Have you actually read what this study actually says this time? Your previous attempt was a blog that was completely contradicted by the content of the paper.
Have you actually read what this study actually says this time? Your previous attempt was a blog that was completely contradicted by the content of the paper.
Especially for people who wear cut-rate N95s without getting properly fitted.The fact is that the virus will get in from the openings around the mask ...
Eye transmission is considered to be minimal, as is transmission via surfaces. But washing your hands & wearing some kind of eye protection is safer than not doing so. BTW almost every business, clinic & store i've visited this year has large see through barriers that are useful in protecting the eyes as well as the rest of a person's face.There is strong evidence that the transmission through the eyes is occurring as well so that eye protection should be considered.
People wearing masks that are not form fitted N95 masks are supposed to be doing it to protect others in theory but in reality are wearing the masks for what they believe is self protection which has shown to be a flawed argument.
There is no evidence of transmission from free-floating viral particles. The transmission is from respiratory droplets and aerosols, the smallest of which are in the 5 um range.
"The surgical mask blocked about 60% of .03 micron particles and over 90% of 1 micron and 2.5 micron particles."...and surgical masks filter down to 1um.
Of course social distancing "doesn't always work". Does that even need to be stated. Maybe to preschoolers.Oh wait, whats this?? I'm not against social distancing per se, but this guy makes a good argument that even that doesnt always work.
Unlike you, probably, i read the article.And make sure you guys read the part about the masks:
MIT researchers say time spent indoors increases risk of Covid at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies
The CDC and WHO guidelines fail to factor in the amount of time spent indoors, which increases the chance of transmission the longer people are inside.www.cnbc.com
False. As my other posts to you have revealed, surgical masks are highly effective. Even the article you refer to says masks work. So even it disagrees with your statement that "Surgical masks are useless. N95 masks is whats needed".From the article:
Even with masks on, as with smoking, those who are in the vicinity are heavily affected by the secondhand smoke that makes its way around the enclosed area and lingers
Surgical masks are useless. N95 masks is whats needed
LOL....it sounds like you didn't read itHave you actually read what this study actually says this time? Your previous attempt was a blog that was completely contradicted by the content of the paper
No surprise there. Of course they're on the right track. At least as far as ever increasing numbers getting vaccinated. How long before Texas reaches herd immunity?Texas case count down for 4 days in a row now. And yes I know its a small sample size, but at least they're on the right track:
I hope that the Lone Star State continues to show a decrease in COVID-19 cases .However because they are not mutually exclusive from contact with the other states and they also remain a significant port of entry for illegal immigrants who arrive on foot with unknown health status I think unfortunately Texas and other original 2020 American hotspots will likely see surges in the voracious variants from UK, Brazil, S. Africa and the increasingly ominous Indian double mutation. A made in Canada variant is also becoming more likely with all of the strains present here. We are still relatively early in the pandemic yet and I hope that those double vaccinated individuals keep having the ability to produce resistance to Covid-19 and all of it’s variants.Texas case count down for 4 days in a row now. And yes I know its a small sample size, but at least they're on the right track:
Texas COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
Texas COVID-19 Coronavirus update by county with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, current active cases, recoveries, historical data, trends, projections, and timeline.www.worldometers.info
And if you go to the study itself, they get more dramatic in pointing out that masks are important:Instead of responding to an article about it I looked it up on the MIT site, it is more in depth.
https://news.mit.edu/2021/covid-19-risks-indoor-0415
A few key points from the study, 6 feet or 60 feet, if the infected person is not wearing a mask it won't make a difference indoors." Their analysis is based on the fact that in enclosed spaces, tiny airborne pathogen-bearing droplets emitted by people (not wearing masks) as they talk, cough, sneeze, sing, or eat will tend to float in the air for long periods and to be well-mixed throughout the space by air currents."
Also some statements made about masks as well.
"Early in the pandemic, there was less appreciation for the importance of ventilation systems and the use of face masks, which can dramatically affect the safe levels of occupancy, he says."
"For example, they found that while improved ventilation systems and face mask use make a big difference, air filtration systems have a relatively smaller effect on disease spread."
Ahh, but what about " Surgical masks are useless. N95 masks is whats needed " you say? They talk about that too.
So what is our takeaway from this study? Is anything Phil said accurate? Surprisingly, yes!the benefit of face masks is immediately apparent, since the CET limit is enhanced by a factor p−2m, the inverse square of the mask penetration factor. Standard surgical masks are characterized by pm=1to5% (73, 74), and so allow the CET to be extended by 400 to 10,000 times. Even cloth face coverings would extend the CET limit by 6 to 100 times for hybrid fabrics (pm=10to40%) or 1.5 to 6 times for single-layer fabrics (pm=40to80%)
Maybe something to do with California having more vaccinated than Texas?Worth noting as well that California which was THE US hotspot now has a noticeably lower daily case rate than Texas.
Can't be. Must be the libtards making up their own numbers.Maybe something to do with California having more vaccinated than Texas?
"Poll shows Texans continue to wear masks despite state lifting mandate"
One event full of covidiots does not tell us anything about the whole state or what the vast majority are doing there.
So here we have last weekends fight between Canelo Alvarez and Billy Joe Saunders which was held in doors in Arlington, Texas at A T&T stadium before 73,126 souls.
Look real close at how many masked people you see compared to not masked........
Now tell me about your polls........
Well tune in this weekend cuz the UFC will be in will be in the Toyota Center in Houston.One event full of covidiots does not tell us anything about the whole state or what the vast majority are doing there.
My reference was dated March 31st, over a month ago, but speaks of the vast majority of Texans still wearing masks 3 weeks after the mandate was over.
"On March 10, Gov. Greg Abbott lifted the statewide mask mandate, leaving the choice to wear one up to people and businesses."
As for a crowd not wearing masks, as stated above it's up to businesses & evidently the vast majority were requiring masks.
Big crowd events have already been happening in many places even where mask wearing was mandated, few if any were vaccinated & cases of infections high. So a big crowd get together of people or covidiots is nothing new. What's changed is way more are vaccinated & infections are down in many locations.
"California stresses equity for minority groups. Texas is all about personal choice and liberty."
"... either partially or fully vaccinated...43% of Texans." (Apr.28, now over 51% only 12 days later).
https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/california-texas-covid-vaccine/