In the first month of the pandemic, I did my research to find out what kind of mask or respirator would provide the best protection (I’m just that kind of person). I already knew intuitively from my eighth grade science class that trying to keep a virus out with a cloth mask was like expecting to keep mosquitoes out of your house using chicken wire. While my friend was busy sewing cloth masks, I already had the information to send her to not waste her time and just purchase the K/N 95 masks. Of course, then came the pleadings from the government not to use the K/N 95 masks and save them for the health workers! No mention that cloth masks would be no use at all.
I went to the CDC and NIH websites and read everything that I could find. I read the specifications to find out the difference between the K versus N masks. I remember reading that the K/N 95 masks did not filter out viruses or small particles by blocking them with the mask fibers. These types of masks actually work on trapping these very small particles via static electricity. I imagine if you could even possibly weave a mask with such tight fibers to keep out 0.3 µm particles or viruses, it would be nearly impossible to pass air in and out of the mask (especially without puffing out the seal around the face on exhale); so static entrapment is how it works. I had purchased some N 95 masks with an exhale valve for gardening the previous year. This allowed a good seal to be kept because the mask sides wouldn’t poof out with the pressure on exhale. Of course, this is the first mask they disallowed in grocery stores etc.
I also read that health professionals were trained to do fit checks using a small booth where a sweetener like Splenda or NutraSweet was puffed into their face after they had fit ithe mask. If they were able to taste the sweetener, they needed to refit the mask. It was obvious that this was serious business and that the average family with children was likely not going to fit a mask or handle it properly to avoid contamination or infection. We were really gaslit over this whole mask thing and they continue to gaslight us to this day. These cloth masks that trap moisture and grow fungus, mold, and bacteria are far worse than nothing at all!
"I went to the CDC and NIH websites and read everything that I could find."
One quick story that relates to this. (I actually wrote a long article about it but won't pollute this thread with my own ramblings.) Like you, I went to the CDC website early-on. I found their list of sources on masks, circa October 2020. I downloaded and/or bookmarked each of them. (I am also that kind of person!) Then I began to read. They had 19 citations at that time. The first nine (9) of them did not mention masking. At all. A few months later, I went back, to update my citations list, and see if they had fixed the (obvious to me) error. This time they had 29 citations. They still had those nine papers listed! However, they had taken away the hot-links. If you wanted to read them, you would have had to type in the title at Medline or Google or whatever. Those cheeky bastards wanted to goose the numbers, but not remove the bogus citations. Pitiful.
Very interesting!! I remember some of their "literature" (matrices vs formal studies) showed masks "not recommended" for flu outbreaks/pandemics (which I considered analog for corona virus). But the authorities scared us with the term "novel" as if implying they had no way to characterize C19 compared to other similar viruses. So I tried to be cautious the first few months, but then my skepticism started to kick in….
As an aside, I was going to mention in my original post that I went to the CDC/NIH sites because I considered them to be the most reliable sources. Reading your post, and considering my experience over these last three years… I’ve learned a lot and “reliable source“ is not what I would use to describe those agencies any longer! Cheeky bastards, indeed!
I should mention, again as I did in my piece, that I went to the CDC website specifically because I wanted to get information from "reliable sources" who might also disagree with sources I had previously reviewed. (I had already seen a ton of studies, many of them RCTs, that showed masks as less than worthless.) So, I figured I should review the opposing data before making up my mind they were FOS. You already know the outcome!
I just have to say it is refreshing to read a post from a kindred spirit. Someone hungry for the best information available (I would say "the truth", but that term can be debatable) and willing to do the digging and reading. My friends and family are what JJ Couey calls "TV Watchers" — their "trusted sources" consist of the narratives parroted by the talking heads on the screen. That can be exhausting. Thank you for posting, The Wilster :-)
Over the course of the pandemic, my job never stopped. I sat in in-person meetings constantly, meeting after meeting after meeting, many with PhDs in some science degree.
Many of them wear glasses.
ALL OF THEM complained that their glasses would fog up.
NONE OF THEM would question the efficacy of the mask based on the fact that most of the exhaled air was going out the sides and fogging up their glasses.
I even took time out to point out this fact to a few of them, they still wear masks in meetings to this day, regardless of the rules.
