4 ms·

your ridiculous hyperbole of "gas masks". It's not hyperbole. Aerosols are very hard to filter and can even enter via the eyeballs. Maybe proper military grade

your ridiculous hyperbole of "gas masks". It's not hyperbole. Aerosols are very hard to filter and can even enter via the eyeballs. Maybe proper military grade gas masks can keep them out, I don't know, I don't think there's been much study of that. On the other hand good airflow seems more important. Very few cases were traced to planes and outdoor events. "What you're doing is jumping between red herrings and then coming to the conclusion that the problem is intractable." No, we never talked about whether the problem is tractable in theory. I started by pointing out that mask mandates didn't work. You then took the position that they would have worked if only everyone had worn respirators instead, which I pointed out is also wrong. Now you've moved the goalposts to some sort of theoretical exercise in which a solution might exist, one day. Could we reduce flu and COVID levels by re-engineering existing buildings to have biolab-like air handling equipment? Probably! Was it possible to have done that during COVID itself? No. Is it reasonable to do that going forward? Very unlikely to have a good cost/benefit ratio, no. "You don't take a public health recommendation to wear a mask, extrapolate that as if it's a suggestion to wear them at home in bed etc, figure that's ridiculous, throw your hands up, and then turn to Facebook for validation" I never mentioned Facebook. I've been citing data from real world outbreaks and scientific journals, not memes from Facebook. The public health recommendation to wear masks was in fact ridiculous given what was known at that point (and still is), because it could not have worked. In 2020/2021/2022 we do not have any way to stop a pandemic caused by an aerosolized respiratory virus. Maybe one day we will, sure. If you want to try and research ways to do that, go right ahead, but masks or respirators of any kind aren't going to play a part in a solution.

mindslight 4y ago
You're crucially ignoring the concept of viral load, which keeps you following red herrings about what "might" occur. I've yet to see any indication that common N100 respirators are ineffective at removing most viral particles, even independent of droplets. The sizes are within the same realm, and the particle size N100's are tested at isn't some hard cutoff, but rather representative of a soft probability distribution. Obviously being outside and distanced is better than being close to people with a respirator, but once again this is not an either/or. It's about mitigation of situations you have to go through. If you're concerned about your eyes, full face respirators are available. It's ridiculous to throw up your hands and say because infection through the eyes is a possibility, doing anything else is pointless. Once again, viral load indicates the need for smooth probabilistic analysis rather than binary exposed-or-not. FWIW I haven't argued that anything should be mandated. It seems like you're balling up many orthogonal issues together, and then attacking the whole ball, often with the most outlandish strawmen interpretation of them. I mentioned Facebook because clearly some kind of social media is supplying energy to these harmful memes that have put you at odds with basic reasoning and prudence.

mindslight 4y ago

You're crucially ignoring the concept of viral load, which keeps you following red herrings about what "might" occur. I've yet to see any indication that common N100 respirators are ineffective at removing most viral particles, even independent of droplets. The sizes are within the same realm, and the particle size N100's are tested at isn't some hard cutoff, but rather representative of a soft probability distribution. Obviously being outside and distanced is better than being close to people with a respirator, but once again this is not an either/or. It's about mitigation of situations you have to go through. If you're concerned about your eyes, full face respirators are available. It's ridiculous to throw up your hands and say because infection through the eyes is a possibility, doing anything else is pointless. Once again, viral load indicates the need for smooth probabilistic analysis rather than binary exposed-or-not. FWIW I haven't argued that anything should be mandated. It seems like you're balling up many orthogonal issues together, and then attacking the whole ball, often with the most outlandish strawmen interpretation of them. I mentioned Facebook because clearly some kind of social media is supplying energy to these harmful memes that have put you at odds with basic reasoning and prudence.