Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?
- Thread starter erkme73
- Start date
sebastiantombs
Known around here
Again, that does not explain the CDC study showing 70% of people infected being mask wearers which, by simple math, says they're only 30% effective.
Frankenscript
Known around here
- Dec 21, 2017
- 1,288
- 1,201
That's not a proper interpretation of cause and effect. Look, I'm up to my eyeballs in budget stuff today, but real briefly:
The best way to determine the real impact of masks as source of infection control would be to have a large number of people observed over time in an environment where everyone was masked and a similar group of people where no one was masked, let the experiment play out, and see how many people in group A got sick versus group B. That would show the real difference, because since spring the primary benefit to wearing simple masks has been hailed as source control, not benefit to healthy wearers.
This experiment is not doable, practically or ethically.
So we have to look at secondary things like observed/counted spread of particles, contact tracing, and so on.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Frankenscript
Known around here
- Dec 21, 2017
- 1,288
- 1,201
One more thing: just because 70% percent are mask wearers actually says nothing about how infective they are while wearing a mask. Maybe without the masks they would have infected 10x as many people... It's not a simple math equation.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Jessie.slimer
BIT Beta Team
Its all guessing and speculation still. No real proof has yet been given to shut down the economy, disrupting 331M lives.
With the Election, it is a lot hotter in the US now
TookyTooker
n3wb
sebastiantombs
Known around here
What I'm saying is that even with a mask, according to the CDC, you have a 70% chance of getting the CCP Virus. This is a statistical number based on, undoubtedly, a large number of cases. No one, to my knowledge, has done a real study, either statistical or clinical, to determine how effective they are at preventing an infected person from spreading it. How you could even do a clinical study on something like this is questionable since you'd have to consciously cause harm by getting people infected to do the study. On the other hand, simple common sense says that if it can travel from outside to inside a mask, it sure can travel from inside to outside and probably at a similar, or even higher, rate due to differences in exhale versus inhale pressure, especially with a sneeze or cough.
Frankenscript
Known around here
- Dec 21, 2017
- 1,288
- 1,201
No, not at all. Outgoing droplets bearing virus are large and wet and relatively easily stopped by masks. In air the water evaporates and the particle size shrinks and is more easy to make it through the mask of a healthy person wearing a mask.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
sebastiantombs
Known around here
So a warm, wet, spray just can't be forced through a mask with a sneeze or cough? I find that more than hard to believe.
Enough of this. I feel masks are more cosmetic than therapeutic, you don't. Never the twain shall meet.
Enough of this. I feel masks are more cosmetic than therapeutic, you don't. Never the twain shall meet.
Jessie.slimer
BIT Beta Team
Remember the animation released many months ago with 2 people in different aisles of a store? It showed the virons going over several aisles. How big is a viron? How big is that huge air gap around the side of your mask or nose bridge? Its getting out. Sorry. Masks are feel good actions. Like gun control laws. They make us think we are doing something. Are they better than nothing? Maybe, but I feel maybe only slightly better. Wearing a mask may be worse if it means that by wearing a mask, at risk people go somewhere they probably shouldn't, thinking they are protected.
Maybe with the right masks and people who know how to wear them. I dunno.
Maybe with the right masks and people who know how to wear them. I dunno.
Frankenscript
Known around here
- Dec 21, 2017
- 1,288
- 1,201
OK, ok, if you don't believe it that's fine.
But for the record: warm, wet spray is trapped on the way out much better than fine, dry particles on the way "in." No doubt.
Funny story:
I was drinking some diet coke inside an airport while checking in (returning from my father's burial) in a situation where masks were of course required. I would lower my mask, take a swig, raise the mask. I was wearing a garden variety cloth mask. After one of my swigs, I had a sudden and unstoppable sneeze as I was working the touch screen. Ah-CHOO!... with the coke still half in my mouth. The mask trapped either all or nearly all of it from projecting in front of me. Some of it dribbled down my chin, neck, but it didn't create a zone of particlization in front of me. The computer screen for check-in didn't have droplets (that I could see, at least) all over it. The mask might not have been perfect but was a hell of a lot better than nothing, at keeping in the wet stuff. Fortunately I had a backup mask with me and I tossed the wet one, and used a wipe to clean the screen just in case so people touching it wouldn't get anything from it if too-small-to-see droplets were there. The mask traps most. Not ALL.
Also, for those interested in the 70/30% measurement thing. The right way to look at it experimentally is that you have to consider effectiveness per event, not simply "what portion of sick people wear masks," because what you can't measure is what portion of people wore masks and stayed healthy.
Imagine an event is being any one time you breathe in someone else's air, as sort of the quantized infection-potential event. So, for example, standing in line at grocery store, person nearby breathes out. You breathe in enough of this air to potentially harbor enough virions to mount an infection. If you are wearing a mask, some portion of those virions get through, others are blocked. But if the person breathing out, in that one event, is wearing a mask, the likelihood that enough virions attatched to wet droplets are gettting to you is dramatically reduced, because the mask traps most (not all, Jessie!) on the way out, and also changes the flow characteristics of those that do slip around the sides of the mask... they aren't projecting out. Now factor in that it's not one virion that causes an infection... there needs to be a critical mass threshold getting in over a certain amount of time. Both of you wearing masks drastically reduces the likelihood of this happening in this one "infection event." The "per event" likelihood of getting a viable dose of virions goes down by some orders of magnitude. And with it, the number of people getting sick.
I agree. Watch when someone smokes.
The smoke can travel a good distance and you can still smell it through the mask.
So the bottom line is, 6 feet apart is pointless, masks are pointless.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Jessie.slimer
BIT Beta Team
And smoke particles are much bigger than virons.
Jessie.slimer
BIT Beta Team
Virions (or "particles") of coronary viruses are spherical particles between 0.06 micron and 0.14 micron in diameter, averaging about 0.125 micron, measured by electron microscope (Zhu et al, 2020).
Frankenscript
Known around here
- Dec 21, 2017
- 1,288
- 1,201
People, virions leaving the body through nose and mouth are mostly attached to droplets of water that are large enough to be caught by plain masks.
The smoke analogy is bogus... Cigarette smoke particles aren't attached to water droplets
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
The smoke analogy is bogus... Cigarette smoke particles aren't attached to water droplets
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
What about the people taking there mask off at the podium seconds after someone spread germs every where?
Pointless, because they are at more risk than the common American.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Jessie.slimer
BIT Beta Team
Yes. Mostly in droplets. But not all. And those that are have the possibility of being encapsulated in droplets as small as 1 micron. At this size, they can be suspended in air for a long time.
Have a read here. 8-14 minutes airborne in droplet form.
The airborne lifetime of small speech droplets and their potential importance in SARS-CoV-2 transmission
Speech droplets generated by asymptomatic carriers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are increasingly considered to be a likely mode of disease transmission. Highly sensitive laser light scattering observations have revealed that loud speech can emit thousands of...
www.pnas.org
Cigarette smoke, bah. Look at your breath on a cold morning. The same thing.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Think of smoking after sex, bah LOL
guess we are trying to get the bad taste out of our mouth LOL