Excellent. Many proponents of the N95 type masks defended masking as “imperfect, but better than nothing”. This demonstrates clearly, even based on assumed claims, why this was wishful thinking. Even if there was a marginal amount of filtering/capture, it was never a measure capable of preventing a minimal infectious dose.
Clearly this was all unnecessary in light of the true risks of wild infection. The harms here are, significantly, in the minds of the public. Persistent pathological belief in a measure that actually induces harm, paired with propaganda and fundamental misrepresentation of masking that will encourage an even more dangerous belief structure should we ever have to deal with a truly deadly pathogen.
Google Steve petty environmental engineer he gave a presentation to some governmental body that is on you tube. He flatly said N 95 masks are worthless for the Covid -19 due to its particle size. He also made a statement that to achieve the 95% efficiency the masks have to be glued onto the testing apparatus to prevent and leakage. So it was well known by those who understand the science. That masks are worthless. Yet those in power continue to push their lies. I want justice for the lies and lives they destroyed
Thank you, I have been on this issue from the very beginning. Working with Transuranics my entire career, I’ve been fit tested for respirator use since 1988. We use the P-100 cartridge which is 99.9% efficient against the SAME 0.3 micron particle. Most lab work with Transuranics is done in gloveboxes, where you are not in the hazardous environment. The deadly viruses that are created, much like SARS COVID-2 were created in BSL 4 labs, where people are wearing Level A impermeable suits with supplied air AND working with the virus in a glovebox! Masks were a social experiment to get people to submit and then to shame and identify those that were not COMPLIANT! The N-95, even our P-100, were of little effectiveness against COVID. Masks down below the nose, on men with huge beards, will produce a hearty laugh and pointing in public from me. It was all a dystopian joke.
The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has highlighted the need for a hazard-specific response to airborne pathogens, as the virus is primarily spread through respiratory aerosols.
Transmission of the virus through asymptomatic spread is a major concern, as individuals may not show symptoms but still be capable of spreading the virus.
The use of N95 masks as a mitigation measure has been widely debated, as they are not specifically designed or approved to capture aerosols of the size and type found in respiratory emissions.
Part 2:
A study of viral load and particle-to-PFU ratios in respiratory emissions from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 found that the majority of particles emitted are not viable virions, and may not be effectively captured by N95 masks.
The study also found that the minimum infective dose (MID) for SARS-CoV-2 is much lower than previously thought, and that even small amounts of viable virions can lead to infection.
The study concluded that N95 masks may not be an effective mitigation measure for SARS-CoV-2, as they are not designed to capture the small aerosols that contain viable virions.
Part 3:
The hypothetical perfect capture capacity of N95 masks was considered, but it was found that even in this scenario, they would not be effective in mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
The output versus particle-to-PFU ratios and MID for SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed, and it was found that N95 masks would not be effective in preventing exposure to the virus, even in the best-case scenario.
The conclusion is that the use of N95 masks as a mitigation measure for SARS-CoV-2 should be reconsidered, and that a more hazard-specific response is needed to effectively combat the spread of the virus.
Conclusion:
The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has highlighted the need for a hazard-specific response to airborne pathogens, as the virus is primarily spread through respiratory aerosols.
Transmission of the virus through asymptomatic spread is a major concern, and the use of N95 masks as a mitigation measure has been widely debated.
Studies of viral load and particle-to-PFU ratios have found that N95 masks are not designed to capture the small aerosols that contain viable virions, and may not be an effective mitigation measure for SARS-CoV-2. Even the hypothetical perfect capture capacity of N95 masks are not effective in mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, a more hazard-specific response is needed to effectively combat the spread of the virus.
Some Critique from the AI:
From a clinical epidemiological viewpoint, some flaws with the information provided in the text include:
Lack of clear methodology: The text does not provide a clear description of the methods used to gather and analyze data. It is unclear how the particle-to-PFU ratios and MID threshold for SARS-CoV-2 were determined, making it difficult to assess the validity of the conclusions.
Lack of context: The text does not provide enough context to understand the significance of the findings. For example, it is unclear how the output range of 29 liters per minute and 7 liters per minute relate to real-world situations and what implications this has for infection control.
Lack of specificity: The text does not specify the type of N95 respirators being discussed, making it difficult to understand the relevance of the findings to different types of respirators.
Lack of comparison: The text does not provide any comparison to other types of respirators or mitigation strategies. This makes it difficult to understand the relative effectiveness of N95 respirators in reducing the risk of infection.
