On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your
mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a mask and it reduced
the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few getting by
didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test? It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus. Where they able to track particles
that small? Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.

T writes:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.=C2=A0 One is a video of a person=
=20
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your=20
mouth.=C2=A0 They went quite a distance.=C2=A0 They showed a mask and i=
t reduced=20
the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few getting by =

did=C2=A0not=C2=A0travel=C2=A0as=C2=A0far.

How long did they wait before the test? It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And the scientific basis for your assertion is?

On 2020-06-16 12:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
T writes:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.=C2=A0 One is a video of a person=
=20
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your=20
mouth.=C2=A0 They went quite a distance.=C2=A0 They showed a mask and i=
t reduced=20
the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few getting by =

did=C2=A0not=C2=A0travel=C2=A0as=C2=A0far.

How long did they wait before the test? It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And the scientific basis for your assertion is?


Technical articles I have read. You are free to look
them up yourself.

I also have a customer that was in on the design of
the N95 mask. He was a wealth of information. By
the way, the N95 was not designed to stop particles
as small as viruses. Of interest, he does not wear
a mask either.

If you want to research this subject yourself, there
is a ton on hits over on Pub Med. You can start he

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/

T writes:
On 2020-06-16 12:03, Scott Lurndal wrote:
T writes:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.=C2=A0 One is a video of a person=
=20
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your=20
mouth.=C2=A0 They went quite a distance.=C2=A0 They showed a mask and i=
t reduced=20
the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few getting by =

did=C2=A0not=C2=A0travel=C2=A0as=C2=A0far.

How long did they wait before the test? It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And the scientific basis for your assertion is?


Technical articles I have read. You are free to look
them up yourself.

In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/

Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your
mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a mask and it reduced
the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few getting by
didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy. That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060

On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read. You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed. Not a good like. Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

In article , lid says...

I also have a customer that was in on the design of
the N95 mask. He was a wealth of information. By
the way, the N95 was not designed to stop particles
as small as viruses. Of interest, he does not wear
a mask either.



Another interisting thing I read, true or not, that many N95 masks are
designed to keep particals from comming into the body and not to keep
them from going out of the body.

After a few breaths the home made cloth masks do almost nothing and
after an hour or so are probably worse than nothing.

On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your
mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a mask and it
reduced the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few
getting by didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.Â* That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look. One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

By the way, who is rude enough to sneeze and cough in
other peoples faces?

I have terrible hay fever. I take my pill before going
into public so I won't sneeze. And when one comes on
anyway, I excuse myself, bend over and sneeze on the floor.
Then take another pill. I don't sneeze on myself and
think I am clean.

And why would you go out in public if you knew you were
sick and could not control coughing?

"Oh ya, today is a good day to come to my house and fix
my computer, I am home sick." What inconsiderate ass
holes.

Stay home if you are sick. Much, much more effective than
giving it to everyone else!

On 2020-06-16 14:48, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , lid says...

I also have a customer that was in on the design of
the N95 mask. He was a wealth of information. By
the way, the N95 was not designed to stop particles
as small as viruses. Of interest, he does not wear
a mask either.



Another interisting thing I read, true or not, that many N95 masks are
designed to keep particals from comming into the body and not to keep
them from going out of the body.

After a few breaths the home made cloth masks do almost nothing and
after an hour or so are probably worse than nothing.


Interesting

My customer told me they were designed to keep
out bacterial and particulate.

Next time I see him, if I remember, I have to ask
him about the keep out thing.

T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read. You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed. Not a good like. Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot support
your view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

In article , says...
s far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy. That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060




So you believe doctors that cause over 250,000 deaths each year by their
mistake ?

https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/practice-
management/medical-errors-lead-more-250k-deaths-year-us-are-often-
unreported

on 6/16/2020, T supposed :
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your
mouth.* They went quite a distance.* They showed a mask and it reduced
the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few getting by
did*not*travel*as*far.

How long did they wait before the test?* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.* Where they able to track particles
that small?* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.* That said, when it comes down to disease stuff I
trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more than the guys
here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look. One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

Irrelevant to the masks we are talking about - N-95 masks are PPE and
used together with other PPE and measures.

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
k.net...
In article , lid says...

