3 ms·

>At a minimum, I've already forced you to admit that cloth masks redirect the flows of COVID19, when originally you claimed that the particles were too small to

>At a minimum, I've already forced you to admit that cloth masks redirect the flows of COVID19, when originally you claimed that the particles were too small to be effectively filtered. Ok hold on, I'm not playing bad faith games here. My original claim was that the masks did not filter viral particles. You responded with the birthday candle example, in effect claiming that it didn't matter whether they filtered them, because instead they redirected exhaled air from other people's faces. I then replied to effectively say that this is at best not effective, at worst counterproductive. I don't believe that in this political climate one would be able to publish a study against the efficacy of masks. I have two studies from the start of the pandemic which showed negligible (≈1-2%) or no benefit to surgical mask wearing, and the fact that even among medical workers there has historically been some degree of dissent as to whether they are indeed effective outside of maybe open surgery.

dragontamer 5y ago
Of course it comes down to your politics. That's why you're arguing with me right now. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask... There's plenty of mask studies. The fact that you don't know about them, despite the 1.5 years of mask discussion, is because of your bubble. Not mine. I've generally seen 60% efficacy from 2-ply cotton designs. The textile study from acs further broke that down into different cottons: tight 600 tpi cotton was more effective than 80tpi loose cotton. -------- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7263076/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7263076/ > Published online 2020 May 21. > In comparison, the 100% cotton t-shirt had a 69% mean filtration efficiency for the 1 μm particles and 51% for the 23 nm particles. And the big one is the NIH study, conducted relatively early when the mask debate was raging. By May 2020, they already finished their study. T-Shirt cotton was over 60% effective. ---- Look, its very difficult for me to believe you're arguing in good faith. We're well over a year into this pandemic and you're bringing up talking points I haven't heard in over a year. Your talking points have been completely disproven a year ago.

dragontamer 5y ago

Of course it comes down to your politics. That's why you're arguing with me right now. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask... There's plenty of mask studies. The fact that you don't know about them, despite the 1.5 years of mask discussion, is because of your bubble. Not mine. I've generally seen 60% efficacy from 2-ply cotton designs. The textile study from acs further broke that down into different cottons: tight 600 tpi cotton was more effective than 80tpi loose cotton. -------- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7263076/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7263076/ > Published online 2020 May 21. > In comparison, the 100% cotton t-shirt had a 69% mean filtration efficiency for the 1 μm particles and 51% for the 23 nm particles. And the big one is the NIH study, conducted relatively early when the mask debate was raging. By May 2020, they already finished their study. T-Shirt cotton was over 60% effective. ---- Look, its very difficult for me to believe you're arguing in good faith. We're well over a year into this pandemic and you're bringing up talking points I haven't heard in over a year. Your talking points have been completely disproven a year ago.