This analogy has always bothered me. The fact is, anyone who understands how these masks are constructed will argue this with you. It isn't actually very accurate, and it is a bad reason to get caught out for lack of knowledge.
Ask yourself why are N95 masks rated at .3 microns and not .03 microns for example? Shouldn't smaller particles be even more transmissive?
Turns out, the answer is not that simple. N95 masks have multiple layers of fabric. Think of it as multiple, slightly moving in the wind, chain link fences made out of sticky fiber, all placed one behind the other, and all offset slightly. So a small particle still has some probability of getting stopped, even if it smaller than the opening, because it has to traverse around and through multiple loose fibers in its path.
This sets up a turbulent airflow pattern, and it turns out that very small particles are much more likely to get caught up in swirling air currents, making them spend longer in the fiber mesh, and actually have a higher chance of getting caught in one of the fibers of the mask. N95 masks are rated at .3 microns because these particles are generally the most transmissve. They are heavy enough to avoid most of the traps from brownian motion and air currents, and yet still small enough to slip through.
An N95 mask is called such because it blocks 95% of these .3 micron particles. Any particle, whether larger or smaller than .3 microns, has a better probability of being blocked. The minimum is actually a pretty flat range between .1 and .3 micron. Obviously the curve goes up rapidly to 100% for bigger molecules, and only very, very slightly for smaller ones. Covid19 is generally agreed to be around .12 microns.
Also note that this macro, statistical analysis only works down to a certain size (analyzing air as a continuous flow when the particles are the size of molecules makes no sense for example), and an N95 mask can only affect particles that actually have some probability of getting stuck in the fibers of mask.
To really understand what percentage of virus particles will be blocked, you have to understand the specifics of the mask construction, and the above description leaves out an industry's worth of details, but usually you find operator error in wearing and sealing the mask to make such worries unnecessary. They are often so leaky around the edges that it doesn't matter.
The TL;DR:
Properly worn, an N95 mask will block around 95% of the virus. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of practice to learn how to seal and properly wear these masks, they are expensive and single use only, and they are very uncomfortable when properly worn.
That was a lot of keystrokes to say masks don't work, even the magical N95.
First, 5% of a virus getting through means viruses are still getting through, people are going to catch it.
Your paean to the N95 also failed to note the most glaring "hole" in the theory that they block viruses: the vent. They were designed for use in contaminated environments, to protect the wearer only, from dust and other large particles.
They vent UNFILTERED AIR that you exhale into the environment.
They make it harder for the wearer to inhale. They increase CO2 concentration in the blood while decreasing O2. They vent unfiltered, germ-laden vapor to the outside. They also concentrate microbes near the wearer's nose and mouth for constant rebreathing, causing pneumonia.
And the N95 box proudly states that THEY DO NOT BLOCK TRANSMISSION OF ANY VIRUS.
Only the incorrect model of "chainlink fence in sandstorm" was the basis of my explanation. This is an incorrect model and if you ever find yourself in a discussion about masks, you do not want to use this as a basis for discussion.
Ummmm none of that matters. Masks only could stop anything with a negative pressure such as inhaling. On yhe positive pressure side, exhaling, they are 100% usless. Everytime, all the time.
Ever change the air filter in your house for HVAC unit? Literally trapping concentrated amounts of dangerous pathogens to fester right on your face for ingestion.
*This week, a group of scientists from Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and other institutions published the final results of a randomized study of community-wide masking behavior in Bangladesh. The study encompassed roughly 350,000 people in 600 villages. (Paid poor people)
*The researchers also paid villagers to count properly worn masks in public places, including markets and mosques
To gather data on coronavirus transmission, the team asked about symptoms and conducted blood tests to determine who came down with COVID-19 over the course of the study.
After all, you might think, if people were masking successfully during the 1918 flu pandemic, why do we need a 2021 stu But the Bangladesh study
They've clearly admitted in this article that there were no randomized trials before now, that the conclusion is limited and they've altered history, lol.
That there was any science supportive of mask wearing for this type of virus has been a lie from the beginning. All the priory studies showed no effect and even with good, clean masks being worn properly.
Now, after years of lying they finally have a single study that is modestly supportive of their position, and I'll be honest, I just don't trust the damn thing.
I do expect to see this study cited as the golf standard though and as soon as it's available to look at we need to familiarize ourselves with it because it'll likely show up in mask mandate legal cases. But it kinda feels like we're past resolving things in a corrupted court, eh?
This analogy has always bothered me. The fact is, anyone who understands how these masks are constructed will argue this with you. It isn't actually very accurate, and it is a bad reason to get caught out for lack of knowledge.
Ask yourself why are N95 masks rated at .3 microns and not .03 microns for example? Shouldn't smaller particles be even more transmissive?
