We knew it. Finally others are stepping up.
Notably, these are researchers from prominent LEFTIST universities finally admitting what we've known all along: masks provide NO protection from an airborne virus like COVID.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Likewise breathing for hours your own carbon dioxide is insane.
Anyone who has sanded drywall with an N95 knows that it doesn’t stop dust particles that are HUGE in relation to an airborne virus.
Notice that in the original Daily News article the message is: “Well yeah...science indicates they don’t work. But, I still wear one anyway.”
I also want a get out of jail free pass for punching the next person that says “Follow the Science!”
Here's what I'm looking at. The size of a typical coronavirus particle is .3-.4 nanometers. The filter apertures on an N99 mask (better than an N95) are still more than 100x larger than that, meaning that they aren't going to be particularly useful as a mechanical filter. Air filters for commercial buildings don't even approach the effectiveness of an N95 mask as far as I can tell.
The other pertinent issue is that the <20 age group doesn't transmit coronavirus. This has been shown in study after study and was known in Europe even in 2020 before all the lockdowns began. That being the case, I'm trying to figure out if there exists a good case for spending hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of dollars to overhaul air conditioning systems in schools. I'd be interested in hearing your angle on the matter.
1) reliance on "droplet" theory. The problem is that water droplets evaporate in the air, leaving the pathogen to float freely. There was no greater evidence of this than the "seasonal" nature of COVID's effects on the nation with the infection rates mirroring climate conditions - notably humidity. As the weather got warmer and drier, infection rates dramatically increased. The authors failed to address humidity as far as I could tell.
2) reliance on masks. Again, we have data going back 100 years (to the 1918 flu epidemic) which shows masks don't work - with or without ventilation systems. That the scientists were relying on this for part of their analysis shows a lack of scientific rigor.
3) the Six Foot Rule. It was later exposed that the original recommendation from the NIH/CDC was for TEN feet - not six. They settled on six because of the political ramifications but in fact there is zero science even behind that figure. (The actual science I have seen shows that airborne virii can easily travel 60 feet...)
While the formulas are impressive, I also noted that in nearly every section the authors were careful to note caveats and unknowns. I realize that this may not be a precise science but I was very disappointed in the prevalence of such ambiguity.
I do think that UV treatment could be a better possibility. COVID showed a remarkable lack of transmissibility in the outdoors and later studies showed it to be highly susceptible to a variety of cleaners but also UV light.
Look forward to more info on the UV-C, etc.!