cz515 wrote:Baron..... your first article clearly states that the authors are proposing the theory of aerosols.
The thing with research papers is people come up with ideas...theories, and then go about giving reasons in support of the theory. Then other scientists come read the article and try to prove it, either failing or winning. And that's why the article need to be taken in context.
That's why I prefer using authorative sources. Here researches or people expert in their fields give advice based on their expert knowledge.
Looking at the advice from CDC, WHO and our own RACGP the main forms of transmission is still classed as droplets with aerosol an important one as well. Now this is new and as things change and new information is found the advice will also change. But even if aerosols are the dominant factor droplets will still be important and stopping them would be better than having nothing.
Finally no one said you shouldn't wear a n95 mask... the only thing they say is wearing a mask of any sort is better than not wearing anything.
Countries which acknowledged the danger of airborne transmission have not only been able to control COVID-19 in the community, but where cases have occurred, they have been able to safeguard healthcare workers from getting infected. Countries which have not, including Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many European nations, have not only seen widespread community transmission, but staggering numbers of healthcare worker infections. In Melbourne, 4,170 clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers were infected with SARS-CoV-2, most of them in the workplace.25
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2021/australia-must-act-prevent-airborne-transmission-sars-cov-2
Die Judicii wrote:For one of the questions asked by the OP,,
In relation to mask material being a barrier/or not,,,, to virus.
I'd be interested to know,,,,, What size is the particles of cigarette smoke ?? Compared to virus.
Cos cigarette smoke goes straight through the average masks,,,,,, seemingly directly through with zero impedance.
Die Judicii wrote:For one of the questions asked by the OP,,
In relation to mask material being a barrier/or not,,,, to virus.
I'd be interested to know,,,,, What size is the particles of cigarette smoke ?? Compared to virus.
Cos cigarette smoke goes straight through the average masks,,,,,, seemingly directly through with zero impedance.
I mean the difference between aerosols and water droplets is an arbitrary 5um (I think, don't quote me on that), but still liquid droplets, so to me it seems like arguing about the same thing just whether one is just a wee bit smaller than the other.
womble wrote:i know right,
I used to talk to anyone who would listen at the supermarket about the dehumanising ogliarcs and government coverups.
How times have changed. Nowadays i carry a strong uv light everywhere i go and rub strong household disinfectant all over my face and chest.
Used to chat up the checkout chick, but now she’s just another reptilian who wants to rip of my mask and lay her eggs in my mouth. Now i just avoid eye contact and run as fast as i can to my car and lock the doors.
wanneroo wrote:
The reality is that it is like putting up a chain link fence to stop mosquitos in your yard..
cz515 wrote:
Going back to disco, your original question is quite valid, and yes it raises a lot of questions, but I would like to reiterate what I said before, every little bit we do can help slow down the spread. Furthermore I have never found a surgical mask that allows zero air to pass through its material. Otherwise there would be a suffocation hazard warning on it.
Secondly as a needy science guy, I am truly amazed...no actually banging my head against a wall at some of your comments.I mean the difference between aerosols and water droplets is an arbitrary 5um (I think, don't quote me on that), but still liquid droplets, so to me it seems like arguing about the same thing just whether one is just a wee bit smaller than the other.
Seriously dude, did you just type that...one is 3um and the other is 5+um..... if you scale down to that size it's like saying a car is just a wee bit smaller than a train.
bladeracer wrote:Something I haven't seen mentioned is reusing masks. I see masks hung all over the place, in the open, on door knobs, indicator stalks and gear shifters, soaking up all the fresh air. They get grabbed to duck into a shop, then go back on their convenient hook to soak up more fresh air. Some must be getting used dozens of times before they're too tatty and get tossed on the side of the road. I suspect that reusing these things without sterilizing them each time might well be worse than not wearing one at all. Put one on inside out and you're sucking whatever detritus was on the outside straight into your lungs. I see people wearing their mask hooked over one ear, hanging loosely, gathering whatever airborne germs are floating by, then fixed across the face when needed, trapping those germs inside. People clearly have no concept behind the reasons for wearing them, or how they're designed to function.
disco stu wrote:cz515 wrote:
Going back to disco, your original question is quite valid, and yes it raises a lot of questions, but I would like to reiterate what I said before, every little bit we do can help slow down the spread. Furthermore I have never found a surgical mask that allows zero air to pass through its material. Otherwise there would be a suffocation hazard warning on it.
Secondly as a needy science guy, I am truly amazed...no actually banging my head against a wall at some of your comments.I mean the difference between aerosols and water droplets is an arbitrary 5um (I think, don't quote me on that), but still liquid droplets, so to me it seems like arguing about the same thing just whether one is just a wee bit smaller than the other.
Seriously dude, did you just type that...one is 3um and the other is 5+um..... if you scale down to that size it's like saying a car is just a wee bit smaller than a train.
I've read in a few places now that 5um is the cutoff between them. Meaning 5.01um would be droplet, 4.9um would be aerosol, if what I've read is correct. I'm happy to be corrected if that is wrong, but that is what I meant by a wee bit smaller. By what I was saying I was actually trying to defend the position you were taking on the droplet vs aerosol thing.
Not sure what else I've said that has you banging your head against the wall, but you obviously disagree with some things I've said, but haven't really attempted to prove me wrong. And that is what I'm looking for.
Not sure on the masks you've worn, but in multiple brands I've tried if it sucks tight to your face (or you seal it there with your hands) it is really hard to breathe through (the ease of breathing through them that you find could actually be the leakage, or they could be easier to breathe through). I never stated the material allows zero flow through it. My wife even bought a few with 2.5um inserts that go in them, so hard to breathe through that I suspect that they wouldn't filter anything given the fact the mask isn't sealed around the rest of it so the air would take the path of least resistance. But what I was getting at was questioning how much goes through, with my hypotheses that not much actually goes through the material (given normal fluid flow) and then wanting to see if I was correct or incorrect.
You feel that I'm wrong, which I'm more than happy with, but you and I are both guessing without something to back up our positions, and that is what I'm looking for. The difference between me and everyone else that has commented seems to be that everyone else is "they must have studied this, so they must work" (abridging a comment) and I'm saying "have they studied this, or are they assuming they work?"
At no point have I said we shouldn't wear masks or they don't work, and not what I was setting out to do. I found it surprising that no one had addressed the leakage aspect (the air takes the path of least resistance) that is well known, and then looked at that. Since starting this thread I've find some answers which I have summarised already and pointed out where I was wrong.
And I agree that if something makes even a small difference then it may well be worth doing. But that doesn't mean I can't look into things and understand if they do work, and how.
wanneroo wrote:We ran into this issue with these city slickers fleeing to our area and out on our trails in the woods throwing their nasty blue masks everywhere. Wearing a mask in the woods to start with is retarded, throwing it on the ground is worse.
Plus most of these blue masks are made in China from God knows what.
disco stu wrote:cz515 wrote:Good points, and taken. I think I am over exaggerating.
Exaggerating don't see that on internet forums often
My reply wasn't meant as harsh in any way, so I hope it didn't come across that way. Just trying to explain my thinking, and I am liking hearing other peoples thoughts
disco stu wrote:
I hate seeing them left around the place, but to throw them on the ground in the bush is just criminal.
The weird smell out of some of the brands really makes me wonder what is in them. One brand smelt like spew I thought, made me feel crook
disco stu wrote:Yeah, first time wearing a mask again in like 1 week!
As long as they don't go back to making us wear them outside everywhere
cz515 wrote:They wear a positive pressure full body covering
cz515 wrote:They wear a positive pressure full body covering