31–40 of 387 posts
This isn't a study; it is a mathematical model [1]. > Here, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. Based on direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the…
N95/FFP2 seem to be very effective. I wish the media and government would have spent more time in educating people in things like how N95 masks work and that it isn't like a coffee filter. Even thought the pores are larger than a virus the masks are statically charged causes smaller things to get trapped. Many people don't know this but probably had an interaction with static electricity sometime in school and would…
I’m not sure there was any popular doubt over the efficacy of N95 masks. The problem was rather getting one - marketplaces like Amazon restricted access to masks if you weren’t affiliated with a hospital. So you were left with sketchy deals and weird vendor sites. I suspect Amazon killed quite a few people over the last year by restricting access - supply scaled pretty quickly.
Aren't masks mostly/also about decreasing the area of the air that you pull in (closer to you, or in other words the distance from which you pull is smaller)? like take a piece of paper in front of your face and breath with mask and without
>Surgical masks with particle collection efficiencies around ~50% cannot prevent the release of millions of particles per person and their inhalation by others (green dots in Fig. 1, B and D). In other words, the human-emitted respiratory particle number is so high that we cannot avoid inhaling particles generated by another person even when wearing a surgical mask So the entire premise of the modeling in the paper r…
Virus particles do not travel naked in the air, instead they are colloidally suspended in liquid, both droplets and aerosols. So, if your filter catches the droplets and aerosols, which are much larger in size than the actual virus, the filter works.
WARNING: This respirator helps protect against certain particulate contaminants but does not eliminate exposure to or the risk of contracting any disease or infection. Misuse may result in sickness or death. For proper use, see supervisor, or User Instructions.
https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1837275O/3m-9132-healthc...
N95/FFP2 seem to be very effective. I wish the media and government would have spent more time in educating people in things like how N95 masks work and that it isn't like a coffee filter. Even thought the pores are larger than a virus the masks are statically charged causes smaller things to get trapped. Many people don't know this but probably had an interaction with static electricity sometime in school and would…
I’m not sure there was any popular doubt over the efficacy of N95 masks. The problem was rather getting one - marketplaces like Amazon restricted access to masks if you weren’t affiliated with a hospital. So you were left with sketchy deals and weird vendor sites. I suspect Amazon killed quite a few people over the last year by restricting access - supply scaled pretty quickly.
This isn't a study; it is a mathematical model [1]. > Here, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. Based on direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the…
Wearing masks has never been about the science.
This isn't a study; it is a mathematical model [1]. > Here, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. Based on direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the…
Basically, the authors seem to assume that the virus behaves according to their formulas, and show that under their assumptions, face masks work, but don't actually prove that their assumptions match reality - or did I miss something?
>Surgical masks with particle collection efficiencies around ~50% cannot prevent the release of millions of particles per person and their inhalation by others (green dots in Fig. 1, B and D). In other words, the human-emitted respiratory particle number is so high that we cannot avoid inhaling particles generated by another person even when wearing a surgical mask So the entire premise of the modeling in the paper r…
Virus particles do not travel naked in the air, instead they are colloidally suspended in liquid, both droplets and aerosols. So, if your filter catches the droplets and aerosols, which are much larger in size than the actual virus, the filter works.
Human system effects dominate - as the field data shows. It’s like HCQ - works in a lab, not in the real world.
Might be useful in tightly controlled medical settings with adequate filtered ventilation. But there’s no hard evidence beyond that at this stage.
Feynman’s rule still applies.