But we had to download the original data from github to see that because they didn't mention it in the paper. The bottom line: mask are a complete joke with no science to back it up. Pure politics.
And, not only that, but the masks are themselves part of the spread, one might say of the psychological infection. It is startling to learn how deliberate and calculated the spread of the mental mask has been, especially given such a gentle name as "nudging." https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/01/24/unmasking-mind-gaming/
While those stats may be correct as far as particle size efficiency, they do not apply to COVID containment on the whole. First, those statistics apply to the contaminated media that passes through the filter material (we're gonna call it "air" with the understanding that "air" includes water/mucus droplets, water vapor, etc.). a "properly worn" N95 mask (there are several versions) may force a larger percentage of air under pressure (exhaled) through the filter element if it has no check valve. The one with the check valve is purely to protect the wearer. The valve opens for exhales and no significant amount of exhaled air passes through the filter. These are better than the non-vented N95 masks for personal protection because the pressure doesn't "break the seal" between the mask and the wearers face. I can't find a study on the average amount of exhaled gasses that pass through the filter substrate on a standard (non-vented) N95 mask , probably because that would be difficult to qualify/quantify. But people's non-clinical tests (wearing a mask in cold, dry air and watching where the "steam" goes) gives us a pretty good idea. One thing that's clearly evident in these presentations is that the denser the filter, the more air bypasses the filter. It creates a negated, or even a negative coefficient, making filters of smaller particulates no less likely to stop viral exodus. They would still stop "forward-launched" media (spittle) from passing directly to a person in close proximity and more or less directly in front of another person, but so would a cloth mask or face shield. The vented N95 directs exhausted gases downward, so also may help in this regard, but only incidentally.
As far as inhales, more air passes through the filter material because low pressure has a positive effect on the edge seal. This should be obvious, anyone wearing a mask can actually feel it tighten against their face when inhaling, and move away when exhaling. If everyone wore their N95 masks properly, were clean shaven, and had face shapes that perfectly conformed to the one-size-fits-all masks, efficacy would be greater for sure. But they don't have perfect-fits, they don't adjust the mask every time they put it on, they don't use it once and replace it. Even if N95s are 80% more effective at stopping viral material from being ejected or inhaled than a cloth or paper mask, the percentage is only relative to the effectiveness of the mask being compared. A paper mask at 5% efficacy become 9% effective with an 80% increase. And I suspect that 5% number (issued by the CDC) is also referring to masks that are properly worn and perfectly fitted. I go along with the idea that an N95 mask may add a small layer of self-protection to the wearer, but I see only a miniscule possibility that masks provide any significant deterrent to transmission in the real world of mask-wearers.
Yep, typical blue masks / surgical masks / home-made masks don't work. Even N95 masks don't work. To be truly protected a person would need to put on a full blown respirator. But that will not matter to the "true believers" who will say you need an n95 mask and a face shield - while contributing to the destruction of mother earth with how long such biohazard waste takes to decompose. They will loftily claim that anyone potentially saying anything different doesn't follow the science, clearly a heretic (even if that data was manipulated) until "the science changed". Just give it a couple months.
The virus is in droplets and aerosol. Your eyes are wet like sticky tape. Even if masks did work, you will still get the virus without wearing goggles. It's ridiculous people insist upon masks and ignore this.
Sadly the sheeple only hear the CDC still recommending masks which nullifies the strength of this study. Indoor masking has been suspended in my County but the sheep (50%) continue to wear anyway. Go figure.
Obscurantism is the philosophical movement that is causing all of these "scientists" to fail to show data from a trial yet want you to believe their incorrect conclusions. The Bangladesh study is a perfect example. As for proving that masks don't work, I did this way back at the beginning- on March 15, 2020- Dr. Jay Battacharya and I will be discussing masks in Part 2 of our discussion. Here is Part 1. It's a real discussion between two medical doctors. Pleasse like and share far and wide. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-ROTLKos8&lc=UgyyZQQbS_668g0gVdR4AaABAg
A virus (if they could ever isolate one) is supposed to be 0.125 microns. A mask could only block down to 0.300 microns. Mask do make people sick though.
Maybe masks DO work - to spread graphene. That is part of what Ricardo Delgado Martine has been saying. He says that graphe is in the vaccine, PCR tests and some masks, and as it accumulates in people it is more andmore likely that they will suffer from acute radiation syndrome when near telephone antenna. Here is an interview with him:https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-jerusalem-report/kHIT9ASDVM
The curves in this article remind me of the epicurves of the Omicron wave in NY (general mask mandate from Dec. 13 to Feb 10) versus NJ (no general mask mandate at that time). Per capita, the curves were literally identical, and even peaked on the same exact day. When overlaying them, you have to squint very hard just to see that they are in fact two separate lines.
Off topic but my mother who is triple vaxed, in her late 70s and not in the best health (a little overweight too) is convinced that unvaxed me who is 48 and in good physical health and well within my bmi, is going to die from Covid. What should I tell her?
And, not only that, but the masks are themselves part of the spread, one might say of the psychological infection. It is startling to learn how deliberate and calculated the spread of the mental mask has been, especially given such a gentle name as "nudging." https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/01/24/unmasking-mind-gaming/
Thanks for the warning.
