Difference between revisions of "Masks as Protection from Infection"
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo. | [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo. | ||
Study] was spurred by the H1N1 flu. While N95 masks offered protection against respiratory illness, medical mask wearers and control group numbers were similar. | Study] was spurred by the H1N1 flu. While N95 masks offered protection against respiratory illness, medical mask wearers and control group numbers were similar. | ||
| − | + | }} | |
[https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 A study of 4 patients (July 2020, South Korea).] | [https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 A study of 4 patients (July 2020, South Korea).] | ||
Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish. “Both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.” | Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish. “Both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.” | ||
| − | + | ||
Studied different types of face coverings in non-clinical setting (August 2020). | Studied different types of face coverings in non-clinical setting (August 2020). | ||
[https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083 | [https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083 | ||
Revision as of 05:57, 5 October 2020
Mask Facts, AAPS, extracts without indication here:
{{{1}}}
A study of 4 patients (July 2020, South Korea). Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish. “Both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
Studied different types of face coverings in non-clinical setting (August 2020). [https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083 They used] a black box, a laser, and a camera. A person wears a face mask and speaks into the direction of an expanded laser beam inside a dark enclosure. Droplets that propagate through the laser beam scatter light, which is recorded with a camera. A simple computer algorithm then counts the droplets seen in the video. The N95 led to a droplet transmission of below 0.1%. Cotton and polypropylene masks, some of which were made from apron material showed a droplet transmission ranging from 10% to 40%. Knitted mask had up to 60% droplet transmission. Neck fleece had 110% droplet transmission (10% higher than not wearing a mask). Speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece, bandanas) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets … which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case.
[https://sentinelksmo.org/more-deception-kdhe-hid-data-to-justify-mask-mandate/ In Kansas, ] the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health department tried to manipulate the official statistics and data presentation.
Stanford engineers estimated that N95 masks cause a 5% to 20% reduction in O2 intake. This can cause dizziness and lightheadedness.
If lockdowns and masks had an effect on covid, they should also have an effect on the incidence of colds and other infectious diseases. Eventually, if the CDC collects that data, maybe we'll be able to see.
