This study is completely devoid of scientific verisimilitude. Where to begin?
The experiment design does not in any way reflect real world circumstances. The apparatus insures that 100% of a quantity of large droplets passes through the material tested. This is not what happens when a person coughs or sneezes through a cloth mask. The sheer volume and velocity of both droplets and atmosphere that is produced when coughing or sneezing, as compared to breathing, produces a pressure wave that greatly increases the gaps between mask and face. This blow-by is not accounted for. That alone is enough to completely invalidate the findings.
Also of concern is the growing amount of information on the relative infectiousness of the various sizes of moisture particles that viruses hitch a ride on. It is intellectual dishonesty to compare that which is produced from a cough or sneeze as compared to breathing. It is akin to comparing a pea to a softball. To conflate the two is fundamentally flawed.
Further along this line is the growing number of Scientists cleaving to the reality that large droplets are the least infectious, as they have a ballistic nature that forces them to fall in an arc within the proscribed guidelines for social distancing. It is the aersolized particles produced in breathing that you really should be vigilant about. These particles can travel across large rooms. They are especially readily distributed in air based heating and cooling systems.
In the eighties during High School, I took Calculus. Our instructor was brutal the first few tests with details. While we as a class might have correctly figured out how many radians were the result of a problem, failing to write down the word radian after the figure resulted in a zero score for that question. "What are these, Pine-apples?", he used to exclaim to and chagrin us with.
The failure to qualify what type of mask should concern everyone. Even if a Cloth mask can reduce large particles, they do next to nothing to filter the moisture particles that are produced by the act of simply breathing. Again, the real science says that we are being infected by aerosols, not large droplets.
As a means to end, but by no means have I enumerated all the flaws with this article and study, lets do a bit of good old Yankee analysis. First we should agree that the relative percentage of the population that is consistently wearing a cloth mask has increased substantially since the onset of virus. It has increased substantially since the first basic peak wave at the cusp of April into May. Since then what has happened to not only aggregate numbers of those testing positive each day, but the percentage of tests coming back positive as compared to tests conducted?
Both have increased. We have seen a seven fold increase in the raw number of people testing positive each day. Cities and States have seen their positivity rates go from a height of 2% in May to over 6% in many cases now. That is a three fold increase. If indeed cloth masks reduce viral load, would not an increase in compliance have an impact on infection? That is has not is a very good indication that cloth masks are not effective in reducing the spread of this virus.
We have all been told that Herd Immunity is a suicidal means to control an outbreak. If that is the case, how is Herd Inculcation any better?
1 comment:
This study is completely devoid of scientific verisimilitude. Where to begin?
The experiment design does not in any way reflect real world circumstances. The apparatus insures that 100% of a quantity of large droplets passes through the material tested. This is not what happens when a person coughs or sneezes through a cloth mask. The sheer volume and velocity of both droplets and atmosphere that is produced when coughing or sneezing, as compared to breathing, produces a pressure wave that greatly increases the gaps between mask and face. This blow-by is not accounted for. That alone is enough to completely invalidate the findings.
Also of concern is the growing amount of information on the relative infectiousness of the various sizes of moisture particles that viruses hitch a ride on. It is intellectual dishonesty to compare that which is produced from a cough or sneeze as compared to breathing. It is akin to comparing a pea to a softball. To conflate the two is fundamentally flawed.
Further along this line is the growing number of Scientists cleaving to the reality that large droplets are the least infectious, as they have a ballistic nature that forces them to fall in an arc within the proscribed guidelines for social distancing. It is the aersolized particles produced in breathing that you really should be vigilant about. These particles can travel across large rooms. They are especially readily distributed in air based heating and cooling systems.
In the eighties during High School, I took Calculus. Our instructor was brutal the first few tests with details. While we as a class might have correctly figured out how many radians were the result of a problem, failing to write down the word radian after the figure resulted in a zero score for that question. "What are these, Pine-apples?", he used to exclaim to and chagrin us with.
The failure to qualify what type of mask should concern everyone. Even if a Cloth mask can reduce large particles, they do next to nothing to filter the moisture particles that are produced by the act of simply breathing. Again, the real science says that we are being infected by aerosols, not large droplets.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-one-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html
As a means to end, but by no means have I enumerated all the flaws with this article and study, lets do a bit of good old Yankee analysis. First we should agree that the relative percentage of the population that is consistently wearing a cloth mask has increased substantially since the onset of virus. It has increased substantially since the first basic peak wave at the cusp of April into May. Since then what has happened to not only aggregate numbers of those testing positive each day, but the percentage of tests coming back positive as compared to tests conducted?
Both have increased. We have seen a seven fold increase in the raw number of people testing positive each day. Cities and States have seen their positivity rates go from a height of 2% in May to over 6% in many cases now. That is a three fold increase. If indeed cloth masks reduce viral load, would not an increase in compliance have an impact on infection? That is has not is a very good indication that cloth masks are not effective in reducing the spread of this virus.
We have all been told that Herd Immunity is a suicidal means to control an outbreak. If that is the case, how is Herd Inculcation any better?
Post a Comment