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

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.

1
Dessert4TWO69 1 point ago +1 / -0

The fuck people,

https://thedonald.win/p/11ROGqAjnl/masks-do-not-stop-viruses-this-g/c/

Pretty fucking sure that I gave this link earlier.

And by the way, I was going to, but thought, hey, be nice, but now, the fucking virus (if it even exists at all, based solidly on the argued number of RNA chains) is 0.6 microns not over 1 micron. N95 does not stop it. AND NO ONE IS FUCKING WEARING N95 masks anyways. And if they are, they are sure as fuck are not wearing them right or changing them often enough.

Every fucking place with the strongest mask mandates have the highest per capita infection rates, you can see the future just by seeing a mask mandate implemented. Shortly thereafter cases start a steep incline upwards.

Florida on the other hand, no allowed mandates by government, holds steady. California with the strictest is skyrocketing.

1
nasty_pelosi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, your link refers to cloth masks, not N95. I provided evidence that N95 is effective, you provided no evidence to the contrary. Since this is obviously a religious discussion for you, and not a scientific one, there is no point in continuing this conversation.