I also have a customer that was in on the design of
the N95 mask. He was a wealth of information. By
the way, the N95 was not designed to stop particles
as small as viruses. Of interest, he does not wear
a mask either.



Another interisting thing I read, true or not, that many N95 masks are
designed to keep particals from comming into the body and not to keep
them from going out of the body.

After a few breaths the home made cloth masks do almost nothing

That's bull****. In spades with the best of them, 3 layers with denim on the
inner layer.

and after an hour or so are probably worse than nothing.

That's complete bull**** too.

On 2020-06-16 14:54, FromTheRafters wrote:
T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read.Â* You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed.Â* Not a good like.Â* Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot support
your view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

I am not going to go through the extra work for the guy
who lied about me. He can do his own homework.

You I will.

Just go to the link and read the titles. Pick some
out that interest you.

Here is the first three:

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an
Influenza Pandemic?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks
was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks
significantly reduced the number of microorganisms
expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask
was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission
than the homemade mask.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade
mask should only be considered as a *last resort *
to prevent droplet transmission from infected
individuals, but it would be better than no
protection.


Effectiveness of Surgical Masks Against Influenza Bioaerosols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498357/

Findings: Live influenza virus was measurable from the
air behind all surgical masks tested. The data indicate
that a surgical mask will reduce exposure to aerosolised
infectious influenza virus; reductions ranged from 1.1-
to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of
the mask.

Conclusion: We describe a workable method to evaluate
the protective efficacy of surgical masks and RPDs
against a relevant aerosolised biological challenge.
The results demonstrated limitations of surgical masks
in this context, although they are to some extent
protective.


Effectiveness of N95 Respirators Versus Surgical Masks in Protecting
Health Care Workers From Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/

Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to
have a protective advantage over surgical masks in
laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that
there were insufficient data to determine definitively
whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks
in protecting health care workers against transmissible
acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

On 2020-06-16 14:58, FromTheRafters wrote:
on 6/16/2020, T supposed :
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving
your mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a mask and it
reduced the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few
getting by didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.Â* That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look.Â* One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

Irrelevant to the masks we are talking about - N-95 masks are PPE and
used together with other PPE and measures.

now a I am lost. Which were you referring to?

On 2020-06-16 14:57, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , says...
s far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy. That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060




So you believe doctors that cause over 250,000 deaths each year by their
mistake ?

https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/practice-
management/medical-errors-lead-more-250k-deaths-year-us-are-often-
unreported

And where are the riots? Where are the folks burning down
hospitals?

The biggest killer in this country is Death by Medical.
Ask 10 different allopaths the same question and you will
get 10 different answers. And the conflict of interest is
a thing to behold.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 08:00:55 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

T writes:
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read. You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer

You said you believe the flu vaccine is a fraud. That
makes you an anti-vaxer, by definition.

And you made the claim about facemasks, you support it, I won't do your
homwwork for you.

On 6/16/2020 5:51 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving
your mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a mask and it
reduced the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few
getting by didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.Â* That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look.Â* One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

By the way, who is rude enough to sneeze and cough in
other peoples faces?

I have terrible hay fever.Â* I take my pill before going
into public so I won't sneeze.Â* And when one comes on
anyway, I excuse myself, bend over and sneeze on the floor.
Then take another pill.Â* I don't sneeze on myself and
think I am clean.

And why would you go out in public if you knew you were
sick and could not control coughing?

"Oh ya, today is a good day to come to my house and fix
my computer, I am home sick."Â* What inconsiderate ass
holes.

Stay home if you are sick.Â* Much, much more effective than
giving it to everyone else!



Nothing is perfect. Nothing will totally eliminate risk. My goad is to
reduce the odds in my favor.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20605264/
Abstract
There is sufficient evidence indicating that masks, if worn properly and
consistently, are an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in the
control of disease spread. The use of masks during a pandemic can
minimize the spread of influenza and its economic impact, yet
mask-wearing compliance in adults is often poor. Educating the public on
the effectiveness of masks can increase compliance whilst reducing
morbidity and mortality. With targeted campaigns and the help of the
fashion industry, masks may become a popular accessory amongst school
children. As children are effective source-transmitters of infection,
encouraging a trend toward such increased mask-wearing could result in a
significant, self-perpetuating reduction mechanism for limiting
influenza transmission in schools during a pandemic.

