And they are so far left because they believe that stance is morally right.
Why do you think they're still crying over 2016? 2008 was "their time". They felt that the election of Obama was proof that they were mortally correct. They were first rebuked in the 2010 midterms, but instead of slowing down, they kept ratcheting up the pressure by using as many chicken-shit events as chances to denigrate their opposition. 2016 came around and, instead of another big ego boost, they lost. Their "reality" was at the very least challenged and they couldn't handle it.
Like how there seems to be lots of folks who complain about "nothing being done" but do nothing themselves?
What do you expect to be done, hmm? People typically aren't willing to do anything illegal, so what are you complaining about?
I don't know why you keep making this same faulty premise. We're not talking about aerosols, i.e. sputum/mucus droplets that would contain viruses. We're talking about molecules of CO2. Your linked NIH article focuses on particles that are 10 nanometers to 10 micrometers in size. CO2 is MUCH smaller than that, by at least an order of magnitude.
Where are you seeing flow rate difference? Are you conflating filtration efficiency with flow rate? The flow rate under which these different cloth samples were tested was constant: 1.2 cubic feet per minute. You see that at the top of Table 1.
Why are you changing your numbers? First you claimed 250 liters, now 20?
Same questions as before that you keep ignoring:
How are you obtaining CO2 concentrations in your previously-linked PDF study? Are you measuring pre-inhalation or while in the blood?
Why are you switching from CO2 produced to CO2 inhaled? Are you presuming that you're inhaling as much CO2 as you produce?
Why are you acting as if N95 and surgical masks represent the majority of worn masks?
No shit I read it. Where do you think I got the questions from?
The point is WHY. Why are you diluting anything? Again, the point of you exhaling CO2 is not to achieve parity with natural air concentrations. It's like you typed up a half-finished thought and are now acting as if that's an explanation.
Still doesn't explain where you're getting the gas measurements from. Again, are you measuring gas concentrations prior to inhalation, or are you measuring blood gas concentrations?
Again, why are you suddenly conflating CO2 produced with CO2 inhaled?
Again, the paper also only covers N95 masks or N95+surgical. That isn't what most people are wearing, not by a long shot.
Right, but that's a tangential point. It wouldn't matter if they used their mask properly or wiped their ass with it before putting it back on their face. These masks are being used for something that they weren't manufactured for, so it should come as no surprise that they aren't a particularly effective solution to the perceived problem.
The biggest change these mask jihadis have done is make it more "normal" to cover your face in public. Before, someone walking into a store with a bandanna or neck gaiter around their face would be a red flag. Now, it's a crap-shoot.
Nigga can you even read?
"N95 works as long as you fit them properly"
What do you think that means? What do you think a "proper fit" entails, hmm?
A "surgical mask doesn't work"? According to who? You saying that it "has been proven over and over and over again" does not constitute "proof". Somehow I doubt you'll actually present proof and instead will belly-ache about being asked to show it.
Let's say it slowly:
You
Don't
Know
What
You're
Talking
About
Do you know what a "surgical mask" actually is? Hint: It isn't just any mask that has a superficial appearance to what you might see a random doctor/nurse where in any random location inside hospital.
They are multi-layered masks with a green or dark-blue outer layer that is fluid-repellent and a white inner layer that is fluid-absorbent. They are made using a heated extrusion AKA melt blowing process that prevents the formation of large pores that you would typically see in woven fabric masks, i.e. what most people are wearing.
How is it a "bad analogy", hmm? Oh wait, you probably won't elaborate on that detail either.
Volume? Are you for real? You don't measure mask efficacy by it's ability to filter air volume, you use particle size. Atomic size is usually measured in angstroms. One angstrom is equivalent to one ten-billionth of a meter. Virus size is usually measured in nanometers. One nanometer is equivalent to one-billionth of a meter. So right away there's a full order magnitude of difference simply in the units.
SARS-CoV-2 has been found to measure 60-150 nanometers across, counting surface projections.
https://www.news-medical.net/health/The-Size-of-SARS-CoV-2-Compared-to-Other-Things.aspx
The actual carbon and oxygen atoms making up CO2 are a little harder to measure, but we know that the double bonds linking the carbon atom to both oxygen atoms are 1.16 angstroms in length.
You exhale 0.5L with each breath. Average [CO2] exhaled is 40,000 ppm, or 0.04% of each breath. The volume of CO2 exhaled with each breath is 0.02L (0.5 x 0.04).
Why are you "diluting" anything? The goal of respiration isn't to achieve parity with natural air concentrations. It seems like your research is based on a faulty premise.
Methodology doesn't illustrate how measurements were obtained. Are you measuring air gas concentrations prior to inhalation, or are you measuring blood gas levels post-inhalation?
You're somehow going from CO2 produced (as noted in the stated ABMS protocols) to average CO2 inhaled. Which is it?
You're also only looking at N95 and surgical masks, which most likely do not represent the majority and most certainly do not represent the totality of masks worn. People wearing handkerchiefs/bandannas, fashion fad masks, neck gaiters, etc. are not going to see these same numbers.
Lockdowns also don't make sense because they invariably funnel more people into certain areas, creating denser populations in those areas.
Take Wal-mart for instance. The one in my area reduced their hours (they've since opened back up somewhat). The problem with this is that the size of their customer base isn't going to change, so they're just increasing the population density of their store.
Example:
Open 24 hours/day, 1200 customers on average.
That's an average of 50 customers per hour.
Say they restricted hours to only being open 12 hours/day. Their customer base isn't going to change, so it's still 1200 on average.
That doubles their customers/hour average.
Now yes, this is oversimplified, but I'm pretty sure you get the idea.
Asymptomatic cases spreading makes little sense.
Typically the reason why you're asymptomatic is because your immune system is killing the virus faster than it can reproduce. The fewer viruses you have in your body, the less chance you have of spreading it. This is why HIV patients are considered "safe" when they reach undetectable levels of viral load.
A surgical mask or N95 works as long as you fit them properly and change them out every so often. The problem is that most of the "masks" people wear aren't rated for that use.
What you're saying is the same as running around with Level II body armor, getting shot by a centerfire rifle round, and then claiming that body armor doesn't work.
Truth requires evidence more substantial than simple repetition and "dude trust me".