My dad used to take us to watch the Red Wings. Back in the '50s and early '60s.
Who is advocating required mask use?
The experiment used the actual virus and actual mask material for the experiment. You can't use it to say how what the exact numbers are in terms of reduction of disease transmission for humans, only that it does reduce transmission.
It is as close as you can come to doing live tests on humans without wandering into Josef Mengele territory.
And Costco, some governors have indicated desire...
They put the animals in cages, and covered the cages with filter medium. That doesn't replicate anything at all like a mask.
We already know the efficacy of the filter medium, so this study provides no new information regarding mask-wearing.
A virus is 20nm to 400nm.
An N95 rated mask that is gasket sealed to your face (none of you are doing this) can filter down to 300nm at best. And I've only seen 1 or 2 people wearing a rated mask during this whole pandemic.
A mask made of fishnet would accomplish the same exact thing. I think most people have trouble comprehending how things on this scale actually work. Cough or sneeze into your shirt, if you want to be polite, the mask is theater.
Remember, a mask works both ways. If it can't filter out enough to keep you from catching it, it can't filter out enough to prevent you from spreading infection either.
Are we allowed to use correlation in animal trials to decide what to do with humans?
Sure. We can all walk around in cages wrapped in filter medium. It'll be great.
Awesome - that was back when the goalies first started wearing masks and none of the skaters did.
Hockey trivia question: Without Googling, anyone know the last NHL player to NOT wear a helmet?
When they passed the helmet rule players already in the league who didn't wear them and were grandfathered in. There was one guy left playing with out a helmet. His last season was 1997.
You're thinking of my lawyer team. Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.Gretzky? Orr? Howe? Wrong decade...but those are standard bar responses to any hockey question.
We've covered this already. The virus isn't floating around in the air on its own. It is carried on aerosols with a much larger diameter.
Yes, the filter medium provides efficacy.
However, masks provide efficacy primarily in the form of inhibiting expulsion from the infected, thereby reducing the viral load in the air and limiting it to very near the infected person. An uninfected person gains nearly no protection whatsoever from a mask against whatever viral load is in the air he is breathing. The airflow moves not through the filter medium, but through the path of least resistance - i.e. around the edges of the mask.
I still don't buy this argument at all.
If it's just a matter of spittle, not getting in people's faces and using shields at checkout lines is just as effective.
That's the great things about facts. They don't give a **** whether you buy them or not.
Masks reduce the outgoing viral load. You are free to find a place to shop where the least amount of people are wearing a mask, so that you can all share each other's loads.
CDC was perfectly clear when all of this started that masks didn't achieve anything.
Now that this has become political, they decide to change the "facts."
Hockey trivia question: Without Googling, anyone know the last NHL player to NOT wear a helmet?
When they passed the helmet rule players already in the league who didn't wear them and were grandfathered in. There was one guy left playing with out a helmet. His last season was 1997.
Ever had new information change old facts before?
A virus' ability to permeate a mask doesn't change in the span of a couple months.