While those stats may be correct as far as particle size efficiency, they do not apply to COVID containment on the whole. First, those statistics apply to the contaminated media that passes through the filter material (we're gonna call it "air" with the understanding that "air" includes water/mucus droplets, water vapor, etc.). a "properly worn" N95 mask (there are several versions) may force a larger percentage of air under pressure (exhaled) through the filter element if it has no check valve. The one with the check valve is purely to protect the wearer. The valve opens for exhales and no significant amount of exhaled air passes through the filter. These are better than the non-vented N95 masks for personal protection because the pressure doesn't "break the seal" between the mask and the wearers face. I can't find a study on the average amount of exhaled gasses that pass through the filter substrate on a standard (non-vented) N95 mask , probably because that would be difficult to qualify/quantify. But people's non-clinical tests (wearing a mask in cold, dry air and watching where the "steam" goes) gives us a pretty good idea. One thing that's clearly evident in these presentations is that the denser the filter, the more air bypasses the filter. It creates a negated, or even a negative coefficient, making filters of smaller particulates no less likely to stop viral exodus. They would still stop "forward-launched" media (spittle) from passing directly to a person in close proximity and more or less directly in front of another person, but so would a cloth mask or face shield. The vented N95 directs exhausted gases downward, so also may help in this regard, but only incidentally.
As far as inhales, more air passes through the filter material because low pressure has a positive effect on the edge seal. This should be obvious, anyone wearing a mask can actually feel it tighten against their face when inhaling, and move away when exhaling. If everyone wore their N95 masks properly, were clean shaven, and had face shapes that perfectly conformed to the one-size-fits-all masks, efficacy would be greater for sure. But they don't have perfect-fits, they don't adjust the mask every time they put it on, they don't use it once and replace it. Even if N95s are 80% more effective at stopping viral material from being ejected or inhaled than a cloth or paper mask, the percentage is only relative to the effectiveness of the mask being compared. A paper mask at 5% efficacy become 9% effective with an 80% increase. And I suspect that 5% number (issued by the CDC) is also referring to masks that are properly worn and perfectly fitted. I go along with the idea that an N95 mask may add a small layer of self-protection to the wearer, but I see only a miniscule possibility that masks provide any significant deterrent to transmission in the real world of mask-wearers.
Yep, typical blue masks / surgical masks / home-made masks don't work. Even N95 masks don't work. To be truly protected a person would need to put on a full blown respirator. But that will not matter to the "true believers" who will say you need an n95 mask and a face shield - while contributing to the destruction of mother earth with how long such biohazard waste takes to decompose. They will loftily claim that anyone potentially saying anything different doesn't follow the science, clearly a heretic (even if that data was manipulated) until "the science changed". Just give it a couple months.
It was proven that masks collected and grew viruses and bacteria.
The virus is in droplets and aerosol. Your eyes are wet like sticky tape. Even if masks did work, you will still get the virus without wearing goggles. It's ridiculous people insist upon masks and ignore this.
Sadly the sheeple only hear the CDC still recommending masks which nullifies the strength of this study. Indoor masking has been suspended in my County but the sheep (50%) continue to wear anyway. Go figure.
Obscurantism is the philosophical movement that is causing all of these "scientists" to fail to show data from a trial yet want you to believe their incorrect conclusions. The Bangladesh study is a perfect example. As for proving that masks don't work, I did this way back at the beginning- on March 15, 2020- Dr. Jay Battacharya and I will be discussing masks in Part 2 of our discussion. Here is Part 1. It's a real discussion between two medical doctors. Pleasse like and share far and wide. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-ROTLKos8&lc=UgyyZQQbS_668g0gVdR4AaABAg
off the topic, but I would like to see a live debate (or discussion at least) between Steve & Alex Berenson on the effectiveness of Ivermectin
A virus (if they could ever isolate one) is supposed to be 0.125 microns. A mask could only block down to 0.300 microns. Mask do make people sick though.
Sure purple masks don't work. But most people wear blue masks. Boom! Check and mate.
The only intervention that seems to be working is propaganda in all its colors, flavors, spokespeople.
Maybe masks DO work - to spread graphene. That is part of what Ricardo Delgado Martine has been saying. He says that graphe is in the vaccine, PCR tests and some masks, and as it accumulates in people it is more andmore likely that they will suffer from acute radiation syndrome when near telephone antenna. Here is an interview with him:https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-jerusalem-report/kHIT9ASDVM
so everyone should've been using N95 masks?
The curves in this article remind me of the epicurves of the Omicron wave in NY (general mask mandate from Dec. 13 to Feb 10) versus NJ (no general mask mandate at that time). Per capita, the curves were literally identical, and even peaked on the same exact day. When overlaying them, you have to squint very hard just to see that they are in fact two separate lines.
Off topic but my mother who is triple vaxed, in her late 70s and not in the best health (a little overweight too) is convinced that unvaxed me who is 48 and in good physical health and well within my bmi, is going to die from Covid. What should I tell her?