Rfk drops ball

[probinson]

New Zealand bragging about having less virus transmission is like Tampa Florida bragging about using fewer snow days for their schools.

I LoL'd. That is a perfect analogy.

 

[BPPLEE]

Ahem... "eradicate".

We've already established that the "science recommendations" you continue to hail had absolutely no science behind them. In fact ,the science that did exist for masking was quite clear that they were ineffective at reducing the transmission of respiratory viruses.

This really isn't that hard to "understand"

The only way a face mask provides ANY protection from respiratory virus spread is if it is fitted and sealed to your face. Simply slapping a surgical mask on your face and pretending you were "protected" from respiratory viral infection was always nonsensical and illogical.

Here is yet ANOTHER study that shows why.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02786826.2025.2453587?src=&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Here is an article explaining that study's findings. Basically, a very small gap in the mask is enough to render the mask COMPLETELY USELESS.

This is, however, not unexpected. Excerpt 7 shows the results of a study done in early 2020 showing filtration efficiencies for different types of masks with gaps of 1%, and without. Based on this, it seems that the high-end range of the error bars in the plot above likely correspond to the times when the researchers were able to keep the gap closer to 1%, and the lower end when those gaps were larger. Extrapolation from a study by Drewnick et al, suggests that just a 3.2% gap would be sufficient to render a surgical mask 0% effective—the data presented in excerpt 6 above would seem to corroborate that.​

​

If "masks work", why don't they work? New research suggests the reason.

A recently released study investigating the efficacy of masks at filtering aerosols in the 0.2 - 1 micron range, suggests answers to the disconnect between the results of mechanistic studies and RCTs.

emilyburns.substack.com

​

​

Now be honest. Do you think that most people wearing masks in public during COVID had them fitted and sealed to their faces such that there was not a larger than 3,.2% gap? Of course not. Heck, even a little bit of stubble on your face could create a gap much larger than 3.2%. And that's all it takes to render a surgical mask 0% effective.

Keep in mind, these aren't my opinions. This is what the evidence shows.

Unless it's an N95 mask, it's useless. You might as well put a napkin on your face.

 

[stevil]

Clearly, she is referring to R0.

NZ was simply ecstatic when there was 100 days of no community COVID transmission. As if 100 days of no disease transmission is the definition for disease "eradication" (Spoiler alert: It's not. Returning to another hot-button issue, the WHO defines elimination of measles as "The absence of endemic measles transmission in a defined geographical area (e.g. region or country) for ≥12 months in the presence of a well-performing surveillance system.)

It's like time and change over time has no meaning for you.

When we intially had the disease, the R0 was high.
We used masks and social distancing to get the R0 down. and we got it below 1 which means we eventually irradicated the disease.

In the period where we had irradicated it, it was no longer in society, I guess a fool could say that the R0 was zero.
A more accurate way of saying it would be that we no longer had the disease in our community.

You did not. The data shows that there were a minimal number of cases. And they kept coming back. Remember the on again/off again lockdowns? Why would they have been necessary if the virus was "completely removed"?

I've explained it, Either you didn't read my explanation, or you weren't able to understand.

There were some occasions where an infected person in quarantine, snuck out of quarantine and went into the general population, and reintroduced the virus in a local area. Generally in Auckland, Auckland went into lockdown again and irradicated it again.

Yes. For a very short period of time. Disease suppression.

No disease at all. For a substantial amount of the pre-vaccination time. the part that really counts, because we were buying time until we could get people vaccinated, because vaccinations save lives.

Speaking of "ignoring" things, are you ever going get around to addressing the studies I posted that showed a perfect correlation between the increase in the number of infections with an increase in the number of vaccine doses?

No, those have been debunked.
You're crazy if you think getting vaccinated increases the likelihood of getting infected.
I am not interested in discussing this with you.

They were still in NZ! Sheesh. You wouldn't think it would be this hard. You suppressed the disease and flattened the curve for a short period of time. Then it came raging back and you had far more cases than many other countries. This is not the definition of disease "eradication".

Just keep showing your ignorance. I think enough has been said by both of us on this topic, we are just repeating ourselves.

