htownbrown Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 I had some time today..... Outer mask fabric.... Inner mask fabric.... Bottom line: This shit isn't going to flatten the curve... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 This is ground breaking stuff. You should let the medical science community know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 If you're going to fuck someone, make sure you wear an n95 mask. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 Kind of like why a pair of jeans can’t contain a fart. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 All that science, yet you're still rocking windows XP it looks like? edit: Anybody else read the thread title in Doc Brown's voice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 6, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 1 minute ago, tiamat63 said: All that science, yet you're still rocking windows XP it looks like? edit: Anybody else read the thread title in Doc Brown's voice? Its a 1987 jsm-820. The newer scopes are occupied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said: Kind of like why a pair of jeans can’t contain a fart. This should be a joke sarcastically poking fun at people that actually believe this But I'm guessing it a statement of support ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: This should be a joke sarcastically poking fun at people that actually believe this But I'm guessing it a statement of support ... So what don't you like? The pictures, the chart, or the bottom line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 37 minutes ago, htownbrown said: So what don't you like? The pictures, the chart, or the bottom line? It doesn't advance the liberal narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fact-check-n-95-filters-not-too-large-stop-covid-19-particles/5343537002/ The science of mask functionality gets really small, really fast. The unit of measurement here is microns — 1/1000th of a millimeter. The size-based argument against N95 laid out in this claim assumes mask filtering works something like water flowing through a net — particles in the water smaller than the net opening pass through, while larger items don’t. But the physics involved don’t work like that at all. The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger. “There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses. The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron. “Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency,” said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 Never thought Cal would be the one that linked you medical science you failed to consider. As the kids say "weird flex, but ok". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, tiamat63 said: Never thought Cal would be the one that linked you medical science you failed to consider. As the kids say "weird flex, but ok". It's not a n95 mask that I scoped. Its what the average person wears, which is a run of the mill surgical mask. I also never said anything about a "naked" virus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 I'd also like to add PM 2.5 can fly across oceans. Meaning it can stay suspended in a room for the entirety of its "lifespan" if its not well ventilated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 Back in my AF days , I was thinking of being a physician's assistant, took biology classes, even genetics, etc. Til a physician's assistant explained that it was a great idea if I was going to make the AF a career, but a bad choice in civilian life etc etc. She was right. My other idea was biomedical engineer - I wanted to do R&D in advanced prostheses. way too much advanced math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, htownbrown said: I'd also like to add PM 2.5 can fly across oceans. Meaning it can stay suspended in a room for the entirety of its "lifespan" if its not well ventilated. maybe in one of these: Oh, I'm just being funny. sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 "N95 respirators made by different companies were found to have different filtration efficiencies for the most penetrating particle size (0.1 to 0.3 micron), but all were at least 95% efficient at that size for NaCl particles." I didn't see any....but maybe someone can point me to the .3 micron pores in the pictures I posted??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 4 hours ago, htownbrown said: I had some time today..... Outer mask fabric.... Inner mask fabric.... Bottom line: This shit isn't going to flatten the curve... 1 hour ago, htownbrown said: So what don't you like? The pictures, the chart, or the bottom line? Your methodology is a bit flawed. I did a deep dive on mask pore size on this thread a few weeks ago, but I'll repost here: "You are correct about the average size of typical viruses. However, viruses do not exist in a vacuum; on their own, they cannot travel very far, and can be quite vulnerable to outside influences, such as temperature, relative humidity of the air and UV light from the sun. As such, viruses need a transmission vector in order to spread. In most cases, that is usually droplets coming from sneezing or coughing. Those droplets are much bigger than the viruses they carry; usually around 0.6-1000 micrometers (um)." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said: Your methodology is a bit flawed. I did a deep dive on mask pore size on this thread a few weeks ago, but I'll repost here: "You are correct about the average size of typical viruses. However, viruses do not exist in a vacuum; on their own, they cannot travel very far, and can be quite vulnerable to outside influences, such as temperature, relative humidity of the air and UV light from the sun. As such, viruses need a transmission vector in order to spread. In most cases, that is usually droplets coming from sneezing or coughing. Those droplets are much bigger than the viruses they carry; usually around 0.6-1000 micrometers (um)." I'm aware Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 Can you source your graph? I don't doubt the data I just want more context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: Can you source your graph? I don't doubt the data I just want more context. