To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

xhomelezz

Scotty # wrote: »

I agree. AS I said, I'm not anti mask at all. I just think there's a huge onus being put on them with very little effectiveness.

That's the point we go our own ways. Not gonna argue on effectiveness of masks, masks are proven as it is. Beside that every little helps, so wash your hands, keep distance from others as much as possible and wear a mask.

gmisk

NaFirinne wrote: »

Looks like masks on there own are not going solve our virus issue.

Interesting article outlining a roadmap in canada for dealing with covid and the economic issues coming out of it.

According to the article other countries following similar roadmaps.

– Phase in secondary lock down restrictions on a rolling basis, starting with major metropolitan areas first and expanding outward. Expected by November 2020.

– Rush the acquisition of (or construction of) isolation facilities across every province and territory. Expected by December 2020.

– Daily new cases of COVID-19 will surge beyond capacity of testing, including increases in COVID related deaths following the same growth curves. Expected by end of November 2020.

– Complete and total secondary lock down (much stricter than the first and second rolling phase restrictions). Expected by end of December 2020 – early January 2021.

– Reform and expansion of the unemployment program to be transitioned into the universal basic income program. Expected by Q1 2021.

– Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of infection. Expected by February 2021.

– Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-19 and COVID-21 related deaths will exceed medical care facilities capacity. Expected Q1–Q2 2021.

– Enhanced lock down restrictions (referred to as Third Lock Down) will be implemented. Full travel restrictions will be imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected Q2 2021.

– Transitioning of individuals into the universal basic income program. Expected mid Q2 2021.

– Projected supply chain break downs, inventory shortages, large economic instability. Expected late Q2 2021.

– Deployment of military personnel into major metropolitan areas as well as all major roadways to establish travel checkpoints. Restrict travel and movement. Provide logistical support to the area. Expected by Q3 2021.

From
https://cairnsnews.org/2020/10/16/canadian-politician-leaks-new-covid-lockdown-plan-and-great-reset-dictatorship-australia-is-part-of-it/

Opening paragraph
"POWER-mad state premiers, governors and prime ministers across Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand may try to push another Dan Andrews-style second wave virus attack, as part of the Gates-Rockefeller-World Economic Forum push for global vaccination and the Agenda 21 “new normal/new economy”.


What...a...complete...load of old twaddle..lol

weldoninhio

Graham wrote: »

That's a lot of inaccuracies for such a very small sentence.

Visors are less effective.
Most people are wearing masks correctly.

I would say less than 1% use masks correctly.

Graham

I have no doubt you would.

eleventh

Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity.
This is what she has to say about masks and their effects on our brains:

The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen depravation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus, that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.

However, when you have chronic oxygen depravation, all of those symptoms disappear, because you get used to it. But your efficiency will remain impaired and the undersupply of oxygen in your brain continues to progress.

We know that neurodegenerative diseases take years to decades to develop. If today you forget your phone number, the breakdown in your brain would have already started 20 or 30 years ago.

While you’re thinking, that you have gotten used to wearing your mask and rebreathing your own exhaled air, the degenerative processes in your brain are getting amplified as your oxygen deprivation continues

The second problem is that the nerve cells in your brain are unable to divide themselves normally. So in case our governments will generously allow as to get rid of the masks and go back to breathing oxygen freely again in a few months, the lost nerve cells will no longer be regenerated. What is gone is gone.

[..]I do not wear a mask, I need my brain to think. I want to have a clear head when I deal with my patients, and not be in a carbon dioxide induced anaesthesia.

[..]There is no unfounded medical exemption from face masks because oxygen deprivation is dangerous for every single brain. It must be the free decision of every human being whether they want to wear a mask that is absolutely ineffective to protect themselves from a virus.

For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active.

To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed.

The child needs the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that. This is simple, indisputable physiology. Conscious and purposely induced oxygen deficiency is an absolutely deliberate health hazard, and an absolute medical contraindication.

An absolute medical contraindication in medicine means that this drug, this therapy, this method or measure should not be used – is not allowed to be used. To coerce an entire population to use an absolute medical contraindication by force, there must be definite and serious reasons for this, and the reasons must be presented to competent interdisciplinary and independent bodies to be verified and authorised.

When in ten years, dementia is going to increase exponentially, and the younger generations couldn’t reach their god-given potential, it won’t help to say “we didn’t need the masks”.

