virus’s RNA in the air of hospital rooms. But the WHO notes “no studies have found viable virus in air samples,” meaning the virus was either incapable of infecting others or was in very small quantities unlikely to infect others.

“What we are trying to say is, well, let’s not worry about whether you call it aerosol or whether you call it a droplet,” Morawska, the co-author of a July commentary imploring the WHO and others to address airborne transmission of Covid-19, said that month. “It is in the air,” she says, “and you inhale it. It’s coming from our nose from our mouths. It’s lingering in the air and others can inhale it.”

That the WHO updated its language is a sign that it’s starting to appreciate this perspective. (That said: The WHO still defines a droplet as a particle larger than 5 to 10 microns and an aerosol as something smaller, despite many scientists arguing the cutoff is meaningless.)

But at the same time, with Covid-19 and other respiratory viruses, “there definitely are small-particle aerosols produced,” he says. “And in the right setting, where there’s poor ventilation, indoors, and a crowded environment, there is a risk for transmission among individuals, even if they may be more than 6 feet apart.”

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

So you admit that droplets and aerosols are a significant vector but still claim masks are pointless?

P.S. Did you watch that video? Nowhere does he talk about free viral particles and gives no studies on it. He does talk about the size of droplets which range from aerosols to large droplets and he reinforces the importance of wearing masks

Read the article in my post above

 

[shack]

Pretty sure you're wrong (again). You previously asked me to post studies which showed most masks dont work.
You said I couldnt provide those studies. I posted them and proved you wrong.

And those studies had as many holes in them as a mask made of fishnet stockings. I pointed out the flaws in every one I looked at. Not one had a protocol where there were two groups of people who were exposed to the same environment and exposure and the only variable was that one group faithfully wore masks and the other never did. That would be a definitive study that would eliminate any doubt. Just because you posted drivel does not make it relevant.

There’s growing theoretical evidence for the airborne spread of the coronavirus. Lab studies, in idealized conditions, also show that the virus can live in an aerosolized form for up to 16 hours (the scientists in this case intentionally created aerosolized droplets with a machine).

Another study tracked with lasers the various droplets expelled from a human mouth during speech. It found “normal speech generates airborne droplets that can remain suspended for tens of minutes or longer and are eminently capable of transmitting disease in confined spaces.”

1)Thanks for proving that your argument is just theoretical. None of it is proven despite your assurances that you could provide PROOF.
2)By definition these droplets you are refencing are particulates that are formed by an accumulation of water , not a free floating dry entity. A drop is aqueous. For the umpteenth time, droplets have a diameter of approx 1.0 microns and masks filter down to 0.3 microns. That is why I keep asking when a person exhales a breath which includes covid, how much of the covid is in droplets and how much is free floating pure dry covid? You have not provided anything. Until you have PROOF to the contrary, masks work.

Phil, on a separate matter, the thrust of your argument is based on the fact that because cases are not going down it proves that masks don't work. But when you think about it you should be lambasting other recommended preventive measures such as isolation, social distancing, washing hands and avoiding large gatherings because in your mind they also seem to be making no difference. You should be telling us that nothing at all that we do will make a difference. Why do you restrict your criticisms to only masks? Masks are just one of many measures being advised, yet cases are not going down. Just trying to help whine about more than just masks.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

1)Thanks for proving that your argument is just theoretical. None of it is proven despite your assurances that you could provide PROOF.
2)By definition these droplets you are refencing are particulates that are formed by an accumulation of water , not a free floating dry entity. A drop is aqueous. For the umpteenth time, droplets have a diameter of approx 1.0 microns and masks filter down to 0.3 microns. That is why I keep asking when a person exhales a breath which includes covid, how much of the covid is in droplets and how much is free floating pure dry covid? You have not provided anything. Until you have PROOF to the contrary, masks work

Well at least now you're admitting Covid can occur in free floating particles (READ: your normal breath). This is progress for you.
But now you wanna know how much of the covid is in droplets and how much is free floating pure dry covid.
If you had read the article or the video I posted earlier, experts seem to suggest that doesnt matter.
Either one will infect you if you stand in a room long enough with an infected person.

This completely coincides with whats happening in Ontario and other European countries. Wearing a mask will make no difference because the virus is airborne and can spread through regular breathing. There doesnt need to be large droplets of spit coming out of your mouth like you suggest.
Only an N95 mask will make a difference (like I've said a million times now).

Do you get it now??

Phil, on a separate matter, the thrust of your argument is based on the fact that because cases are not going down it proves that masks don't work. But when you think about it you should be lambasting other recommended preventive measures such as isolation, social distancing, washing hands and avoiding large gatherings because in your mind they also seem to be making no difference

I never said that. Show me a post where I said I was against isolation, social distancing, washing hands or avoiding large gatherings.
If you fail to quote me a post where I've claimed such a thing you lose the argument (not as if you're not losing it already )

 

[shack]

Well at least now you're admitting Covid can occur in free floating particles (READ: your normal breath).