I do. I "understand" every word you've typed. Every sentence you've articulated. Every piece of propaganda you've regurgitated. I also "understand" that you seem to think that people don't "understand" things unless they agree with you. But I'm sorry to inform you, that's not how "understanding" works.

No that's not it. You don't seem to understand the fact that we had no community transmissions even though we had opened up, no masks, no social distancing. This happened during the pre-vaccine part of the pandemic. NZ had no people ill or infected in the general population. There was no R0, there was no Covid, no risk of catching it. People were going to concerts and stadiums and no-one was catching Covid, because there was no Covid virus in the general population. We achieved this by getting the R0 below 1 for a sufficient amount of time, and we did that by wearing masks and social distancing, that's all we could do at that time.

 

[stevil]

New Zealand bragging about having less virus transmission is like Tampa Florida bragging about using fewer snow days for their schools.

No one is bragging. Just stating facts, just using NZ's story as an example that masks and social distancing worked for us.

 

[Laodicean60]

Unless it's an N95 mask, it's useless. You might as well put a napkin on your face.

That's one thing I noticed during COVID-19: a lot of people were wearing their masks wrong, and the government should have been instructing these people. I was lucky because my job required the use of PPE.

 

[probinson]

Unless it's an N95 mask, it's useless. You might as well put a napkin on your face.

Unless it's a fitted, sealed N95 mask, it's useless.

According to OSHA, “a ‘fit test’ tests the seal between the N95 mask’s, or respirator's, facepiece and your face.” It typically takes 15-20 minutes to complete and should be performed when this type of mask is first used and then at least annually. The purpose of the fit test is to assure that the mask fits and seals properly so potentially contaminated air cannot leak into the mask and so hazardous substances are kept out.​

​

...​

​

A seal check is a quick check performed by the wearer each time the mask is put on. It determines if the mask is properly seated to the face or if it needs to be readjusted. It is not a substitute for a fit test. There are two types of seal checks: the positive pressure check and the negative pressure check.​

• To conduct a positive pressure check:

Don and adjust the mask for proper fit. Then, exhale gently into the facepiece.​

​

The face fit is considered satisfactory if a slight positive pressure can be built up inside the facepiece without any evidence of outward leakage of air at the seal.​

​

• To conduct a negative pressure check:

Don and adjust the mask for proper fit; then inhale gently so that the facepiece collapses slightly, and hold the breath for ten seconds.​

​

If the facepiece remains slightly collapsed and no inward leakage of air is detected, the tightness of the mask is considered satisfactory.​

​

https://www.ada.org/-/media/project/ada-organization/ada/ada-org/files/resources/coronavirus/covid-19-safety-and-clinical-resources/conducting_respirator_fit_tests_and_seal_checks.pdf

​

​

I can't be certain, but I sincerely doubt that people who had masks hanging on their review mirrors and stuffed in their pockets and purses followed this procedure each time they donned their masks.

 

[BPPLEE]

That's one thing I noticed during COVID-19: a lot of people were wearing their masks wrong, and the government should have been instructing these people. I was lucky because my job required the use of PPE.

The masks that we were giving out were useless against Covid

 

[BPPLEE]

Unless it's a fitted, sealed N95 mask, it's useless.

According to OSHA, “a ‘fit test’ tests the seal between the N95 mask’s, or respirator's, facepiece and your face.” It typically takes 15-20 minutes to complete and should be performed when this type of mask is first used and then at least annually. The purpose of the fit test is to assure that the mask fits and seals properly so potentially contaminated air cannot leak into the mask and so hazardous substances are kept out.​

​

...​

​

A seal check is a quick check performed by the wearer each time the mask is put on. It determines if the mask is properly seated to the face or if it needs to be readjusted. It is not a substitute for a fit test. There are two types of seal checks: the positive pressure check and the negative pressure check.​

• To conduct a positive pressure check:

Don and adjust the mask for proper fit. Then, exhale gently into the facepiece.​

​

The face fit is considered satisfactory if a slight positive pressure can be built up inside the facepiece without any evidence of outward leakage of air at the seal.​

​

• To conduct a negative pressure check:

Don and adjust the mask for proper fit; then inhale gently so that the facepiece collapses slightly, and hold the breath for ten seconds.​

​

If the facepiece remains slightly collapsed and no inward leakage of air is detected, the tightness of the mask is considered satisfactory.​

​

https://www.ada.org/-/media/project/ada-organization/ada/ada-org/files/resources/coronavirus/covid-19-safety-and-clinical-resources/conducting_respirator_fit_tests_and_seal_checks.pdf

​

​

I can't be certain, but I sincerely doubt that people who had masks hanging on their review mirrors and stuffed in their pockets and purses followed this procedure each time they donned their masks.

I didn't see anyone wearing a N95 mask. We got fit tested every year but they just gave us the generic surgical masks to wear during the pandemic, and to give to the public

 

[probinson]

It's like time and change over time has no meaning for you.

It's like you don't understand that the WHO defines disease elimination as no transmission of the disease for ≥12 months.

When we intially had the disease, the R0 was high.
We used masks and social distancing to get the R0 down. and we got it below 1 which means we eventually irradicated the disease.

It's amusing watching you refuse to use the correct word.

In the period where we had irradicated it, it was no longer in society, I guess a fool could say that the R0 was zero.

Yes. It was sufficiently suppressed for a brief period of time.

A more accurate way of saying it would be that we no longer had the disease in our community.

Yes. Arden was thrilled with herself when there were 100 days with no community transmission. That's about 265 days short of the WHO's definition of disease "eradication".

I've explained it, Either you didn't read my explanation, or you weren't able to understand.

Again, whether or not I "understand" something is not contingent on my agreement with you.

There were some occasions where an infected person in quarantine, snuck out of quarantine and went into the general population, and reintroduced the virus in a local area. Generally in Auckland, Auckland went into lockdown again and irradicated it again.

Sounds like this was a pretty untenable plan.

No disease at all. For a substantial amount of the pre-vaccination time.

But not a full year, which is the WHO's definition of disease "eradication".

the part that really counts, because we were buying time until we could get people vaccinated, because vaccinations save lives.

If you say so.

No, those have been debunked.

They have not.

You're crazy if you think getting vaccinated increases the likelihood of getting infected.
I am not interested in discussing this with you.

I can see why.

That's precisely what this study of more than 50,000 employees at the Cleveland Clinic shows. They described this as an "unexpected finding" because one would expect people who have had more doses to have fewer infections, not more. Do you have any "explanation" as to how this graph does not illustrate an increase in infections with an increase in doses of vaccine?

I mean, just look at it. Look at the people who did not get vaccinated. They had the LEAST number of infections over the 196 days in the study, while the people that had ≥3 doses had the MOST infections. Doesn't that concern you even a little bit?

Just keep showing your ignorance. I think enough has been said by both of us on this topic, we are just repeating ourselves.

You're free to stop discussing any time you want.

No that's not it. You don't seem to understand the fact that we had no community transmissions even though we had opened up, no masks, no social distancing. This happened during the pre-vaccine part of the pandemic. NZ had no people ill or infected in the general population. There was no R0, there was no Covid, no risk of catching it. People were going to concerts and stadiums and no-one was catching Covid, because there was no Covid virus in the general population. We achieved this by getting the R0 below 1 for a sufficient amount of time, and we did that by wearing masks and social distancing, that's all we could do at that time.

The reason I post so adamantly about this is because as long as there are people that continue to believe that these evidence-poor mandates were effective, there is a risk of them being reinstated in the future.

It is vitally important to learn the lessons from COVID that these mitigation measures have no scientific-basis. They were foolish and the collateral damage was immense and profound. They resulted in no "eradication" of COVID from any country. It is imperative that people understand that. It is tremendously misleading and disingenuous to contend that ineffective masking and six-feet of social distancing made any difference at all when there is no scientific backing for those claims.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No one is bragging. Just stating facts, just using NZ's story as an example that masks and social distancing worked for us.

Your huge distances between major population centers worked for you.

There were states that strictly enforced masking and social distancing that didn't have the same fortunate outcomes you guys had.