[..]How can a veterinarian, a software distributer, a business man, an electrical car manufacturer and a physicist decided on matters regarding the health of the entire population? Please dear colleagues, we all have to wake up.

I know how damaging oxygen depravation is for the brain, cardiologist knows it for the heart, the pulmonologist knows it for the lungs. Oxygen deprivation damages every single organ.

Where are our health departments, our health insurance, our medical associations? It would have been their duty to be vehemently against the lockdown and to stop it and stop it from the very beginning.

Why do the medical boards give punishments to doctors who give people exemptions? Does the person or the doctor seriously have to prove that oxygen depravation harms people? What kind of medicine are our doctors and medical associations representing?

Who is responsible for this crime? The ones who want to enforce it? The ones who let it happen and play along, or the ones who don’t prevent it?[..]It’s not about masks, it’s not about viruses, it’s certainly not about your health. It is about much much more. I am not participating. I am not afraid.

[..]You can notice, they are already taking our air to breathe.

The imperative of the hour is personal responsibility.

We are responsible for what we think, not the media. We are responsible for what we do, not our superiors. We are responsible for our health, not the World Health Organisation. And we are responsible for what happens in our country, not the government.”

Above transcript appears around the web. Here is one website sharing it if you want to link to it:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-masks-crime-against-humanity-child-abuse/5726059

Further info and credentials of the speaker
https://www.topdoctors.co.uk/doctor/margareta-griesz-brisson

Scotty #

weldoninhio wrote: »

I would say less than 1% use masks correctly.

Hence they have less than 1% effectiveness.


I went and found the WHO's latest advice regarding masks and I'm actually quite shocked at it's content. You can get it from the WHO website here.

As regards the wearing of masks by the general public they state:

"Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. "

They then go on to say...

"Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below)."

They then give the pro's and con's. Incidentally, they give more than twice as many con's than pro's

The pros...
• reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons
before they develop symptoms;
• reminding people to be compliant with other measures
(e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth).
However, this can also have the reverse effect (see
below);
• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the
global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging
the public to create their own fabric masks may promote
individual enterprise and community integration.
Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may
offer a source of income for those able to manufacture
masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also
be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public
acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe
re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste
and contribute to sustainability
• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing
masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of
people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical
settings;(70)
• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to
stopping spread of the virus;

The cons...
• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the
manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching
eyes with contaminated hands;(48, 49)
• potential self-contamination that can occur if nonmedical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This
can create favourable conditions for microorganism to
amplify;
• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties,
depending on type of mask used;
• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant
dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for
long hours;(50)
• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;(41, 51)
• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower
adherence to other critical preventive measures such as
physical distancing and hand hygiene;
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by
young children;
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal
leading to increased litter in public places, risk of
contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;
• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on
lip reading;
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially
for children, developmentally challenged persons, those
with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive
impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or
breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or
recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot
and humid environments.

So 4 out of 5 of their benefits to wearing a mask have nothing to do with the spread of Covid and are actually more about community morale.

In a nutshell, the WHO does recommend you to wear a mask (it may even bring you in a few quid!! ), BUT... there is absolutely no evidence they will make a blind bit of difference and could actually greatly increase your risk of infection.


Personally, I'm a lot less pro-mask AFTER reading the WHO's advice.

Graham

From the same document

Examples of where the general public should be encouraged to use medical and non-medical masks in areas with known or suspected community transmission

odyssey06

Scotty # wrote: »

At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.

You don't seem to acknowledge that there are two scenarios for considering wearing of masks.
(1) To directly protect an uninfected person i.e. as PPE
(2) To limit the infectiousness of a person with covid i.e. as a barrier

The WHO recommends masks for the general public in scenario (2), not in scenario (1).
You are looking at studies and conflating the two scenarios.
Advice given on what constitutes 'proper use' of masks & what masks to use in scenario (1) is of a totally different order to that in scenario (2) and it not directly applicable.
By contrast in scenario (2) the wearer is the most likely source of any particles on the mask.

railer201

Scotty # ^^^^^^^^

The WHO have since updated their advice as of August 2020 - your content is dated June 2020 ! It is very clear from the following updated link that the WHO now support mask and face cover wearing by the public ! But of course feel free to know better than the WHO, CDC, ECDC, NHS, HSE etc., Only on boards as one might say !

