Firefighter Jeff Neff tests oxygen levels with an MSA Altair 5X machine, while using various type masks... all show significant reductions in oxygen level intake.
Imagine what is happening to the confused souls who are wearing 2 masks.
Firefighter Jeff Neff tests oxygen levels with an MSA Altair 5X machine, while using various type masks... all show significant reductions in oxygen level intake.
Imagine what is happening to the confused souls who are wearing 2 masks.
If the mask inhibits the flow of oxygen molecules, and the virus (which is much smaller than an oxygen molecule) needs to hitch a ride on these molecules to get around, then doesn't that imply that the mask should inhibit the movement of the virus, and hence be effective at stopping aerosol transmission?
ReplyDeleteYeah as it limits oxygen to your brain.
DeleteWere you wearing a mask when you came up with this?
No, I don't wear masks.
DeleteWhy don't you help me understand the flaw in my logic rather than just try to throw a flippant insult? How can one argue that the mask is solid enough to inhibit the oxygen flow but also porous enough to allow the virus through? It's a serious question to which I don't know the answer.
The mask is ineffective at stopping aerosol transmission.. The size of the Covid pathogen is around 0.125 microns. The N95 mask (the "best") filters down to around 0.3 microns, while paper fiber medical masks filter down to around 0.7 microns. So basically trying to stop a Covid pathogen with a mask is like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain-link fence.
DeleteNAPster, that's a good point. So it implies masks may provide some protection (if used correctly, which they almost never are since people reuse and touch them constantly). It also implies that they have significant downsides. Less oxygen as well as trapping in viruses and bacteria that our bodies are trying to expel. Funny thing is that numerous studies (look up the danish one) show that wearing a face mask didn't reduce sars cov 2 transmission to any statistically significant degree. Kinda implies there is mostly a downside to wearing a mask with little upside. Such as inhaling micro plastic debris...
Deletehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33065479/
Low oxygen is more dangerous than Covid. Your body needs oxygen to work properly, so if your oxygen levels are too low, your body may not work the way it is supposed to. In addition to difficulty breathing, you can experience confusion, dizziness, chest pain, headache, rapid breathing and a racing heart. people suffering these effects might even feel they need a Covid test.
DeleteIndeed the mask weave is to large to filter, let alone block, viruses on their own. And the fit on the face inadequate.
DeleteAirborne viruses carried in aerosols, tiny droplets, will move with the flow of air and follow the path of least resistance - around the mask.
This issue with increased CO2 / decreased oxygen levels inside the mask should be viewed from the perspective of inadequate air exchange over time. The mask restricts free "fresh air" flow relative to the rate of respiration, depending on the intensity of respiration, enough that higher CO2 level can result - lower oxygen intake. Yes O2 and CO2 can pass through/around the mask but not fast enough.
A tighter fitting mask, or double masks, means more restriction of air flow over time. While viruses still pass easily.
Aerosolized virons may not be blocked by a mask for a few reasons. One, as indicated above, they will go around the mask following the path of least resistance. Two, the virons may cling to the mask either from the outside or when the person exhales. Three, the aerosolized particles remains suspended in air for, I think, around 30 minutes, so any of them that are floating around are not being blocked and then falling to the ground.We can also look at the issue another way: the pro-mask argument is claiming that the masks restrict the flow of breathed particles just enough to restrict virons from going in or out (or both) to a degree that is medically beneficial but they do not restrict such flow enough to interfere with respiration. It seems unlikely to me that seemingly every sort of masks hits that bull's eye. that we are just now discovering it, and most people prior to this thought the opposite or were at least skeptical.
DeleteA typical coronavirus particle is approx 100-150 nm diameter. Molecular oxygen (O2) is less than 1 nm, so the claim that a virus particle is much smaller than O2 is completely and utterly false
DeleteSo if the virus particle is much larger than the oxygen molecule, but the argument is that masks block oxygen molecules, then doesn't that mean that they should also block virus particles?
DeleteHi, Napster. I don’t know if this answers your question(s), but here it goes:
DeleteIn terms of size: Oxygen < 19 < Mask holes.
If a person is able to inhale oxygen, they run the risk of inhaling 19.
As Anon commented earlier, the firefighter is using a device that measures the concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The device’s alarm demonstrates that the mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide is at a dangerous level when a person wears a mask.
Mask proponents claim that N95 masks are made with a special overlapping weave that traps airborne particles, including viruses.
Again, if a person can get oxygen, they can get 19. Also, I do not believe the trapped-virus argument. If it were true, why not give a mask to someone who already has 19; ask them to wear it for 30 minutes; and then test the mask? If the N95 mask were truly effective, the mask should be contaminated with 19.
The easy push-back on this is that the mask would also capture some of the spittle, and the spittle would contain 19. Fair enough, but then mask proponents could say that at least the mask works to prevent the stray 19-infested spittle. Again, this would say nothing about an airborne particle, but it would at least be something maskers could hang their mask on. The fact that they have not done this is very suspect to me.
If an N95 mask stopped 19, wouldn’t the next blast of oxygen or carbon dioxide dislodge the virus, or does the mask have spider-web qualities?
Why don’t testing centers test a person’s mask instead of jamming an industrial size q-tip up a person’s nose or other orifice?
I don’t buy the trapped virus explanation.
Finally, if masks actually slow the spread, this just means that the virus will last longer. It is more courageous to live without a mask — as you apparently are already doing — because only people can kill the virus, through their immune system or the person’s own death.
NAPster - "block" is not the right word to use when thinking about a barrier that obviously lets air through it. By cutting the rate of air flow less oxygen reaches the mask wearer. Masks also cut the rate at which viruses and aerosols pass through the mask (the rest deposited on the mask, which gets damp), but not enough to reduce infection rates relative to no mask to any significant degree according to the experiments.
DeleteI think there are many ways to "end" the mask debate. The most effective method is to stop debating anyone about masks. That method is 100% effective at ending the mask debate. That is my approach.
ReplyDeleteNow if others want to debate on behalf of mask-free vs masks, I advise them that if you find ANYONE that is willing to debate you on masks, then you have already won. Such a paradox, I know...
The reason is because there should be no debate. There should only be piles of dead bodies as far as the eye can see. Maskless places should be all death. Mask places should be all alive. This is their cartoon world. This is the world of models. The world where America should have 2.2 million deaths by june 2020. Sweden should have 100,000 and the Uk some 900,000.
So if anyone wants to debate masks, i tell them they have already lost. There should be no debate, as I, without my mask, should have died and killed everyone around me.
But here we all are.
Debate over.
David B.
Hands down the best mask-related comment of the year right here. ^ Thanks David B.
DeleteDavid B., I'm not sure that that is a compelling argument. Masks might not be effective, but if the virus were not that deadly -- which seems to be the case -- then you wouldn't see dead bodies everywhere.
DeleteIf the virus isn't that deadly, then there is no need to debate the effectiveness of masks.
DeleteHave a good evening.
David B.
Greg Morin has the best work I've seen on masks. He's brilliant, objective, and fearlessly pursues the truth. https://porcupine-musings.org/2020/12/17/mask-equivocation/
ReplyDeleteHave to keep 'em stupid...
ReplyDeleteThey still can't get a sick person to cough/sneeze in a healthy person's face and transmit these illnesses to include the 1918 "pandemic". Germ theory is still exactly that, a theory.
ReplyDelete