Quite frankly, if New Zealand's policy would've been "eat a strawberry flavored gummy bear twice a day", they would've had more favorable outcomes than most countries. That wouldn't have given de factor validity to their approaches.


As an example, there were African nations that were outright denying the very existence of covid, and when they finally did acknowledge that it was real, the official policy was nonsensical herbal and homeopathic remedies, they still ended up having lower numbers.

A) They have the kind of climate that was more conducive to outdoor activity instead of indoor (which we know is preferable in a covid pandemic)
B) They don't have high population density areas like we do in westernized countries

Their lower rates shouldn't be used as an example of why "herbal remedies work". Herbal remedies and homeopathy were utter nonsense.


Even Sweden, which didn't ever lock down, and instead relied on voluntary compliance with recommendations, still fared as well as neighboring countries who did implement strict measures.


So I'd posit that ineffective cloth masks and arbitrary distance rules didn't work for you....

In all likelihood, there was just nobody infected around you when you were doing those things.

 

[probinson]

I didn't see anyone wearing a N95 mask. We got fit tested every year but they just gave us the generic surgical masks to wear during the pandemic, and to give to the public

Yes, there were very few people wearing N95 masks. They were mostly wearing masks they'd fashioned out of whatever fabric they had lying around or surgical masks, both of which are completely ineffective at stopping respiratory viral transmission.

I was encouraged in February by the response of our local hospital system announcing the re-introduction of mask mandates. They posted on Facebook and X that they were going to mandate masks once again (yes, in 2025 ) in all of their facilities because respiratory infections were up. The local media picked up the story and ran it. The backlash was swift and immense. HUNDREDS of people flooded the posts, calling out the hospital for mandating masking with no scientific backing. Both posts were a nearly unanimous chorus of people who were fed up with ineffective mandates and let it be known. The hospital system took down both posts. Then, it took less than 24 hours for the hospital system to recant and say that they were now "highly recommending" masks (which they've been doing since 2020) instead of "mandating" them. I've been to their facilities. Suffice to say, not even their workers are following the "high recommendation" to mask.

If you want proof this is all theater, look no further than that example. If the hospital really believed that masking was "protecting" people, they would have stuck to it. But they know they don't have a scientific leg to stand on, so they rescinded their ill-advised mandate.

 

[stevil]

NZ and the elimination of Covid during the pandemic

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31097-7/fulltext

An aggressive approach has enabled New Zealand to end community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

New Zealand's decision to pursue an elimination approach was a vastly different approach to usual pandemic planning, which has historically been based on a mitigation model and focuses on delaying the arrival of the virus, followed by a range of measures to flatten the curve of cases and deaths


The two biggest benefits of pursuing an elimination strategy is that you have few cases and few deaths and you can get business back up and running. The alternative was that we are stuck with the virus and stuck between mitigation and suppression. Suppression is pretty grim

“We don't want the public to feel like they are being lied to. Elimination to everyone means that it is gone. But in epidemiological terms, it means bringing cases down to zero or near zero in a geographical location. We will still see cases…but only cases in people who have arrived from overseas.” Travellers from abroad will be quarantined as part of efforts to prevent transmission in New Zealand.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2025203

In early May, the last known Covid-19 case was identified in the community and the person was placed in isolation, which marked the end of identified community spread. On June 8, the government announced a move to Alert Level 1, thereby effectively declaring the pandemic over in New Zealand, 103 days after the first identified case.

New Zealand is now in the postelimination stage, which comes with its own uncertainties. The only cases identified in the country are among international travelers, all of whom are kept in government-managed quarantine or isolation for 14 days after arrival so they don’t compromise the country’s elimination status. Of course, New Zealand remains vulnerable to future outbreaks arising from failures of border-control and quarantine or isolation policies

 

[stevil]

Quite frankly, if New Zealand's policy would've been "eat a strawberry flavored gummy bear twice a day", they would've had more favorable outcomes

No, we put a lot of planning and effort into what we did. It took a population of people coming together to fight against the pandemic.

Even Sweden, which didn't ever lock down, and instead relied on voluntary compliance with recommendations, still fared as well as neighboring countries who did implement strict measures.

