Actually not a good comparison, but a great metaphor. Smells are the result of molecules acting on sensors in the nose, sending signals to the brain that are interpreted as odors. In the case of odorous flatulence, the functional molecule is hydrogen sulfide, which has a diameter about a third of a nanometer. Sars virus is couple hundred nm, so it's less transmissable than hydrogen sulfide molecules, though still much smaller than mask fabric, which is why MASKS DONT WORK. A mask that blocks particles that size would also block oxygen, so would only be effective couple minutes, after which masking is moot.
A closer, and less offensive, comparison was posted on tube in 2020, since banned, showing smoke exhaled while wearing a variety of commercial masks. All of them prodigiously leaked smoke particles, which are more similar size to virus.
Thanks. I knew I was out of my element on the size of the molecules involved and that it was possible I'd make a fool of myself. Hopefully the metaphor & attempted humor still work.
Note also that the transmission is not just static, but has a lot of dynamics. Some particles still get randomly caught by mask fabric when most pass through. These accumulate and transfer to hands when manipulating the mask, and get ingested when we pick our nose (sorry, more crudity...) Pressures, and partial pressures of atmospheric components also apply. Although air passes through, there is some resistance so there can be some accumulation from fluid dynamics. Another banned video showed an OSHA CO2 detector inserted in masks which quickly exceeded OSHA standards for CO2 accumulation inside the masks. Which, of course diminishes mental acuity, which likely accounts for greater acceptance of ineffective diktats. Maybe fauch will use a diminished capacity defense at his trial.
I heard that, even if the particles are smaller than the ask fabric, it captures them because the particles do not travel straight, but with a random movement (brownian). Makes sense?
Brownian motion is for a stable fluid at equilibrium. Passage through a mask is fluid dynamics, pressure differentials and resulting directed flows. Masks aren't transparent or solid, but a partial barrier, like flies with a chain link fence. Some will stop and rest on the fence, most fly right through, or over. The main purpose for surgical masks is so the surgeon doesn't drool on his patient. It was initially reasonable when they thought asymptomatic transmission (airborne) wasn't likely. Coughs and sneezes eject water vapor particles much bigger than the virus, loaded with many viruses on each droplet. Masks are effective for that, for the wearer and bystanders. The vapor particles are heavy enough they fall to the ground quickly. Thus the magic 6 ft circles. They quickly learned asymptomatic was the dominant transmission, shedding virus particles floating freely. Masks and distancing are ineffective for that.
I agree 100%, despite the asymptomatic transmission. I still believe that the asymptomatic transmission is substantially lower (false positive testing creates illusion of asymptomatic transmission; CT values much higher for asymptomatic cases).
All the stats are unreliable, for a lot of reasons. Some incompetence, some manipulation and fraud, some because they're just not measuring. But we make do with what we have until we get better data, which we will, eventually. Smart young researchers with nothing to lose will piece the evidence together and fill in the blanks and provide clearer understanding of what happened, and where we went wrong, and whose fault the failures were. The reactions will be epic.
Ok, another analogy. Would anyone use a condom made from a surgical mask? Sperm cells are much bigger than viruses, but I doubt anyone would trust mask material for contraception or safe sex.
Yes! A year ago when my 21 year old nephew asked me if I believed masks worked, I asked him if he'd be ok with using a cloth condom. Surgical mask material works as well.
On this subject, aside from the religious aspect of this mask cult, there is of course little data to support cloth masking. To establish that, we need the numbers on what percentage of air actually goes through the fabric and the studies of what size particles are involved in transmission (I can refer you if you like)
Well I know what the maskoids would say: masks reduce transmission by 6.5% (or other similarly tiny irrelevant percentage) and it all adds up and maybe one fewer in a thousand people exposed gets covid.
Yeah MAYBE. But 6.5% less fart smell is still fart smell.
So if I say "There is something rotten in the State of Denmark mask studies.", I can now irritate Shakespeare lovers, mask proponents, and now odorologists? Awesome!!