T explained :
On 2020-06-16 14:54, FromTheRafters wrote:
T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read.* You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed.* Not a good like.* Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot support your
view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

I am not going to go through the extra work for the guy
who lied about me. He can do his own homework.

You I will.

Just go to the link and read the titles. Pick some
out that interest you.

I did, and read some little way into them to see that they were not
saying what you appear to think they are saying.

Here is the first three:

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza
Pandemic?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks
was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks
significantly reduced the number of microorganisms
expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask
was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission
than the homemade mask.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade
mask should only be considered as a *last resort *
to prevent droplet transmission from infected
individuals, but it would be better than no
protection.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of Surgical Masks Against Influenza Bioaerosols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498357/

Findings: Live influenza virus was measurable from the
air behind all surgical masks tested. The data indicate
that a surgical mask will reduce exposure to aerosolised
infectious influenza virus; reductions ranged from 1.1-
to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of
the mask.

Conclusion: We describe a workable method to evaluate
the protective efficacy of surgical masks and RPDs
against a relevant aerosolised biological challenge.
The results demonstrated limitations of surgical masks
in this context, although they are to some extent
protective.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of N95 Respirators Versus Surgical Masks in Protecting Health
Care Workers From Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/

Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to
have a protective advantage over surgical masks in
laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that
there were insufficient data to determine definitively
whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks
in protecting health care workers against transmissible
acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

These are PPE and not what we are talking about.

On 2020-06-16 16:19, FromTheRafters wrote:
T explained :
On 2020-06-16 14:54, FromTheRafters wrote:
T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read.Â* You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed.Â* Not a good like.Â* Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot support
your view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

I am not going to go through the extra work for the guy
who lied about me.Â* He can do his own homework.

You I will.

Just go to the link and read the titles.Â* Pick some
out that interest you.

I did, and read some little way into them to see that they were not
saying what you appear to think they are saying.

Here is the first three:

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an
Influenza Pandemic?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* significantly reduced the number of microorganisms
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* than the homemade mask.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* mask should only be considered as a *last resort *
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* to prevent droplet transmission from infected
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* individuals, but it would be better than no
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* protection.

It says they are effective.

No it did not. It said "last resort". You fall out of
a plane, try to hit a tree. ya.



Effectiveness of Surgical Masks Against Influenza Bioaerosols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498357/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Findings: Live influenza virus was measurable from the
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* air behind all surgical masks tested. The data indicate
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* that a surgical mask will reduce exposure to aerosolised
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* infectious influenza virus; reductions ranged from 1.1-
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the mask.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Conclusion: We describe a workable method to evaluate
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the protective efficacy of surgical masks and RPDs
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* against a relevant aerosolised biological challenge.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* The results demonstrated limitations of surgical masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* in this context, although they are to some extent
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* protective.

It says they are effective.

No it did not. It said surgical masks are "somewhat"
effective. Now which tree should I pick?


Effectiveness of N95 Respirators Versus Surgical Masks in Protecting
Health Care Workers From Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* have a protective advantage over surgical masks in
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* there were insufficient data to determine definitively
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* in protecting health care workers against transmissible
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

These are PPE and not what we are talking about.

So what. It is a test of masks. It said "insufficient data"
to tell the difference between "N95 Respirators Versus Surgical
Masks"

I don't sneeze or cough in other people's faces and I don't
go out when I am sick. Do you and expect a crappy cloth
mask to protect other from you?

On 6/16/2020 7:19 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
T explained :
On 2020-06-16 14:54, FromTheRafters wrote:
T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read.* You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed.* Not a good like.* Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot support
your view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

I am not going to go through the extra work for the guy
who lied about me.* He can do his own homework.

You I will.

Just go to the link and read the titles.* Pick some
out that interest you.

I did, and read some little way into them to see that they were not
saying what you appear to think they are saying.

Here is the first three:

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an
Influenza Pandemic?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

****** Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks
****** was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks
****** significantly reduced the number of microorganisms
****** expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask
****** was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission
****** than the homemade mask.

****** Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade
****** mask should only be considered as a *last resort *
****** to prevent droplet transmission from infected
****** individuals, but it would be better than no
****** protection.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of Surgical Masks Against Influenza Bioaerosols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498357/

****** Findings: Live influenza virus was measurable from the
****** air behind all surgical masks tested. The data indicate
****** that a surgical mask will reduce exposure to aerosolised
****** infectious influenza virus; reductions ranged from 1.1-
****** to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of
****** the mask.

****** Conclusion: We describe a workable method to evaluate
****** the protective efficacy of surgical masks and RPDs
****** against a relevant aerosolised biological challenge.
****** The results demonstrated limitations of surgical masks
****** in this context, although they are to some extent
****** protective.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of N95 Respirators Versus Surgical Masks in Protecting
Health Care Workers From Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/

****** Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to
****** have a protective advantage over surgical masks in
****** laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that
****** there were insufficient data to determine definitively
****** whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks
****** in protecting health care workers against transmissible
****** acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

These are PPE and not what we are talking about.

Since we know with chemicals that toxicity is dose related it makes
sense that a quantity of virus you are exposed to must be needed to
overcome your defenses. If someone with the virus sneezes with a mask
on near you and you have a mask on some of the virus will get through
his mask and some will make it through his mask. Without masks you
would ge the full blast of the sneeze and probably be infected but both
with masks you might not get enough virus to infect you.

On 2020-06-16 15:39, Scott Lurndal wrote:
T writes:
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read. You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer

You said you believe the flu vaccine is a fraud. That
makes you an anti-vaxer, by definition.

On whose planet you liar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy

Vaccine hesitancy, also known as anti-vaccination or
anti-vax, is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated
or to have one's children vaccinated against contagious
diseases despite the availability of vaccination services.

Criticizing one shot does not make me an anti-vaxer.
Okay 1-1/2 as I have criticized the old shingles
vaccine too.

Oh and by your definition, Dr. Macfarlane Burnet
would be an anti-vaxer too. He thought the flue
shot was a failure too. Look him up dude.

On 2020-06-16 16:31, Frank wrote:
On 6/16/2020 7:19 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
T explained :
On 2020-06-16 14:54, FromTheRafters wrote:
T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read.Â* You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed.Â* Not a good like.Â* Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot support
your view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

I am not going to go through the extra work for the guy
who lied about me.Â* He can do his own homework.

You I will.

Just go to the link and read the titles.Â* Pick some
out that interest you.

I did, and read some little way into them to see that they were not
saying what you appear to think they are saying.

Here is the first three:

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an
Influenza Pandemic?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* significantly reduced the number of microorganisms
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* than the homemade mask.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* mask should only be considered as a *last resort *
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* to prevent droplet transmission from infected
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* individuals, but it would be better than no
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* protection.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of Surgical Masks Against Influenza Bioaerosols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498357/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Findings: Live influenza virus was measurable from the
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* air behind all surgical masks tested. The data indicate
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* that a surgical mask will reduce exposure to aerosolised
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* infectious influenza virus; reductions ranged from 1.1-
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the mask.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Conclusion: We describe a workable method to evaluate
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the protective efficacy of surgical masks and RPDs
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* against a relevant aerosolised biological challenge.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* The results demonstrated limitations of surgical masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* in this context, although they are to some extent
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* protective.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of N95 Respirators Versus Surgical Masks in Protecting
Health Care Workers From Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* have a protective advantage over surgical masks in
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* there were insufficient data to determine definitively
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* in protecting health care workers against transmissible
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

These are PPE and not what we are talking about.

Since we know with chemicals that toxicity is dose related it makes
sense that a quantity of virus you are exposed to must be needed to
overcome your defenses.Â* If someone with the virus sneezes with a mask
on near you and you have a mask on some of the virus will get through
his mask and some will make it through his mask.Â* Without masks you
would ge the full blast of the sneeze and probably be infected but both
with masks you might not get enough virus to infect you.

Perhaps we could epoxy the masks on? No?

T laid this down on his screen :
On 2020-06-16 14:58, FromTheRafters wrote:
on 6/16/2020, T supposed :
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving your
mouth.* They went quite a distance.* They showed a mask and it reduced
the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few getting by
did*not*travel*as*far.