Turns out, the answer is not that simple. N95 masks have multiple layers of fabric. Think of it as multiple, slightly moving in the wind, chain link fences made out of sticky fiber, all placed one behind the other, and all offset slightly. So a small particle still has some probability of getting stopped, even if it smaller than the opening, because it has to traverse around and through multiple loose fibers in its path.
This sets up a turbulent airflow pattern, and it turns out that very small particles are much more likely to get caught up in swirling air currents, making them spend longer in the fiber mesh, and actually have a higher chance of getting caught in one of the fibers of the mask. N95 masks are rated at .3 microns because these particles are generally the most transmissve. They are heavy enough to avoid most of the traps from brownian motion and air currents, and yet still small enough to slip through.
An N95 mask is called such because it blocks 95% of these .3 micron particles. Any particle, whether larger or smaller than .3 microns, has a better probability of being blocked. The minimum is actually a pretty flat range between .1 and .3 micron. Obviously the curve goes up rapidly to 100% for bigger molecules, and only very, very slightly for smaller ones. Covid19 is generally agreed to be around .12 microns.
Also note that this macro, statistical analysis only works down to a certain size (analyzing air as a continuous flow when the particles are the size of molecules makes no sense for example), and an N95 mask can only affect particles that actually have some probability of getting stuck in the fibers of mask.
To really understand what percentage of virus particles will be blocked, you have to understand the specifics of the mask construction, and the above description leaves out an industry's worth of details, but usually you find operator error in wearing and sealing the mask to make such worries unnecessary. They are often so leaky around the edges that it doesn't matter.
The TL;DR:
Properly worn, an N95 mask will block around 95% of the virus. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of practice to learn how to seal and properly wear these masks, they are expensive and single use only, and they are very uncomfortable when properly worn.
That was a lot of keystrokes to say masks don't work, even the magical N95.
First, 5% of a virus getting through means viruses are still getting through, people are going to catch it.
Your paean to the N95 also failed to note the most glaring "hole" in the theory that they block viruses: the vent. They were designed for use in contaminated environments, to protect the wearer only, from dust and other large particles.
They vent UNFILTERED AIR that you exhale into the environment.
They make it harder for the wearer to inhale. They increase CO2 concentration in the blood while decreasing O2. They vent unfiltered, germ-laden vapor to the outside. They also concentrate microbes near the wearer's nose and mouth for constant rebreathing, causing pneumonia.
And the N95 box proudly states that THEY DO NOT BLOCK TRANSMISSION OF ANY VIRUS.
Completely agree with everything you said.
Only the incorrect model of "chainlink fence in sandstorm" was the basis of my explanation. This is an incorrect model and if you ever find yourself in a discussion about masks, you do not want to use this as a basis for discussion.
Also restricted breathing causes stress.
Ummmm none of that matters. Masks only could stop anything with a negative pressure such as inhaling. On yhe positive pressure side, exhaling, they are 100% usless. Everytime, all the time.
P.s. they dont even stop drywall dust.
Your entire post revolves around the 95% claim. Prove it.
Masks DON'T work.
I've been consistent, unlike the Atlantic :
Who ever down voted you can eat shit! Masks don't work... didn't look at your link... Peace pede.
There have been trials on masks that pre-date COVID-19 - so could be reliable. Here are fourteen all saying that masks do not work.
Not conclusive enough for you? Have some more including reasons why masks are dangerous.
Thank you. I'm saving this.
Ever change the air filter in your house for HVAC unit? Literally trapping concentrated amounts of dangerous pathogens to fester right on your face for ingestion.
So, is Bangladesh another country using Ivermectin? Hmmmmm.
Anyone saying masks work that has a medical license is committing medical malpractice.
https://t.me/ChristinaParks/812
*This week, a group of scientists from Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and other institutions published the final results of a randomized study of community-wide masking behavior in Bangladesh. The study encompassed roughly 350,000 people in 600 villages. (Paid poor people)
*The researchers also paid villagers to count properly worn masks in public places, including markets and mosques
To gather data on coronavirus transmission, the team asked about symptoms and conducted blood tests to determine who came down with COVID-19 over the course of the study.
After all, you might think, if people were masking successfully during the 1918 flu pandemic, why do we need a 2021 stu But the Bangladesh study
They've clearly admitted in this article that there were no randomized trials before now, that the conclusion is limited and they've altered history, lol.
That there was any science supportive of mask wearing for this type of virus has been a lie from the beginning. All the priory studies showed no effect and even with good, clean masks being worn properly.
Now, after years of lying they finally have a single study that is modestly supportive of their position, and I'll be honest, I just don't trust the damn thing.
I do expect to see this study cited as the golf standard though and as soon as it's available to look at we need to familiarize ourselves with it because it'll likely show up in mask mandate legal cases. But it kinda feels like we're past resolving things in a corrupted court, eh?
Were these priory studies carried out by monks or abbots, perchance?
<gdar>