Sweden fared horrendously, they should be ashamed of what they did.

So I'd posit that ineffective cloth masks and arbitrary distance rules didn't work for you....

Believe whatever you want, whatever makes you feel good about your own actions during the pandemic.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes, there were very few people wearing N95 masks. They were mostly wearing masks they'd fashioned out of whatever fabric they had lying around or surgical masks, both of which are completely ineffective at stopping respiratory viral transmission.

I was encouraged in February by the response of our local hospital system announcing the re-introduction of mask mandates. They posted on Facebook and X that they were going to mandate masks once again (yes, in 2025 ) in all of their facilities because respiratory infections were up. The local media picked up the story and ran it. The backlash was swift and immense. HUNDREDS of people flooded the posts, calling out the hospital for mandating masking with no scientific backing. Both posts were a nearly unanimous chorus of people who were fed up with ineffective mandates and let it be known. The hospital system took down both posts. Then, it took less than 24 hours for the hospital system to recant and say that they were now "highly recommending" masks (which they've been doing since 2020) instead of "mandating" them. I've been to their facilities. Suffice to say, not even their workers are following the "high recommendation" to mask.

If you want proof this is all theater, look no further than that example. If the hospital really believed that masking was "protecting" people, they would have stuck to it. But they know they don't have a scientific leg to stand on, so they rescinded their ill-advised mandate.

I also noticed during the pandemic that if you were at a Black Lives Matter protest there was no need to social distance and masks were optional.

 

[stevil]

It is vitally important to learn the lessons from COVID that these mitigation measures have no scientific-basis. They were foolish and the collateral damage was immense and profound. They resulted in no "eradication" of COVID from any country. It is imperative that people understand that. It is tremendously misleading and disingenuous to contend that ineffective masking and six-feet of social distancing made any difference at all when there is no scientific backing for those claims.

Very , very weird.

It seems now you seem to finally understand that NZ completely removed the virus from general population and had no community transmission, although you are now clinging to a WHO definition of "eliminated" (probably something to be used in a context outside a global pandemic) and somehow using that definition to determine that it is not worth having an elimination strategy because..... Hmmmm, I'm trying hard to link the because, "because you can't call it illimination unless you do it for a full year"??
Our goal wasn't to qualify for the WHO definition of the term "eliminated" so that we could then use that label and say it is WHO approved that we use that label. LOL
We did it to save lives, so we could keep people safe and alive until they got vaccinated, and then we opened the borders up because we were protected as much as we could be, and we needed some normality. I guess we could have tried to stay closed in order to meet that 1 year definition, but that's just silly.

We saved lives, people died at the vaccinated rate, not the unvaccinated rate which is factors of magnitude larger.
We also got our economy and lives going better than most who were all ravaged by the disease whereas for that time we had none.

The collateral damage of people wearing mask was minimal, next to none.
The collateral damage on the economy was large and that was the cost of saving lives.
It just depends really if you are pro-life or not, and how much dollars and impact on the economy you are willing to bear in order to save people's lives. This time around it was the elderly and the immuno compromised that were at risk., next time maybe it is the children or perhaps people your age? Dunno.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Believe whatever you want, whatever makes you feel good about your own actions during the pandemic.

Except for the fact that it's already been acknowledged that cloth masks were ineffective (N-95s are the only ones that had any sort of practical level of efficacy), and that the 6 foot rule was a rather arbitrary number.

Per the University of Minnesota (outlining how long people could be in the same room with each other before contracting if one party was infected)

If you spend a half hour in a car, on a plan, or in the same room with someone at work for a half hour, a cloth mask was basically no more effective than no mask at all.

CDC’s Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule Was ‘Arbitrary’, Says Former FDA Commissioner

It showed a “lack of rigor” behind the agency’s decisions, he said.

www.forbes.com

Again, the reason NZ fared so well in the pandemic is because they're an island, all of their cities with any noteworthy population levels are all hours and hours away from each other, and the climate is more conducive to being able to do outdoor activities rather than indoor.

 

[probinson]

Very , very weird.

I find it "very, very weird" that you find scientific evidence "very, very weird".