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

Graham

eleventh wrote: »

Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity.
This is what she has to say about masks and their effects on our brains

University of California San Diego tests prove masks don't cause oxygen deficiency & CO2 intoxication

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZWV_6N9kb0

Scotty #

railer201 wrote: »

Scotty # ^^^^^^^^

The WHO have since updated their advice as of August 2020 - your content is dated June 2020 !

Perhaps you could link to the specific updated document? The page you linked to seems to show 'how' to wear a mask. The June document that I referred to is also linked to on the page you linked. Is there an update of this document?

railer201 wrote: »

But of course feel free to know better than the WHO, CDC, ECDC, NHS, HSE etc.[/url]

I quoted what the WHO have in their document.

eleventh

Graham wrote: »

University of California San Diego tests prove masks don't cause oxygen deficiency & CO2 intoxication ...

They are relying there on a pulse oximeter machine. It does not measure oxygen.

An expert in toxicology criticises the use of this device in hospitals:

The standard pulse oximeters they use in hospitals to monitor oxygen saturation, just like the models used by patients at home, cannot tell the difference between CO and oxygen. The “O2Sat” they display is actually a measure of hemoglobin saturation, which comprises the sum of hemoglobins bound to oxygen, carbon monoxide, and nitric oxide.

Source: https://medium.com/@albertdonnay_17627/toxicologist-warns-covid-19-patients-are-dying-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-that-pulse-oximeters-a2ac42d4c3a4

stockshares

Good point made here.

On the news last night I noticed Michael McGrath wearing one when leaving but Leo didn't.

https://twitter.com/Astraea1974/status/1317603311143604225?s=19

xhomelezz

eleventh wrote: »

Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity.
This is what she has to say about masks and their effects on our brains:

The rebreathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen depravation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus, that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.

However, when you have chronic oxygen depravation, all of those symptoms disappear, because you get used to it. But your efficiency will remain impaired and the undersupply of oxygen in your brain continues to progress.

We know that neurodegenerative diseases take years to decades to develop. If today you forget your phone number, the breakdown in your brain would have already started 20 or 30 years ago.

While you’re thinking, that you have gotten used to wearing your mask and rebreathing your own exhaled air, the degenerative processes in your brain are getting amplified as your oxygen deprivation continues

The second problem is that the nerve cells in your brain are unable to divide themselves normally. So in case our governments will generously allow as to get rid of the masks and go back to breathing oxygen freely again in a few months, the lost nerve cells will no longer be regenerated. What is gone is gone.

[..]I do not wear a mask, I need my brain to think. I want to have a clear head when I deal with my patients, and not be in a carbon dioxide induced anaesthesia.

[..]There is no unfounded medical exemption from face masks because oxygen deprivation is dangerous for every single brain. It must be the free decision of every human being whether they want to wear a mask that is absolutely ineffective to protect themselves from a virus.

For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active.

To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed.

The child needs the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that. This is simple, indisputable physiology. Conscious and purposely induced oxygen deficiency is an absolutely deliberate health hazard, and an absolute medical contraindication.

An absolute medical contraindication in medicine means that this drug, this therapy, this method or measure should not be used – is not allowed to be used. To coerce an entire population to use an absolute medical contraindication by force, there must be definite and serious reasons for this, and the reasons must be presented to competent interdisciplinary and independent bodies to be verified and authorised.

When in ten years, dementia is going to increase exponentially, and the younger generations couldn’t reach their god-given potential, it won’t help to say “we didn’t need the masks”.

I think they are talking about this kind of facemask, I agree it is a danger.

railer201

Scotty # wrote: »

Perhaps you could link to the specific updated document? The page you linked to seems to show 'how' to wear a mask. The June document that I referred to is also linked to on the page you linked. Is there an update of this document?

I quoted what the WHO have in their document.

You quoted from one of many documents, cherry picked no doubt to support your negative bias towards masks. Clearly the WHO support mask wearing for the reasons laid out in the Q&A section of that link.

Why should people wear masks?

Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives. Masks reduce potential exposure risk from an infected person whether they have symptoms or not. People wearing masks are protected from getting infected. Masks also prevent onward transmission when worn by a person who is infected.

Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive ‘Do it all!’ approach including: physical distancing, avoiding crowded, closed and close-contact settings, improving ventilation, cleaning hands, covering sneezes and coughs, and more.

I'm quoting the WHO too, but refraining from adding worthless personal opinions that face coverings are (insert percentage here %) effective, ineffective or otherwise.

