Anonymous ID: 04f8b1 July 2, 2020, 2:20 a.m. No.9822926   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2929 >>2952

>>9822243

 

Fraudci Sucks!

 

Infected yet asymptomatic people are of particular concern because the particles they breathe are predominantly bio-aerosols

 

Given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm (nano-meters)), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

 

*One nano-meter is about as long as your fingernail grows in one second!

 

*A human hair is approximately 80,000- 100,000 nano-meters wide!

 

Oh, right…that bandana, cloth mask, surgical mask is going to be a big help to you!

 

Gee, what does an Actual Virologist Wear..and what procedures do they follow?

 

National Academies' Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats said that, because no studies have been done on the effectiveness of cloth masks in preventing transmission of coronavirus to others, it is impossible to assess their benefits, if any.

 

Committee members point out that research suggests that COVID-19 can spread via invisible droplets as small as 5 microns and by tiny bioaerosol particles as well as via visible respiratory droplets just by breathing.

 

Infected yet asymptomatic people are of particular concern because the particles they breathe are predominantly bioaerosols.

 

Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), who contributed to the paper along with Sundaresan Jayaraman, PhD, of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said in his weekly CIDRAP podcast yesterday that, because aerosols likely play an important role in coronavirus transmission, cloth masks will do little, if anything, to limit spread of the disease.

 

Masks and respirators do not work.

 

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

 

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

 

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

 

We have to stop using flawed data and bad science to make decisions.

It's time we stopped allowing politics and fear to dictate science – science and data should dictate good politics and public policy instead.

 

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

Anonymous ID: 04f8b1 July 2, 2020, 2:21 a.m. No.9822929   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9822926

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

Review of the Medical Literature

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

 

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

 

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

 

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

 

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

 

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

 

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

 

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

 

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”