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22651099/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 9 hours ago, htownbrown said: I'm aware I believe there's enough of the proverbial fertile ground here for the both of us to be correct. Are regular surgical masks, if properly utilized, beneficial in the prevention of the spread of influenza? Yes and no. Yes, because the mask pore size is small enough to sufficiently stop a majority of aerosolized sneeze and cough droplets from going into the local atmosphere; at worst, they slow down particles enough so that they don't travel nearly as far as they would have if unobstructed. To your point, there are also particle sizes small enough to make it through. What these masks are most efficient at is stopping enough of the aerosol particles from escaping or traveling far, thereby reducing the potential viral load someone in close proximity would be exposed to. Bio-load is a critical factor in whether or not someone gets ill, because the typical healthy human immune system is more effective at fighting off lower viral loads. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 13 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said: If your going to fuck someone, make sure you wear an n95 mask. Actually if you using the procedure that some of our members might possibly prefer there's less chance of breathing on each others face. Just saying. WSS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 4 hours ago, jbluhm86 said: I believe there's enough of the proverbial fertile ground here for the both of us to be correct. Are regular surgical masks, if properly utilized, beneficial in the prevention of the spread of influenza? Yes and no. Yes, because the mask pore size is small enough to sufficiently stop a majority of aerosolized sneeze and cough droplets from going into the local atmosphere; at worst, they slow down particles enough so that they don't travel nearly as far as they would have if unobstructed. To your point, there are also particle sizes small enough to make it through. What these masks are most efficient at is stopping enough of the aerosol particles from escaping or traveling far, thereby reducing the potential viral load someone in close proximity would be exposed to. Bio-load is a critical factor in whether or not someone gets ill, because the typical healthy human immune system is more effective at fighting off lower viral loads. I here what your saying, although I'm not 100% behind all of it. I'm not attempting to come at you (or anyone) from a position of authority because I'm not in the medical industry and my only overlapping professional experience to any of this would be porosity and permeability (which is what inspired the pictures). The statement I originally made, was not whether SMs were better than nothing, rather that it was not going to flatten the curve. I thank you, for at least not shitting on the point without objective thinking like other posters attempted. I think, however, "better than nothing" with a virus that is "highly contagious" leads people to some not so proven assumptions. As I've read through more and more studies, the results and conclusions are so wildly different, it's difficult to trust any. The first thing that caught my eye in mask efficiency testing was that they universally get tested with normal breathing rates (8.4 L/min +- 1.3 L/min for a healthy male). A cough or sneeze would certainly be much more forceful, i think we could agree on that. And as loosely fit as a SM actually is, maybe porosity actually is irrelevant considering the possible paths of least resistance. I don't have any issue with the argument for SMs limiting non suspending aerosols that may for instance contaminate a surface, but PM 2.5, or smaller, is a wildly different ball game. They have found the virus lodged in ventilation filters in hospitals, after all. Now here's a question you seem to be versed enough to answer, where I'm not: In a situation where a virus has become highly efficient at attaching itself to it's desired target, in this case a spike protein I believe, would it not lower the viral load necessary to be highly effective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 2 hours ago, Axe said: Not at all how the math works there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: Not at all how the math works there... FISH ON!!! 🤣 tell that to the CDC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Axe said: FISH ON!!! 🤣 tell that to the CDC So you just posting something objectively incorrect, and then me pointing it out, counts as you baiting me into responding? I mean... I guess. If that's your bar. Link me to where the CDC says that please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: I mean... I guess. If that's your bar. The bar doesn't need to be very high with you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 28 minutes ago, Axe said: The bar doesn't need to be very high with you.. Ok.... I mean you attempted something there Anyway, the meme data you're regurgitating from some Facebook feed doesn't actually probe what it thinks it does. If you believe it you're objectively wrong. It's cut and dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 45 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: Ok.... I mean you attempted something there Anyway, the meme data you're regurgitating from some Facebook feed doesn't actually probe what it thinks it does. If you believe it you're objectively wrong. It's cut and dry. here's the number - you just call em and chirp at them. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · Customer service 1 (800) 232-4636 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.