Wibbs

eleventh wrote: »

Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity.
This is what she has to say about masks and their effects on our brains:

Further info and credentials of the speaker
https://www.topdoctors.co.uk/doctor/margareta-griesz-brisson

If anyone comes out with that level of utter unscientific tripe I care not for the letters after their name, they should spell out DOLT. Never assume a qualification makes someone out to be an expert on areas that aren't their field or novel situations. She may well have serious expertise in neurological areas, but of filtration she will have as much as a clue as The Man On The Street. Such qualifications are also often attained many decades earlier and the individual has since run on routine. Surgeons wear surgical masks for hours on a near daily basis. Do surgeons have a higher incidence of dementia and neurodegenerative issues compared to background populations? That would be a no. Do those who wear even more filtration in the form of respirators because of their careers? No again.

Wibbs

railer201 wrote: »

I'm quoting the WHO too, but refraining from adding worthless personal opinions that face coverings are (insert percentage here %) effective, ineffective or otherwise.

I don't blame people for the confusion. The same WHO were stating masks weren't worth a toss a few months back. Hell when they showed up in Wuhan the Chinese doctors and experts were shocked they didn't come masked. Our own HSE has done a backflip on them too with all sorts of contrary "advice", where masks only magically worked in some settings and not others. Now much of this in the early days was to preserve PPE supplies for frontline workers, but a fair chunk of it was rabbit in the headlights time.

odyssey06

Worth re-iterating the relative risk of transmision by contact \ fomite versus the air (either droplets or aerosols).

"Inanimate surfaces are very much a minor player in all this."
- Emmanuel Goldman, Professor of Microbiology at Rutgers University

Only one case study has been found showing people infected by fomite - two people in Singapore who sat in the same seat in Singapore.
So don't stop worrying about surfaces, but remember there are bigger threats.

A growing number of studies suggest that face coverings reduce your chances of getting infected, make infections less severe if you do get infected - by reducing the amount of virus you are exposed to - and stop you from infecting others if you have caught the virus.
- New Scientist Magazine, October 2020

eleventh

Wibbs wrote:

Never assume a qualification makes someone out to be an expert on areas that aren't their field or novel situations.

I never do assume that. You assume I do.

She is talking about effects of mask-wearing on the human brain.
Brain science is her specialty.
What area of expertise would you want to talk on that topic?

She may well have serious expertise in neurological areas, but of filtration she will have as much as a clue as The Man On The Street.

"Filtration" - what area of expertise would that be?

Surgeons wear surgical masks for hours on a near daily basis.

Many don't. Studies have been done to show they are ineffective and can inhibit surgeon performance.

Do surgeons have a higher incidence of dementia and neurodegenerative issues compared to background populations? That would be a no. Do those who wear even more filtration in the form of respirators because of their careers? No again.

And you know that how?

Sconsey

Scotty # wrote: »

Hence they have less than 1% effectiveness.


I went and found the WHO's latest advice regarding masks and I'm actually quite shocked at it's content. You can get it from the WHO website here.

<snip>
</snip>

So 4 out of 5 of their benefits to wearing a mask have nothing to do with the spread of Covid and are actually more about community morale.

In a nutshell, the WHO does recommend you to wear a mask (it may even bring you in a few quid!! ), BUT... there is absolutely no evidence they will make a blind bit of difference and could actually greatly increase your risk of infection.


Personally, I'm a lot less pro-mask AFTER reading the WHO's advice.

That was not the WHO's latest advice regarding masks as you probably realize by now.

Considering you don't think droplets are a serious risk maybe you should read the WHO's brief on transmission. Where they state:
SARS-CoV-2 infected persons who have symptoms can infect others primarily through droplets and close contact.

Wibbs

eleventh wrote: »

I never do assume that. You assume I do.

You were sure to link us to her quallies.

She is talking about effects of mask-wearing on the human brain.
Brain science is her specialty.
What area of expertise would you want to talk on that topic?

Someone with peer reviewed studies on that effect.

"Filtration" - what area of expertise would that be?

It's actually a wide field of research and has been for a long time with lots of cash behind it, from the military in the case of gasmasks, NBC protection etc to industry, medical research and the handling of dangerous substances of all kinds, to filtration for buildings even vehicles.

Many don't. Studies have been done to show they are ineffective and can inhibit surgeon performance.

Citations needed.

And you know that how?