I said no such thing. I asked a question for which, as yet you have provided no answer. What percentage of each? It may be 100% droplets until you present PROOF to the contrary. A study with actual proof will be able to give a breakdown if they can differentiate the two.

experts seem to suggest

Which is a roundabout way of saying that they cannot prove it.

I never said that. Show me a post where I said I was against isolation, social distancing, washing hands or avoiding large gatherings.
If you fail to quote me a post where I've claimed such a thing you lose the argument (not as if you're not losing it already )

It was clear that I know you didn't claim that and that was the purpose of that last statement of mine. I asked why do you ONLY talk about masks being ineffective, which implies that you don't mention any others. Follow? Since you couldn't follow the first time, I'll try again for you, but hold your ear closer to the screen this time so you might catch on.

Masks are only 1 suggestion of about 4 or 5. Your argument of masks being useless is based on the fact that despite people wearing masks cases keep going up. Well, the exact same line of thinking can be applied to distancing, isolation, washing hands, avoiding large gatherings, ventilation etc. People follow those and cases keep increasing. As such, by your logic, they are as useless as masks.

BTW, you lose the argument because you couldn't comprehend what I clearly posted. Back at ya'.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I said no such thing. I asked a question for which, as yet you have provided no answer. What percentage of each? It may be 100% droplets until you present PROOF to the contrary. A study with actual proof will be able to give a breakdown if they can differentiate the two

You clearly said in previous posts that masks stopped droplets. That was the thrust of your argument.
You had no clue that free viral particles can exist in exhaled breath.
Now you wanna know how infectious free particles are compared to large droplets.
Because the virus is so new I dont think anybody knows the answer to that question yet, what is known however is that the virus is airborne and that free particles can infect people in addition to large droplets.

I dont know if you read the article I posted (sounds like you didnt), but in it they state that droplets dont float in the air, they tend to fall to the floor and stay there. By that logic any reasonable thinking person can conclude thats its exhaled breath thats responsible for the majority of infections, and not large droplets which you seem to think is responsible. And the reason exhaled breath is causing the current spread is because people are wearing those flimsy masks which have at least 4 large gaps from which air can escape from

It was clear that I know you didn't claim that and that was the purpose of that last statement of mine. I asked why do you ONLY talk about masks being ineffective, which implies that you don't mention any others. Follow? Since you couldn't follow the first time, I'll try again for you, but hold your ear closer to the screen this time so you might catch on.

Masks are only 1 suggestion of about 4 or 5. Your argument of masks being useless is based on the fact that despite people wearing masks cases keep going up. Well, the exact same line of thinking can be applied to distancing, isolation, washing hands, avoiding large gatherings, ventilation etc. People follow those and cases keep increasing. As such, by your logic, they are as useless as masks

No, because Ontario's 1st wave curve (from about April to June) was flattened by locking down, distancing, isolation, washing hands....etc. Then masks were added into the mix and it made no difference. Not only in Ontario did it not make any difference, but it didnt in Spain, France, Italy, Germany....etc either.

That is proof the masks people are currently wearing are futile. N95 masks are needed

 

[shack]

You clearly said in previous posts that masks stopped droplets.

Correct.

You had no clue that free viral particles can exist in exhaled breath.

Where did I say that?

Now you wanna know how infectious free particles are compared to large droplets.

Wrong again, Phil. I want to know what the ratio of virus droplets to free virus there is. If it's 99:1 droplets, then the issue of free particles is moot.

No, because Ontario's 1st wave curve (from about April to June) was flattened by locking down, distancing, isolation, washing hands....etc. Then masks were added into the mix and it made no difference. Not only in Ontario did it not make any difference, but it didnt in Spain, France, Italy, Germany....etc either.

I couldn't find a similar study regarding Ontario. As to Germany:

Timo Mitze, Reinhold Kosfeld, Johannes Rode, Klaus Wälde 22 June 2020

Confronted with a novel, aggressive coronavirus, Germany implemented measures to reduce its spread since March 2020. Requiring people to wear face masks in public places has, however, been a subject of controversy and isolating the effect of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 is not simple. This column looks at the town of Jena and other German regions that introduced face masks before the rest of the country to see whether the requirement makes a difference in the number of new COVID-19 cases. Requiring face masks to be worn decreases the growth rate of COVID-19 cases by about 40% in Germany.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Where did I say that?

Here you clearly state that the virus can only exist encased in droplets .
This is not true, they can exist as free particles as well (which you didnt know)

Link: https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/some-masks-better-than-others.726027/post-6905673

Wrong again, Phil. I want to know what the ratio of virus droplets to free virus there is. If it's 99:1 droplets, then the issue of free particles is moot

You obviously didnt fully read the last link I posted. Or maybe you just cannot comprehend the information??

Try reading it again: https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...airborne-who-aerosol-droplet-transmission-cdc