Actually not a good comparison, but a great metaphor. Smells are the result of molecules acting on sensors in the nose, sending signals to the brain that are interpreted as odors. In the case of odorous flatulence, the functional molecule is hydrogen sulfide, which has a diameter about a third of a nanometer. Sars virus is couple hundred nm, so it's less transmissable than hydrogen sulfide molecules, though still much smaller than mask fabric, which is why MASKS DONT WORK. A mask that blocks particles that size would also block oxygen, so would only be effective couple minutes, after which masking is moot.
A closer, and less offensive, comparison was posted on tube in 2020, since banned, showing smoke exhaled while wearing a variety of commercial masks. All of them prodigiously leaked smoke particles, which are more similar size to virus.
Thanks. I knew I was out of my element on the size of the molecules involved and that it was possible I'd make a fool of myself. Hopefully the metaphor & attempted humor still work.
The fools are often right.
Note also that the transmission is not just static, but has a lot of dynamics. Some particles still get randomly caught by mask fabric when most pass through. These accumulate and transfer to hands when manipulating the mask, and get ingested when we pick our nose (sorry, more crudity...) Pressures, and partial pressures of atmospheric components also apply. Although air passes through, there is some resistance so there can be some accumulation from fluid dynamics. Another banned video showed an OSHA CO2 detector inserted in masks which quickly exceeded OSHA standards for CO2 accumulation inside the masks. Which, of course diminishes mental acuity, which likely accounts for greater acceptance of ineffective diktats. Maybe fauch will use a diminished capacity defense at his trial.
I heard that, even if the particles are smaller than the ask fabric, it captures them because the particles do not travel straight, but with a random movement (brownian). Makes sense?
Brownian motion is for a stable fluid at equilibrium. Passage through a mask is fluid dynamics, pressure differentials and resulting directed flows. Masks aren't transparent or solid, but a partial barrier, like flies with a chain link fence. Some will stop and rest on the fence, most fly right through, or over. The main purpose for surgical masks is so the surgeon doesn't drool on his patient. It was initially reasonable when they thought asymptomatic transmission (airborne) wasn't likely. Coughs and sneezes eject water vapor particles much bigger than the virus, loaded with many viruses on each droplet. Masks are effective for that, for the wearer and bystanders. The vapor particles are heavy enough they fall to the ground quickly. Thus the magic 6 ft circles. They quickly learned asymptomatic was the dominant transmission, shedding virus particles floating freely. Masks and distancing are ineffective for that.
I agree 100%, despite the asymptomatic transmission. I still believe that the asymptomatic transmission is substantially lower (false positive testing creates illusion of asymptomatic transmission; CT values much higher for asymptomatic cases).
All the stats are unreliable, for a lot of reasons. Some incompetence, some manipulation and fraud, some because they're just not measuring. But we make do with what we have until we get better data, which we will, eventually. Smart young researchers with nothing to lose will piece the evidence together and fill in the blanks and provide clearer understanding of what happened, and where we went wrong, and whose fault the failures were. The reactions will be epic.
Ok, another analogy. Would anyone use a condom made from a surgical mask? Sperm cells are much bigger than viruses, but I doubt anyone would trust mask material for contraception or safe sex.
Yes! A year ago when my 21 year old nephew asked me if I believed masks worked, I asked him if he'd be ok with using a cloth condom. Surgical mask material works as well.
Love your posts!
On this subject, aside from the religious aspect of this mask cult, there is of course little data to support cloth masking. To establish that, we need the numbers on what percentage of air actually goes through the fabric and the studies of what size particles are involved in transmission (I can refer you if you like)
Yes but think how much worse it would have been without the masks ;)
Well I know what the maskoids would say: masks reduce transmission by 6.5% (or other similarly tiny irrelevant percentage) and it all adds up and maybe one fewer in a thousand people exposed gets covid.
Yeah MAYBE. But 6.5% less fart smell is still fart smell.
So if I say "There is something rotten in the State of Denmark mask studies.", I can now irritate Shakespeare lovers, mask proponents, and now odorologists? Awesome!!