How long did they wait before the test?* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.* Where they able to track particles
that small?* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.* That said, when it comes down to disease stuff
I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more than the
guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look.* One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

Irrelevant to the masks we are talking about - N-95 masks are PPE and used
together with other PPE and measures.

now a I am lost. Which were you referring to?

The masks that Joe Public is supposed to use are more like splash
guards and whatever virus particles they do catch are not elsewhere
contaminating other people. They are not designed to protect the wearer
(like PPE is) but to reduce the contamination of the environment we all
share - like supermarkets for instance. Also, to reduce the aerosol
spread via air instead of contact with contaminated surfaces like
sitting at a restaurant table downwind of the contagious person.

Others wearing their masks protects you to some extent by reducing the
amount of contamination available for you to pick up, and other
measures like avoiding touching surfaces you don't need to, and washing
you hands a lot also helps you to protect yourself.

Trying to convince others that wearing masks is a useless endeavor or
makes you look retarded or democratic or whatever - *is killing people*
and I wish everyone would stop fighting against such a simple and not
completely ineffective measure.

On 2020-06-16 15:57, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 5:51 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving
your mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a mask and it
reduced the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the few
getting by didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.Â* That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look.Â* One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

By the way, who is rude enough to sneeze and cough in
other peoples faces?

I have terrible hay fever.Â* I take my pill before going
into public so I won't sneeze.Â* And when one comes on
anyway, I excuse myself, bend over and sneeze on the floor.
Then take another pill.Â* I don't sneeze on myself and
think I am clean.

And why would you go out in public if you knew you were
sick and could not control coughing?

"Oh ya, today is a good day to come to my house and fix
my computer, I am home sick."Â* What inconsiderate ass
holes.

Stay home if you are sick.Â* Much, much more effective than
giving it to everyone else!



Nothing is perfect.Â* Nothing will totally eliminate risk.Â* My goad is to
reduce the odds in my favor.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20605264/
Abstract
There is sufficient evidence indicating that masks, if worn properly and
consistently, are an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in the
control of disease spread. The use of masks during a pandemic can
minimize the spread of influenza and its economic impact, yet
mask-wearing compliance in adults is often poor. Educating the public on
the effectiveness of masks can increase compliance whilst reducing
morbidity and mortality. With targeted campaigns and the help of the
fashion industry, masks may become a popular accessory amongst school
children. As children are effective source-transmitters of infection,
encouraging a trend toward such increased mask-wearing could result in a
significant, self-perpetuating reduction mechanism for limiting
influenza transmission in schools during a pandemic.


Interesting. I could not see the full article, so I
could not see how they came to their conclusions.
Or who funded them.

Keep in mind the WORST research is guys sitting around in
white coats giving their opinion (pulling things out
their asses).

And for starters, don't sent your kinds to skool when
they are sick.

I worked at a child care center about 10 years ago.
ALL the kids to very sick. Mother just dropped then
off -- they did not care.

I was on my back sick to death for a month. Almost
lost my shirt. I will not work on site for child
care facilities, allopaths, dentists or other super
spreaders. Keep your kids at home when they are sick.
Way more effective than a mash they won't wear properly.

What in the world makes the writers of the above think
that an irritant on a child's face will be "worn properly
and consistently". He must not have know any kids or
forgot when he was a kid. I will do remote assistance
though.

On 6/16/2020 7:34 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 16:31, Frank wrote:
On 6/16/2020 7:19 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
T explained :
On 2020-06-16 14:54, FromTheRafters wrote:
T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read.Â* You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed.Â* Not a good like.Â* Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot
support your view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

I am not going to go through the extra work for the guy
who lied about me.Â* He can do his own homework.

You I will.

Just go to the link and read the titles.Â* Pick some
out that interest you.

I did, and read some little way into them to see that they were not
saying what you appear to think they are saying.

