Read on Twitter
"we need to wear masks in public to stop the spread of covid" seems to be a popular opinion.
but, like so much other covid lore, it is revealed to be epidemiological cosplay and empty virtue signaling when one looks at the actual science.
guess who said this:
but, like so much other covid lore, it is revealed to be epidemiological cosplay and empty virtue signaling when one looks at the actual science.
guess who said this:
if you guessed "5 prominent physicians in the new england journal of medicine," good for you.
all the "science" of masks for covid looks to be on pretty shaky ground.
it& #39;s ignoring some simple physical facts. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?query=TOC">https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/...
all the "science" of masks for covid looks to be on pretty shaky ground.
it& #39;s ignoring some simple physical facts. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?query=TOC">https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/...
a SARS virus is about 0.1 μm
many studies have shown that surgical and cloth masks are ineffective on aerosols less than 2 μm
SARS is 1/20th that size.
it& #39;s like trying to stop birdshot with a chain link fence.
you can see a recent study on COV19 here
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342">https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.73...
many studies have shown that surgical and cloth masks are ineffective on aerosols less than 2 μm
SARS is 1/20th that size.
it& #39;s like trying to stop birdshot with a chain link fence.
you can see a recent study on COV19 here
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342">https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.73...
its conclusions are quite stark:
it also finds that concentrations on the outside of mask were higher than the inside a sign of both poor containment and that touching the outside of a mask is a disease vector.
it also finds that concentrations on the outside of mask were higher than the inside a sign of both poor containment and that touching the outside of a mask is a disease vector.
it& #39;s worth noting that they did not test n95 masks.
but it& #39;s not at all clear they would do much either. n95 means a mask blocks 95% of particles 0.3 μm or larger. this is 1/3 that.
and if you mask has a valve, then you& #39;re not keeping virus in anyhow.
but it& #39;s not at all clear they would do much either. n95 means a mask blocks 95% of particles 0.3 μm or larger. this is 1/3 that.
and if you mask has a valve, then you& #39;re not keeping virus in anyhow.
this broad assessment of studies further cements the assessment that masks (including n95) are not effective for covid as protection or source control.
i know the "mandate masks" crowd claims to have "science" on their side, but it looks like they don& #39;t https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data">https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...
i know the "mandate masks" crowd claims to have "science" on their side, but it looks like they don& #39;t https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data">https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...
when even the NEJM is saying "the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic" and showing that they don& #39;t work, demanding masks while claiming to be wrapped in the cloak of science looks increasingly threadbare.