Lack of data: The text lacks data in terms of numbers of infected person, time and the location of the study. Without this information, it is difficult to understand the generalizability of the findings to other settings.
Conclusion: The text provides some information on the limitations of N95 respirators in reducing the risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2, but the information is presented in a way that is difficult to understand and lacks clear context and methodology. Therefore it is hard to confirm the validity of the conclusions. More research is needed to provide a better understanding of the effectiveness of N95 respirators in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
(I added the Electrostatic mechanism query, as it is also a way in which N95s prevent transmission in addition to the well documented Mechanical means...)
Did the text consider the following In addition to mechanical capture, N95 respirators employ an electrostatic mechanism to attract and intercept foreign particles (charged or uncharged)
It is not clear from the text provided if the electrostatic mechanism of N95 respirators was taken into consideration in the analysis. The text only mentions the mechanical capture capacity of N95s and the hypothetical perfect capture capacity for particle sizes that they are not designed or approved to capture. Additionally, the text does not provide any information on the efficiency of the electrostatic mechanism in capturing particles or how this mechanism may affect the overall effectiveness of N95s in protecting against SARS-CoV-2.
Forgive my ignorance, but I am trying to understand the charts in your article. The math makes sense to me, but why is the unit of measure in "people". Thanks so much for putting this together.
This ongoing discussion regarding masks is crazy making. There are over 170 mask studies that can be viewed on the Brownstone Institute's website. How many more studies do we need??? https://brownstone.org/?s=mask+studies
In the first month of the pandemic, I did my research to find out what kind of mask or respirator would provide the best protection (I’m just that kind of person). I already knew intuitively from my eighth grade science class that trying to keep a virus out with a cloth mask was like expecting to keep mosquitoes out of your house using chicken wire. While my friend was busy sewing cloth masks, I already had the information to send her to not waste her time and just purchase the K/N 95 masks. Of course, then came the pleadings from the government not to use the K/N 95 masks and save them for the health workers! No mention that cloth masks would be no use at all.
I went to the CDC and NIH websites and read everything that I could find. I read the specifications to find out the difference between the K versus N masks. I remember reading that the K/N 95 masks did not filter out viruses or small particles by blocking them with the mask fibers. These types of masks actually work on trapping these very small particles via static electricity. I imagine if you could even possibly weave a mask with such tight fibers to keep out 0.3 µm particles or viruses, it would be nearly impossible to pass air in and out of the mask (especially without puffing out the seal around the face on exhale); so static entrapment is how it works. I had purchased some N 95 masks with an exhale valve for gardening the previous year. This allowed a good seal to be kept because the mask sides wouldn’t poof out with the pressure on exhale. Of course, this is the first mask they disallowed in grocery stores etc.
I also read that health professionals were trained to do fit checks using a small booth where a sweetener like Splenda or NutraSweet was puffed into their face after they had fit ithe mask. If they were able to taste the sweetener, they needed to refit the mask. It was obvious that this was serious business and that the average family with children was likely not going to fit a mask or handle it properly to avoid contamination or infection. We were really gaslit over this whole mask thing and they continue to gaslight us to this day. These cloth masks that trap moisture and grow fungus, mold, and bacteria are far worse than nothing at all!
"I went to the CDC and NIH websites and read everything that I could find."
One quick story that relates to this. (I actually wrote a long article about it but won't pollute this thread with my own ramblings.) Like you, I went to the CDC website early-on. I found their list of sources on masks, circa October 2020. I downloaded and/or bookmarked each of them. (I am also that kind of person!) Then I began to read. They had 19 citations at that time. The first nine (9) of them did not mention masking. At all. A few months later, I went back, to update my citations list, and see if they had fixed the (obvious to me) error. This time they had 29 citations. They still had those nine papers listed! However, they had taken away the hot-links. If you wanted to read them, you would have had to type in the title at Medline or Google or whatever. Those cheeky bastards wanted to goose the numbers, but not remove the bogus citations. Pitiful.
Very interesting!! I remember some of their "literature" (matrices vs formal studies) showed masks "not recommended" for flu outbreaks/pandemics (which I considered analog for corona virus). But the authorities scared us with the term "novel" as if implying they had no way to characterize C19 compared to other similar viruses. So I tried to be cautious the first few months, but then my skepticism started to kick in….