Here is the first three:

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an
Influenza Pandemic?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* significantly reduced the number of microorganisms
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* than the homemade mask.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* mask should only be considered as a *last resort *
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* to prevent droplet transmission from infected
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* individuals, but it would be better than no
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* protection.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of Surgical Masks Against Influenza Bioaerosols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498357/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Findings: Live influenza virus was measurable from the
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* air behind all surgical masks tested. The data indicate
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* that a surgical mask will reduce exposure to aerosolised
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* infectious influenza virus; reductions ranged from 1.1-
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the mask.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Conclusion: We describe a workable method to evaluate
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the protective efficacy of surgical masks and RPDs
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* against a relevant aerosolised biological challenge.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* The results demonstrated limitations of surgical masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* in this context, although they are to some extent
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* protective.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of N95 Respirators Versus Surgical Masks in Protecting
Health Care Workers From Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* have a protective advantage over surgical masks in
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* there were insufficient data to determine definitively
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* in protecting health care workers against transmissible
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

These are PPE and not what we are talking about.

Since we know with chemicals that toxicity is dose related it makes
sense that a quantity of virus you are exposed to must be needed to
overcome your defenses.Â* If someone with the virus sneezes with a mask
on near you and you have a mask on some of the virus will get through
his mask and some will make it through his mask.Â* Without masks you
would ge the full blast of the sneeze and probably be infected but
both with masks you might not get enough virus to infect you.

Perhaps we could epoxy the masks on?Â* No?


Sure, epoxy the whole mask.

On 2020-06-16 16:36, FromTheRafters wrote:
T laid this down on his screen :
On 2020-06-16 14:58, FromTheRafters wrote:
on 6/16/2020, T supposed :
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a
person talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets
leaving your mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a
mask and it reduced the amount considerably and lowered the
velocity so the few getting by didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.Â* That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine
more than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060




I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look.Â* One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

Irrelevant to the masks we are talking about - N-95 masks are PPE and
used together with other PPE and measures.

now a I am lost.Â* Which were you referring to?

The masks that Joe Public is supposed to use are more like splash guards
and whatever virus particles they do catch are not elsewhere
contaminating other people. They are not designed to protect the wearer
(like PPE is) but to reduce the contamination of the environment we all
share - like supermarkets for instance. Also, to reduce the aerosol
spread via air instead of contact with contaminated surfaces like
sitting at a restaurant table downwind of the contagious person.

Others wearing their masks protects you to some extent by reducing the
amount of contamination available for you to pick up, and other measures
like avoiding touching surfaces you don't need to, and washing you hands
a lot also helps you to protect yourself.

Trying to convince others that wearing masks is a useless endeavor or
makes you look retarded or democratic or whatever - *is killing people*
and I wish everyone would stop fighting against such a simple and not
completely ineffective measure.

Try staying home if you are sick and not coughing on others

And the people that are dying are those with one foot in
the grave to start with. Not the general public. Any
virus would have killed them.

On 6/16/2020 7:59 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 15:57, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 5:51 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a person
talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets leaving
your mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a mask and
it reduced the amount considerably and lowered the velocity so the
few getting by didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.Â* That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine more
than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look.Â* One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

By the way, who is rude enough to sneeze and cough in
other peoples faces?

I have terrible hay fever.Â* I take my pill before going
into public so I won't sneeze.Â* And when one comes on
anyway, I excuse myself, bend over and sneeze on the floor.
Then take another pill.Â* I don't sneeze on myself and
think I am clean.

And why would you go out in public if you knew you were
sick and could not control coughing?

"Oh ya, today is a good day to come to my house and fix
my computer, I am home sick."Â* What inconsiderate ass
holes.

Stay home if you are sick.Â* Much, much more effective than
giving it to everyone else!



Nothing is perfect.Â* Nothing will totally eliminate risk.Â* My goad is
to reduce the odds in my favor.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20605264/
Abstract
There is sufficient evidence indicating that masks, if worn properly
and consistently, are an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in
the control of disease spread. The use of masks during a pandemic can
minimize the spread of influenza and its economic impact, yet
mask-wearing compliance in adults is often poor. Educating the public
on the effectiveness of masks can increase compliance whilst reducing
morbidity and mortality. With targeted campaigns and the help of the
fashion industry, masks may become a popular accessory amongst school
children. As children are effective source-transmitters of infection,
encouraging a trend toward such increased mask-wearing could result in
a significant, self-perpetuating reduction mechanism for limiting
influenza transmission in schools during a pandemic.


Interesting.Â* I could not see the full article, so I
could not see how they came to their conclusions.
Or who funded them.