It seems now you seem to finally understand that NZ completely removed the virus from general population and had no community transmission,

Yes, for a very brief period of time. As I've said all along, NZ successfully suppressed the disease for a very short period of time before it came raging back. I haven't wavered on that.

although you are now clinging to a WHO definition of "eliminated" (probably something to be used in a context outside a global pandemic) and somehow using that definition to determine that it is not worth having an elimination strategy because..... Hmmmm, I'm trying hard to link the because, "because you can't call it illimination unless you do it for a full year"??

Well, I've learned that definitions of words are unimportant to you (and in some cases, even using the right word is simply too much to ask), but disease elimination means that you have had no transmission for a year. There has to be a threshold. Otherwise, some dubious people who want to toot their own horn might claim that they "eliminated" disease by stopping transmission for a mere 100 days. That's not really that great of an accomplishment, and it's certainly not indicative of "eradication". It's a suppression of the disease for a fleeting period of time.

Our goal wasn't to qualify for the WHO definition of the term "eliminated" so that we could then use that label and say it is WHO approved that we use that label. LOL

Well, that's good, because you did not. I mean, you can continue to claim that you did, but you'll just be propagating misinformation.

We did it to save lives, so we could keep people safe and alive until they got vaccinated, and then we opened the borders up because we were protected as much as we could be, and we needed some normality. I guess we could have tried to stay closed in order to meet that 1 year definition, but that's just silly.

So you seem to be tacitly admitting that disease suppression was only viable if you stayed "closed", which, if I recall correctly from your earlier comments, it was never the goal to stay closed indefinitely. So again, the NZ strategy from the beginning was to take advantage of the unique geographic features of the country to suppress the disease for a short period of time. Bonus points if they could convince the masses that the unique geographic features of the island were less important than cloth masks and social distancing. "Eradication" was never the end goal. Suppression of disease transmission was ALWAYS the goal.

We saved lives, people died at the vaccinated rate, not the unvaccinated rate which is factors of magnitude larger.

Well, that depends on what age group you look at. As I've already pointed out the pre-vaccination IFR for COVID was already very low, for pretty much all age groups under 70. Here's that data again in case you forgot.

The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.​

​

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies

The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. In systematic searches in SeroTracker and...

www.medrxiv.org

​

When the IFR is already 0.0003%, it's hard to make that much lower. Did you know that children were at a greater risk of dying in a bicycle accident than they were in dying from COVID? It's true. Check the numbers.

The collateral damage of people wearing mask was minimal, next to none.

Those parents of children who are now years behind in their learning would strongly disagree. I'm not sure you're capable of seeing the bigger picture. Your myopic focus on COVID deaths causes you to be unable to see or admit that there were harms that were inflicted on the least vulnerable population (our children) that were a direct result of masking and social distancing policies. Schooling was disrupted for many students for a year or more. Milestones in their lives, like graduations, were robbed from them from people who didn't really care about them at all. And the results are devastating. Learning loss has been profound. The repercussions from the foolish masking and social distancing rules (which drove school closures) will be felt for decades to come. Additionally, It's well-established that better education is associated with better health. Ultimately, these measures hit poor communities the hardest. They were already at a disadvantage, and in the name of trying to "protect" them, the government agencies simply introduced them to more lifelong disadvantages.

You can pretend like none of this matters. In fact, I expect you will. But the bottom line is the collateral damage of the foolish mitigation measures was severe and will be felt for decades to come.

The collateral damage on the economy was large and that was the cost of saving lives.

I see you're dutifully repeating the propaganda you've swallowed.

It just depends really if you are pro-life or not, and how much dollars and impact on the economy you are willing to bear in order to save people's lives.

This time around it was the elderly and the immuno compromised that were at risk.,

"This time around?" Diseases will always put the elderly and immunocompromised at greater risk. Heck, the reason why is literally in the name of the second group of people you listed.

next time maybe it is the children or perhaps people your age? Dunno.

Be very afraid! The next pandemic could be coming for.... YOU!!!!!!!!

 

[probinson]

NZ and the elimination of Covid during the pandemic

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31097-7/fulltext

The headline of that article is "New Zealand Eliminates COVID-19". I wonder if the author feels foolish in hindsight given the reality of the situation.

