Masks Don’t Work
BY Herschel Smith
4 years ago
This link at Insty drove me to read the comments. One in particular by someone named Doctormhl1 states the following.
Face masks offer insufficient protection against Covid-19.infection. It has been demonstrated that the virus can enter the conjunctiva of the eye. Once on the conjunctiva, tears wash the virus into the back of the nasopharynx via the nasal-lacrimal duct. Thus eye protection in the form of tight-fitting goggles is also a necessary requirement. Eyeglasses and facial shields are also inadequate protection because they fail to completely seal off the eyes.
Why has Dr. Fauci failed to warn about proper eye protection in the prevention of Covid-19 infection?
Well, that’s just another means for viruses to enter the human body. We can’t stop it, whatever it is, and however effective it is against the human body. We may as well drive through it. I’ve said that from the beginning.
I’ve already discussed this in detail. Filters work (primarily) in one of two ways. (1) particle interception because the filter fibers are closer together than the particle diameter, or (2) electrostatic capture.
The virus is smaller than the distance between the two fibers. Next, the virus in question (SARS-CoV-2) is non-polar. You may as well try to capture a mosquito with a chain link fence.
So this doctor’s pathway is just another reason to listen to what I’ve said before. In order to be effective, you would have to wear an OSHA-approved, fit tested full face respirator, including both a HEPA filter and a charcoal filter. The HEPA may be good for viruses contained within water droplets (until evaporation by the air stream), but the charcoal is the only real chance of particle interception.
Anything else is a sham. Anything else is a hoax. I’ve also told you what I would find necessary to believe that anything else would be a successful strategy: full testing and calculations (to develop models) performed by physicists and engineers, assessing particle sizes and their distribution, filters and their efficiency, retention time, an assessment using CFD (computational fluid dynamics) to assess the diminution of effectiveness due to air flow versus face velocity and benchmarking against empirical data, and full disclosure of mathematical and physics models for public review.
No. Not by doctors and epidemiologists. They know nothing about this sort of thing. By engineers and physicists.
To date, no one has proposed anything even approaching this level of analysis, much less actually done it.
I stand by everything I’ve said. And by the way, I don’t wear masks.
|
|
On November 3, 2020 at 2:21 pm, scott s. said:
Mostly I have seen estimates of 10-30% “effectiveness” (though I have no idea of how effectiveness is measured and so-called “reporters” have no clue what they need to ask their “experts”). The 30% number is baked into the U Wash model (often cited by “reporters”) so you need to consider that.
I’ll grant that masks might do “something” in certain environments, but don’t see a way to put a number on it given all the variables.
There still seems to be no agreement if the intent of mask to reduce the amount of virus released into the environment by a SARS positive wearer, or reduce the ingestion of virus into the nose or mouth from the environment.
But it seems like the “six foot” rule, also seems to have been pulled out of someone’s posterior.
On November 3, 2020 at 6:24 pm, Archer said:
Just once, I’d like to see someone stand up and say, “We’re following the science. Toss out your masks, forget the ‘6-foot rule’. It’s all B.S.”…
… and have the references to peer-reviewed scientific papers and medical journals to back up that assertion, ready to fly at a moment’s notice.
There have been multiple studies that show masking up with the commonly-available cloth or surgical masks doesn’t effectively prevent transmission on either end; you’d need a fully-fitted respirator with either HEPA+charcoal filtration or a self-contained air supply. Plus, constantly wearing a mask that catches your exhalations and contains them for you to re-inhale, poses its own health risks; those studies are available, too.
Ditto for the “6-foot rule”. Nobody really knows how far the virus travels from a cough or sneeze — the studies are all over the place on this — so six feet is entirely arbitrary. Why not three feet? Why not ten? (We could make an analogy on magazine size here, too. Why is ten rounds the magic number to make mass killings go away? Why not twelve, or seven, or three?)
Regarding the number of deaths vs. the number of cases, every state seems to have their own method of calculating those — which to count and which to ignore — and many methods don’t give the full picture, and so aren’t scientifically or statistically useful. The states’ “experts” have been told that, too, by people who know, and haven’t all changed their practices.
It seems we can only be sure of two things concerning this response:
1. The policy makers don’t know anything about this virus. We can safely assume from that, that they’re making it all up as they go.
2. The people who DO know something about it aren’t being listened to. At best, their qualified opinion simply isn’t being considered; at worst, they’re being silenced, denied forums, their work censored and buried if it conflicts with the policy makers’ desired actions.
All the advice offered supports more restrictions, more lock-downs, more business closures, more limits on social interactions, and more snitching on neighbors and friends. ALL of it, even as we KNOW less-intrusive alternatives have been suggested and supported by independent physicians. How is that possible, unless dissenting opinions either aren’t considered or are made unavailable?
It’s a mess all around, and the people at the top don’t seem keen on helping sort it out.
On November 3, 2020 at 9:36 pm, Danny said:
@The Captain. The following may be beyond the ken of most of your readers but they do seem to be inquisitive and willing to learn. I mentioned in a previous post my work in the early 90s regarding Nuclear Facility Ventilation/Personnel Protection and my questions regarding the effects of Brownian diffusion. What are your thoughts on this transport dynamic and its relation to the effectiveness of surgical, N95 and homemade masks? I have searched the applicable literature and have found little commentary RE this small particle size transport phenomenon.
On November 3, 2020 at 10:52 pm, Danny said:
Further, please forgive the typing with cold typing with thumbs on my cell phone while smoking an excellent cigar outside, what cost are we willing to bear to refuse wearing a muzzle even when employer enforces us to do so RE our own health risks due to bacterial pneumonia infection? A customer who mandates a mask with policies that arbritarily supersede the applicable state EOs simply because they are more concerned with preserving their legal indenmity as opposed to a genuine concern for workers safety. By declaring a health hazard they are duty bound to adhere to OSHA safety standards? Yes, I too dont wear a mask, primarily because Yahweh commands me to not participate in a lie much an occultist practice? Am I or tou willing to forgo employment for your principles?
On November 5, 2020 at 7:36 am, Crusty Curmudgeon said:
Thank you, Herschel, for not wearing a mask.
The only way this nonsense will end is for more people to refuse to comply.