posted ago by Megascandal ago by Megascandal +8 / -0

I've been casually researching books on viruses that I could find free pdfs for and searching the term "mask" in them (checking of course that they were books related to airborne flu or coronaviruses, and not computer viruses) and quite frankly... most of these books don't even contain the word "mask" anywhere in their text, or at most just have a vague recommendation to use them in a laboratory setting with no mention of their actual effectiveness.

I did find out that coronaviruses are between 200-400 nanometers big (for reference a human hair has a width of 80,000 to 100,000 nanometers and most cloth masks can't even stop hairs), the first virus was photographed with an electron microscope in the 1940s, polio was photographed in the 1950s, and that use of masks in hospitals became common to protect against bacterial infections in the 1920s and even then they recommended that they replace masks frequently, and that mask mandates during the spanish flu were basically ineffective.

Now I don't have access to current medical textbooks, but if masks are so effective and proven you'd think that any book about airborne viruses would mention mask use and how effective they were... unless masks were not effective against viruses.

For example: Methods in Molecular Biology 1282, Coronaviruses Methods and Protocols (springer protocols) a textbook on coronavirus copyrighted for 2015 (299 pages) Has the word "mask" once, but it does not refer to medical masks, but rather "masked" in how the virus infiltrates a cell. It has a fairly long section on "prevention" but it doesn't mention masks at all.

Comments (18)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
nasty_pelosi 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is scientific evidence that properly fitting N95 masks are effective at containing/filtering SARS-COV-2.

Here is one such example: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/figure/10.1080/23744235.2020.1810858?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Can you repost your source to the contrary please?

3
DLane1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Only from the wearer who is expelling large aerosol droplets, not individual virions. That is also for N95s, which is a recognized standard for PPE.

Cloth masks and 6 feet make about as much sense as rubbing your tummy and patting your head at the same time.

Quarantining people who show symptoms has been and remains the only effective method to contain epidemics and pandemics. Feel ill, stay home; everyone else, go about normal life.

2
Dessert4TWO69 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://thedonald.win/p/11ROGqAjw9/and-the-most-recent-study-of-mas/c/

marginal at best.

There is also one done on marines in boot camp who were very much following the instructions. I do not have a link at the tip of my fingers for that one, but I think it can be found.

There is 0 evidence that masks stop viruses, or fungus or bacteria infections in surgical environments. Why pray tell would you imagine that they stop this one disease?

1
nasty_pelosi 1 point ago +1 / -0

That article is about the "DANMASK-19" study, which did not involve N95 masks:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

The marine recruit study also does not involve N95:

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2029717

The SARS-COV-2 virus about 0.12 microns in diameter and N95 masks protect down to 0.1 microns, with 95% efficiency.

Therefore it stands to reason that cloth masks are ineffective at filtering this virus, but properly fitting N95 masks are.

1
Dessert4TWO69 1 point ago +1 / -0

You asked about cloth masks.

1
nasty_pelosi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your original post was:

N95 masks are not effective. I have a post in my history with a link to another person with several studies linked.

I asked for the source in direct reply to your statement, which was about N95 masks.