These are good questions. The issue here is where the viral particles are. If they are in the <0.5um size range, they are like cigarette smoke and go either through or out the edges of most masks, and then hang in the air. IE wearing a mask doesn't reduce the airborne prevalence, primarily they would only work to reduce intake = the v…
These are good questions. The issue here is where the viral particles are. If they are in the <0.5um size range, they are like cigarette smoke and go either through or out the edges of most masks, and then hang in the air. IE wearing a mask doesn't reduce the airborne prevalence, primarily they would only work to reduce intake = the video on this tweet shows the effects of various masks on cigarette smoke as an example. (https://twitter.com/Emily_Burns_V/status/1398023020808134656)
That twitter thread which is informative, but long, banks on the thesis that something like 87% of the actually infectious viral particles are in the 0.3um size range and hence this demonstration is valid. I'm unable to tell you at this time if this thesis is correct, but if it is, then masks do almost nothing to stop transmission because, by design, they won't catch the right particles.
Thanks for the info. More questions though. Doesn't the virus need moisture to be able to transmit? That's why there was a delay to say it was an airborne disease? If the requirement for the particle is to be riding along with our breathing fluids is that part of the .3um size? I imagine masks are capturing a lot of the moisture of our breath.
It does not need significant amounts of moisture. You are correct in that masks are capturing the majority of the moisture, but there is separate evidence from influenza that getting a droplet based infection is correlated with better outcomes than an aerosol infection (obviously either can have minor and severe disease, but aerosol tends towards more severe and droplet towards less). The thesis is that inhaling the infectious agent into your lungs bypasses the mucus membranes - giving your body much less time to mount a defense before the virus is in it's primary grounds. So ironically, we might be better off getting hit by the moist air. I don't think there are corona studies on this, but the expectation is that it would be the same.
These are good questions. The issue here is where the viral particles are. If they are in the <0.5um size range, they are like cigarette smoke and go either through or out the edges of most masks, and then hang in the air. IE wearing a mask doesn't reduce the airborne prevalence, primarily they would only work to reduce intake = the video on this tweet shows the effects of various masks on cigarette smoke as an example. (https://twitter.com/Emily_Burns_V/status/1398023020808134656)
That twitter thread which is informative, but long, banks on the thesis that something like 87% of the actually infectious viral particles are in the 0.3um size range and hence this demonstration is valid. I'm unable to tell you at this time if this thesis is correct, but if it is, then masks do almost nothing to stop transmission because, by design, they won't catch the right particles.
Thanks for the info. More questions though. Doesn't the virus need moisture to be able to transmit? That's why there was a delay to say it was an airborne disease? If the requirement for the particle is to be riding along with our breathing fluids is that part of the .3um size? I imagine masks are capturing a lot of the moisture of our breath.
It does not need significant amounts of moisture. You are correct in that masks are capturing the majority of the moisture, but there is separate evidence from influenza that getting a droplet based infection is correlated with better outcomes than an aerosol infection (obviously either can have minor and severe disease, but aerosol tends towards more severe and droplet towards less). The thesis is that inhaling the infectious agent into your lungs bypasses the mucus membranes - giving your body much less time to mount a defense before the virus is in it's primary grounds. So ironically, we might be better off getting hit by the moist air. I don't think there are corona studies on this, but the expectation is that it would be the same.
Just reading through the Twitter thread now. Guess should have read that first. I'll lave this here though for others.