As an aside, I was going to mention in my original post that I went to the CDC/NIH sites because I considered them to be the most reliable sources. Reading your post, and considering my experience over these last three years… I’ve learned a lot and “reliable source“ is not what I would use to describe those agencies any longer! Cheeky bastards, indeed!
I should mention, again as I did in my piece, that I went to the CDC website specifically because I wanted to get information from "reliable sources" who might also disagree with sources I had previously reviewed. (I had already seen a ton of studies, many of them RCTs, that showed masks as less than worthless.) So, I figured I should review the opposing data before making up my mind they were FOS. You already know the outcome!
I just have to say it is refreshing to read a post from a kindred spirit. Someone hungry for the best information available (I would say "the truth", but that term can be debatable) and willing to do the digging and reading. My friends and family are what JJ Couey calls "TV Watchers" — their "trusted sources" consist of the narratives parroted by the talking heads on the screen. That can be exhausting. Thank you for posting, The Wilster :-)
Over the course of the pandemic, my job never stopped. I sat in in-person meetings constantly, meeting after meeting after meeting, many with PhDs in some science degree.
Many of them wear glasses.
ALL OF THEM complained that their glasses would fog up.
NONE OF THEM would question the efficacy of the mask based on the fact that most of the exhaled air was going out the sides and fogging up their glasses.
I even took time out to point out this fact to a few of them, they still wear masks in meetings to this day, regardless of the rules.
Ha! Once a practice becomes an article of faith, it cannot be deterred via facts, logic, or data. Shibboleths are impervious to data!
Hilarious...but sad at the same time.
Excellent. Many proponents of the N95 type masks defended masking as “imperfect, but better than nothing”. This demonstrates clearly, even based on assumed claims, why this was wishful thinking. Even if there was a marginal amount of filtering/capture, it was never a measure capable of preventing a minimal infectious dose.
Clearly this was all unnecessary in light of the true risks of wild infection. The harms here are, significantly, in the minds of the public. Persistent pathological belief in a measure that actually induces harm, paired with propaganda and fundamental misrepresentation of masking that will encourage an even more dangerous belief structure should we ever have to deal with a truly deadly pathogen.
As someone who uses N95s for heavy industrial type work, I can promise you we all know they don’t work.
I use a P100 for welding operations, and sometimes a full on SCBA.
Google Steve petty environmental engineer he gave a presentation to some governmental body that is on you tube. He flatly said N 95 masks are worthless for the Covid -19 due to its particle size. He also made a statement that to achieve the 95% efficiency the masks have to be glued onto the testing apparatus to prevent and leakage. So it was well known by those who understand the science. That masks are worthless. Yet those in power continue to push their lies. I want justice for the lies and lives they destroyed
Thank you, I have been on this issue from the very beginning. Working with Transuranics my entire career, I’ve been fit tested for respirator use since 1988. We use the P-100 cartridge which is 99.9% efficient against the SAME 0.3 micron particle. Most lab work with Transuranics is done in gloveboxes, where you are not in the hazardous environment. The deadly viruses that are created, much like SARS COVID-2 were created in BSL 4 labs, where people are wearing Level A impermeable suits with supplied air AND working with the virus in a glovebox! Masks were a social experiment to get people to submit and then to shame and identify those that were not COMPLIANT! The N-95, even our P-100, were of little effectiveness against COVID. Masks down below the nose, on men with huge beards, will produce a hearty laugh and pointing in public from me. It was all a dystopian joke.
Masks don't stop stupid, but they sure make it easier to spot!
Nice I asked chatGPT to summarize this:
Summary:
Part 1:
The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has highlighted the need for a hazard-specific response to airborne pathogens, as the virus is primarily spread through respiratory aerosols.
Transmission of the virus through asymptomatic spread is a major concern, as individuals may not show symptoms but still be capable of spreading the virus.
The use of N95 masks as a mitigation measure has been widely debated, as they are not specifically designed or approved to capture aerosols of the size and type found in respiratory emissions.
Part 2:
A study of viral load and particle-to-PFU ratios in respiratory emissions from individuals with SARS-CoV-2 found that the majority of particles emitted are not viable virions, and may not be effectively captured by N95 masks.
The study also found that the minimum infective dose (MID) for SARS-CoV-2 is much lower than previously thought, and that even small amounts of viable virions can lead to infection.