If there were a tangible risk to a plethora of areas and careers and industries because of the wearing of filtration devices it would kinda be out in the open dontcha think?

saneman

eleventh wrote: »

"Filtration" - what area of expertise would that be?

That would be material sciences & fluid dynamics.

That whole piece you quoted conflates oxygen deprivation, which no one is doubting is detrimental, with the wearing a mask, and then just runs with it.

Even N95/FFP2 masks with the higher levels of filtering when compared with face coverings, will not block either O2 or CO2 molecules.

Simply put, masks and even more so face coverings, can’t restrict oxygen or carbon dioxide flow.

Scotty #

railer201 wrote: »

You quoted from one of many documents, cherry picked no doubt

That's a lie and well you know it. All quotes in that post are from the one source, the latest advice from WHO which you can download yourself here...

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak


...and in the section relevant to the use of masks by the general public no less!!

You can throw your toys round your pram as much as you want, but that's the advice from the WHO. Pay particular attention to the ELEVEN points they make on the dangers of the general public wearing masks!

Wibbs wrote: »

The same WHO were stating masks weren't worth a toss a few months back.

See above. That's still their stance.

eleventh

Wibbs wrote: »

You were sure to link us to her quallies.

I did deliberately because the go-to response here to anything different from the government line is "that's just someone's opinion". To mitigate that I gave the qualifications.

My own way of assessing things (since you brought it up) is I read and consider content first. Details of the person, including qualifications, is secondary. If that person had no qualifications I would still agree with them based on content. (but wouldn't have shared it here for the reason just mentioned). Hope that clarifies it.

It's actually a wide field of research and has been for a long time with lots of cash behind it,

Cash behind something doesn't necessarily mean anything. People invest in things for different reasons, depending on their priorities.

..from the military in the case of gasmasks, NBC protection etc to industry, medical research and the handling of dangerous substances of all kinds, to filtration for buildings even vehicles.

Filtration of buildings and machines is not the same area -or should not be- as filtering a person's airway.

Filtration for use in emergency situations is not what we're talking about either.

It's situations where someone is to wear a mask for 8+ hours in their job almost continuously (not counting time spent travelling to/from if mask worn there as well).

Citations needed.

One study here (If more needed let me know)

Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-Face-Mask-Necessary-in-the

odyssey06

eleventh wrote: »

I
One study here (If more needed let me know)

Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/113/6/1447/9572/Is-Routine-Use-of-a-Face-Mask-Necessary-in-the

Are any of those people actually surgeons though?
And nowhere does it say the decision was taken because it affected their performance.
This is not in any way a citation of your original claim.

In fact it directly contradicts your position.

Surgeons, their assistants, and scrub nurses are still required to wear masks.
Face masks are worn by all operating room personnel when treating patients susceptible to infections as in neurosurgery, vascular, and orthopedic procedures involving implants and regional anesthesia procedures (e.g. , spinal or epidural). Face masks are also used to protect staff from contamination. All personnel wear face masks when taking care of trauma patients or patients with blood-borne infections.

eleventh

saneman wrote:

Even N95/FFP2 masks with the higher levels of filtering when compared with face coverings, will not block either O2 or CO2 molecules.

No-one is saying they are 'blocked'. They are restricted (i.e. less coming through).

This idea that a mask is 'smart', that it filters out the bad only - it makes no sense.

xhomelezz

eleventh wrote: »

No-one is saying they are 'blocked'. They are restricted (i.e. less coming through).

This idea that a mask is 'smart', that it filters out the bad only - it makes no sense.

At least it doesn't block oxygen, otherwise with widespread use of masks we would have to be dropping like flies by now.

Sconsey

eleventh wrote: »

No-one is saying they are 'blocked'. They are restricted (i.e. less coming through).

This idea that a mask is 'smart', that it filters out the bad only - it makes no sense.

They are not restricted. You don't seem to understand that oxygen particles are smaller than the weave in the mask. They can flow through like water through a metal grate. Droplets are orders of magnitude larger than oxygen particles so the weave in the mask traps them. Nothing 'smart' required.

Graham

xhomelezz wrote: »

At least it doesn't block oxygen, otherwise with widespread use of masks we would have to be dropping like flies by now.

And hospitals across the world would have dead surgeons piled up in the corners of operating theatres.

Graham

eleventh wrote: »

This idea that a mask is 'smart', that it filters out the bad only - it makes no sense.

I'll explain

Oxygen SMALL
CO2 SMALL
Virus Laded Droplets BIG

Mask filters out BIG