 

[probinson]

View attachment 362976

This is an interesting graphic. Can you provide the source? I'm curious to know the methodology of how they arrived at these numbers.

This seems to be suggesting that if someone was wearing a fit-tested N95 with a 10% gap, protection would still be quite high. This recently published study calls that result into question.

Here is an article analyzing that study:

What it shows is that surgical masks do reduce the number of particles emitted at all sizes, but not by much. KN95s are a bit better, and N95s are quite a bit better. But it is important to look at 6(b) to put this into perspective. Many of the claims about mask efficacy have relied on the material’s ability to filter without accounting for gaps. That is what is shown in 6(b). In that figure, all of the masks are quite efficient at removing particles—as long as there is a rubber gasket or silicon caulking attaching them to your face, i.e. so long as there are no gaps at all.​

​

....​

​

Since we now know that COVID is predominantly spread by very small and extremely numerous aerosols roughly the same size as cigarette smoke, like cigarette smoke it is virtually instantly all around you. There is a sort of “common sense” logic that says, “well, even if there are only 20% fewer particles, or even 2-3% fewer particles, that means I’m that much less likely to get sick,” but that’s not how it works. This is because the minimum infective dose of COVID, that is, the minimum number of viral particles you need to be exposed to in order to get sick, is very small. There are now a whole host of studies that suggest that the minimum infective dose for COVID is between 100 and 1000 virions, with a recent review suggesting that the more likely number was around 100 virions as the minimum infective dose.​

​

Now let’s compare this to the number of virions or virus particles that an infected person exhales. 10 million per hour—that was the average number exhaled and captured in a recent study—the same study showed that some patients exhaled literally billions per hour. Based on a minimum infective dose of 100-1000 virions referenced above, this would mean that the exhalations from a single sick person would be capable of getting between 10,000 and 100,000 people sick (obviously not physically possible)—in just one hour. Nor is this an outlier. Another study identified that SARS-CoV2 positive patients exhaled between ~15,000 and 450,000 infective doses per hour—the upper end being enough infectious virus to get 126 people sick every second. ​

​

What does that mean for the efficacy of masks in preventing disease? Nothing good. Our study shows that, of the aerosols that are most likely to carry infectious virus, those from 0.2 - 1 micron, masks stop from ~20% (surgical masks) to ~62%—80% on the high end (N95s). Let’s say you’re in a large room (say 20’ x 20’) with an infected person for an hour. Based on the low-end number cited above, that would mean there are roughly 15,000 “doses” (~100 virions) invisibly floating around you. Would a 20% reduction to 12,000 (the equivalent of wearing a surgical mask) make you significantly less likely to make contact with these invisible things? Of course not—particularly as the aerosols carrying the individual virions that make up that “dose” are even more diffuse. What if that number were reduced by 80%, and there were only 3,000 doses invisibly floating through the air? Would you feel sanguine in your about your ability to “dodge” all of those 3000 invisible things? Put another way, if there were 5 people smoking across the room, would you be less likely to smell the virus if there were only 4 people smoking? What if there were only one? The answer of course, “no”.​

​

If "masks work", why don't they work? New research suggests the reason.

A recently released study investigating the efficacy of masks at filtering aerosols in the 0.2 - 1 micron range, suggests answers to the disconnect between the results of mechanistic studies and RCTs.

emilyburns.substack.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is an interesting graphic. Can you provide the source? I'm curious to know the methodology of how they arrived at these numbers.

This seems to be suggesting that if someone was wearing a fit-tested N95 with a 10% gap, protection would still be quite high. This recently published study calls that result into question.

It's from an older post I made (I'll see if I can still find the link), but they were evaluating efficacy during the Alpha variant which was months and months before the much more transmissible Omicron variant.

But the general point was that even during the original strain and alpha, the types of masks most people were wearing weren't do much to slow transmission.

Or, in more real-world terms...

If one was in an enclosed store or office building (where one is likely to spend more than a half hour at a time), contracting it within 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes isn't exactly the "game changer" that was touted with regards to cloth masks.