The study concluded that N95 masks may not be an effective mitigation measure for SARS-CoV-2, as they are not designed to capture the small aerosols that contain viable virions.
Part 3:
The hypothetical perfect capture capacity of N95 masks was considered, but it was found that even in this scenario, they would not be effective in mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
The output versus particle-to-PFU ratios and MID for SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed, and it was found that N95 masks would not be effective in preventing exposure to the virus, even in the best-case scenario.
The conclusion is that the use of N95 masks as a mitigation measure for SARS-CoV-2 should be reconsidered, and that a more hazard-specific response is needed to effectively combat the spread of the virus.
Conclusion:
The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has highlighted the need for a hazard-specific response to airborne pathogens, as the virus is primarily spread through respiratory aerosols.
Transmission of the virus through asymptomatic spread is a major concern, and the use of N95 masks as a mitigation measure has been widely debated.
Studies of viral load and particle-to-PFU ratios have found that N95 masks are not designed to capture the small aerosols that contain viable virions, and may not be an effective mitigation measure for SARS-CoV-2. Even the hypothetical perfect capture capacity of N95 masks are not effective in mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, a more hazard-specific response is needed to effectively combat the spread of the virus.
Some Critique from the AI:
From a clinical epidemiological viewpoint, some flaws with the information provided in the text include:
Lack of clear methodology: The text does not provide a clear description of the methods used to gather and analyze data. It is unclear how the particle-to-PFU ratios and MID threshold for SARS-CoV-2 were determined, making it difficult to assess the validity of the conclusions.
Lack of context: The text does not provide enough context to understand the significance of the findings. For example, it is unclear how the output range of 29 liters per minute and 7 liters per minute relate to real-world situations and what implications this has for infection control.
Lack of specificity: The text does not specify the type of N95 respirators being discussed, making it difficult to understand the relevance of the findings to different types of respirators.
Lack of comparison: The text does not provide any comparison to other types of respirators or mitigation strategies. This makes it difficult to understand the relative effectiveness of N95 respirators in reducing the risk of infection.
Lack of data: The text lacks data in terms of numbers of infected person, time and the location of the study. Without this information, it is difficult to understand the generalizability of the findings to other settings.
Conclusion: The text provides some information on the limitations of N95 respirators in reducing the risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2, but the information is presented in a way that is difficult to understand and lacks clear context and methodology. Therefore it is hard to confirm the validity of the conclusions. More research is needed to provide a better understanding of the effectiveness of N95 respirators in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
(I added the Electrostatic mechanism query, as it is also a way in which N95s prevent transmission in addition to the well documented Mechanical means...)
Did the text consider the following In addition to mechanical capture, N95 respirators employ an electrostatic mechanism to attract and intercept foreign particles (charged or uncharged)
It is not clear from the text provided if the electrostatic mechanism of N95 respirators was taken into consideration in the analysis. The text only mentions the mechanical capture capacity of N95s and the hypothetical perfect capture capacity for particle sizes that they are not designed or approved to capture. Additionally, the text does not provide any information on the efficiency of the electrostatic mechanism in capturing particles or how this mechanism may affect the overall effectiveness of N95s in protecting against SARS-CoV-2.
Good article! Thanks for the share.
Forgive my ignorance, but I am trying to understand the charts in your article. The math makes sense to me, but why is the unit of measure in "people". Thanks so much for putting this together.
It's not just the physical problem with the masks. It's a fact, that spread has never been scientifically proven in the first place.
Seriously?
This ongoing discussion regarding masks is crazy making. There are over 170 mask studies that can be viewed on the Brownstone Institute's website. How many more studies do we need??? https://brownstone.org/?s=mask+studies
Revelations from the BIBLE against dictatorships
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/revelations-de-la-bible
VIRUSES, REALLY THE ACCUSATIONS
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/viruses-really-the-accusations
We must demand the visura, the publication of the assets of the high offices, of the judiciary by virtue of transparency
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/we-demand-the-visura-the-publication
If instead of bullets or atomic bombs the obligatory vaccine for everyone with toxic
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/if-instead-of-bullets-or-atomic-bombs
The CIA and its massacre protocol
https://andreasalvatorebuffa.substack.com/p/the-cia-of-massacres
Because there is no such thing as pathogenic, transmissible viruses.
Look up Rosenau experiments for example..