Keep in mind the WORST research is guys sitting around in
white coats giving their opinion (pulling things out
their asses).

And for starters, don't sent your kinds to skool when
they are sick.

I worked at a child care center about 10 years ago.
ALL the kids to very sick.Â* Mother just dropped then
off -- they did not care.

I was on my back sick to death for a month.Â* Almost
lost my shirt.Â* I will not work on site for child
care facilities, allopaths, dentists or other super
spreaders.Â* Keep your kids at home when they are sick.
Way more effective than a mash they won't wear properly.

What in the world makes the writers of the above think
that an irritant on a child's face will be "worn properly
and consistently".Â* He must not have know any kids or
forgot when he was a kid.Â* I will do remote assistance
though.


I agree with all of that, but they are just a portion of the problem.
People infected but not yes showing symptoms are likely to spread also
thinking they are OK.

On 2020-06-16 19:22, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 7:59 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 15:57, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 5:51 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 14:17, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/16/2020 2:38 PM, T wrote:
On 2020-06-16 07:13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I've seen reference showing the value.Â* One is a video of a
person talking and they were able to somehow light the droplets
leaving your mouth.Â* They went quite a distance.Â* They showed a
mask and it reduced the amount considerably and lowered the
velocity so the few getting by didÂ*notÂ*travelÂ*asÂ*far.

How long did they wait before the test?Â* It takes
a bit over ten minutes for one's own humidity to
render the mask useless.

And droplets are a tremendous amount larger than
a virus.Â* Where they able to track particles
that small?Â* Without that kind of tracking, the
study is pretty much useless.

Keep in mind that just stand next to someone,
you exhausting literally billions of viruses
of all kinds all over them and they are not
in water droplets.

As far as I can tell, masks are only for show.


You seem like a nice guy.Â* That said, when it comes down to disease
stuff I trust the people at the New England Journal of Medicine
more than the guys here on a newsgroup.

https://twitter.com/nejm/status/1253364259112865792

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele.../#1839cf6b1060



I am an overly nice guy.

Try this link:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Lots of stuff both pro and con and gives a more
realistic look.Â* One ofthem says you have to use
vasoline around the N95 filer to stop blow by.
I forget which one.

By the way, who is rude enough to sneeze and cough in
other peoples faces?

I have terrible hay fever.Â* I take my pill before going
into public so I won't sneeze.Â* And when one comes on
anyway, I excuse myself, bend over and sneeze on the floor.
Then take another pill.Â* I don't sneeze on myself and
think I am clean.

And why would you go out in public if you knew you were
sick and could not control coughing?

"Oh ya, today is a good day to come to my house and fix
my computer, I am home sick."Â* What inconsiderate ass
holes.

Stay home if you are sick.Â* Much, much more effective than
giving it to everyone else!



Nothing is perfect.Â* Nothing will totally eliminate risk.Â* My goad is
to reduce the odds in my favor.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20605264/
Abstract
There is sufficient evidence indicating that masks, if worn properly
and consistently, are an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in
the control of disease spread. The use of masks during a pandemic can
minimize the spread of influenza and its economic impact, yet
mask-wearing compliance in adults is often poor. Educating the public
on the effectiveness of masks can increase compliance whilst reducing
morbidity and mortality. With targeted campaigns and the help of the
fashion industry, masks may become a popular accessory amongst school
children. As children are effective source-transmitters of infection,
encouraging a trend toward such increased mask-wearing could result
in a significant, self-perpetuating reduction mechanism for limiting
influenza transmission in schools during a pandemic.


Interesting.Â* I could not see the full article, so I
could not see how they came to their conclusions.
Or who funded them.

Keep in mind the WORST research is guys sitting around in
white coats giving their opinion (pulling things out
their asses).

And for starters, don't sent your kinds to skool when
they are sick.

I worked at a child care center about 10 years ago.
ALL the kids to very sick.Â* Mother just dropped then
off -- they did not care.

I was on my back sick to death for a month.Â* Almost
lost my shirt.Â* I will not work on site for child
care facilities, allopaths, dentists or other super
spreaders.Â* Keep your kids at home when they are sick.
Way more effective than a mash they won't wear properly.

