3 ms·

So you're saying that your test showed that above 2.5um the masks you tested did do something? So the masks were helpful (because respiratory droplets range fr

by Brybry 2y ago

So you're saying that your test showed that above 2.5um the masks you tested did do something? So the masks were helpful (because respiratory droplets range from <1um to >100um). [1][2] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805396/#sec2title https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805396/#sec2ti... [2] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0049#d1e676 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2021.004...

RecycledEle 2y ago
> So you're saying that your test showed that above 2.5um the masks > you tested did do something? They blocked almost all of the particles larger than 2.5 microns, which surprised me. The masks did nothing to block particles even a bit smaller than 2.5 microns. I checked the presence of particles at 1.0 microns or larger, and the after-the-mask number was only smaller by the number of particles 2.5 microns or larger that the mask had blocked. The ability of Chinese factories to make masks that filter that precisely surprised me even more. > So the masks were helpful (because respiratory droplets range from > <1um to >100um). They did something, but I do not have numbers on what quantity of virus particles we inhale from droplets in each size, so I can not do math or science on this. “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” ― Lord Kelvin
chimprich 2y ago
This is correct but I find it very confusing why this information (that masks prevent respiratory droplets rather than virus particles) wasn't more widely known during the pandemic. It felt like it was reported in thousands of news articles. > That was when I started laughing at the whole thing. In the GPs case I suspect they knew what result they wanted to find and avoided any articles about how masks worked, let alone checking the scientific literature.
- RecycledEle 2y ago
  >> That was when I started laughing at the whole thing. > In the GPs case I suspect they knew what result they wanted to find and avoided any articles about how masks worked, let alone checking the scientific literature. I spent a lot of time checking the literature and did better testing in my high-school classroom (as a teacher) than the CDIC did.
  - chimprich 2y ago
    What is CDIC? How have you judged that you managed to do better testing than them? There have been a lot of tests of the efficacy of masks, not just from one organisation. Especially during the pandemic; there were many organisations across the world doing studies. If you didn't manage to discover that the main benefit of lower grade masks is to restrict respiratory droplet movement then your literature search was very ineffective.

by Brybry 2y ago

RecycledEle 2y ago

> So you're saying that your test showed that above 2.5um the masks > you tested did do something? They blocked almost all of the particles larger than 2.5 microns, which surprised me. The masks did nothing to block particles even a bit smaller than 2.5 microns. I checked the presence of particles at 1.0 microns or larger, and the after-the-mask number was only smaller by the number of particles 2.5 microns or larger that the mask had blocked. The ability of Chinese factories to make masks that filter that precisely surprised me even more. > So the masks were helpful (because respiratory droplets range from > <1um to >100um). They did something, but I do not have numbers on what quantity of virus particles we inhale from droplets in each size, so I can not do math or science on this. “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.” ― Lord Kelvin

chimprich 2y ago

This is correct but I find it very confusing why this information (that masks prevent respiratory droplets rather than virus particles) wasn't more widely known during the pandemic. It felt like it was reported in thousands of news articles. > That was when I started laughing at the whole thing. In the GPs case I suspect they knew what result they wanted to find and avoided any articles about how masks worked, let alone checking the scientific literature.

RecycledEle 2y ago
>> That was when I started laughing at the whole thing. > In the GPs case I suspect they knew what result they wanted to find and avoided any articles about how masks worked, let alone checking the scientific literature. I spent a lot of time checking the literature and did better testing in my high-school classroom (as a teacher) than the CDIC did.
- chimprich 2y ago
  What is CDIC? How have you judged that you managed to do better testing than them? There have been a lot of tests of the efficacy of masks, not just from one organisation. Especially during the pandemic; there were many organisations across the world doing studies. If you didn't manage to discover that the main benefit of lower grade masks is to restrict respiratory droplet movement then your literature search was very ineffective.