What in the world makes the writers of the above think
that an irritant on a child's face will be "worn properly
and consistently".Â* He must not have know any kids or
forgot when he was a kid.Â* I will do remote assistance
though.


I agree with all of that, but they are just a portion of the problem.
People infected but not yes showing symptoms are likely to spread also
thinking they are OK.

Should we all wear haz mat suites?

We all know who is at risk. And it is not
the general public. It is folk with one foot
in the grave that ANY virus would have
killed. We should protect them.

And we can start by dumping the butcher of New York
for demanding rest homes take in commie flu victims.
That is tantamount to murder.

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 6/16/2020 7:19 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
T explained :
On 2020-06-16 14:54, FromTheRafters wrote:
T formulated the question :
On 2020-06-16 14:11, Scott Lurndal wrote:
echnical articles I have read. You are free to look
them up yourself.
In other words, you are unable support your assertion.

Noted.

Not doing your homework for you, especially after you
lied about me being an antivaxer


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32334003/
Completely unrelated to your assertion. (An article about using
rice cookers to decontaminate masks).

Agreed. Not a good like. Here is a better one:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...+effectiveness

Now go do your own homework

I'm not willing to go through so many articles which do nnot support
your view just to find one which does.

Why not just post one.

I am not going to go through the extra work for the guy
who lied about me. He can do his own homework.

You I will.

Just go to the link and read the titles. Pick some
out that interest you.

I did, and read some little way into them to see that they were not
saying what you appear to think they are saying.

Here is the first three:

Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an
Influenza Pandemic?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/

Results: The median-fit factor of the homemade masks
was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks
significantly reduced the number of microorganisms
expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask
was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission
than the homemade mask.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade
mask should only be considered as a *last resort *
to prevent droplet transmission from infected
individuals, but it would be better than no
protection.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of Surgical Masks Against Influenza Bioaerosols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498357/

Findings: Live influenza virus was measurable from the
air behind all surgical masks tested. The data indicate
that a surgical mask will reduce exposure to aerosolised
infectious influenza virus; reductions ranged from 1.1-
to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of
the mask.

Conclusion: We describe a workable method to evaluate
the protective efficacy of surgical masks and RPDs
against a relevant aerosolised biological challenge.
The results demonstrated limitations of surgical masks
in this context, although they are to some extent
protective.

It says they are effective.

Effectiveness of N95 Respirators Versus Surgical Masks in Protecting
Health Care Workers From Acute Respiratory Infection: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26952529/

Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to
have a protective advantage over surgical masks in
laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that
there were insufficient data to determine definitively
whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks
in protecting health care workers against transmissible
acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.

These are PPE and not what we are talking about.

Since we know with chemicals that toxicity is dose related

But that isn't true of viruses.

it makes sense that a quantity of virus you are exposed to must be needed
to overcome your defenses.

No it does not, because viruses replicate.

If someone with the virus sneezes with a mask on near you and you have a
mask on some of the virus will get through his mask and some will make it
through his mask.

You don't know that either.

Without masks you would ge the full blast of the sneeze and probably be
infected but both with masks you might not get enough virus to infect you.

More likely that you would.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 14:00:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

T writes:
On 2020-06-16 15:57, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

=20Z
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20605264/
Abstract
There is sufficient evidence indicating that masks, if worn properly an=
d=20
consistently, are an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in the=20
control of disease spread. The use of masks during a pandemic can=20
minimize the spread of influenza and its economic impact, yet=20
mask-wearing compliance in adults is often poor. Educating the public o=
n=20
the effectiveness of masks can increase compliance whilst reducing=20
morbidity and mortality. With targeted campaigns and the help of the=20
fashion industry, masks may become a popular accessory amongst school=20
children. As children are effective source-transmitters of infection,=20
encouraging a trend toward such increased mask-wearing could result in =
a=20
significant, self-perpetuating reduction mechanism for limiting=20
influenza transmission in schools during a pandemic.


Interesting. I could not see the full article, so I
could not see how they came to their conclusions.
Or who funded them.

Keep in mind the WORST research is guys sitting around in
white coats giving their opinion (pulling things out
their asses).

Nonsense. The WORST research is people like you spouting
off about things you have no background in. Like the effectiveness
of masks.