@0x00 true, was also thinking about that but let’s keep it super mega positive so maybe people start listening finally 😘


@stux no. always tell the truth. a single lie makes the whole thing a lie. percentages of undisclosed amounts are always a lie. never trust percentages. personally prefer certain, most likely, slight chance, most unlikely and terms like that than using percentages.

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 3

@nergal @0x00 Alright, you are right! I edited the original :ablobgrin: better? 😄

@stux @nergal @0x00 Does anyone have the source study for these numbers? I need something that I can point to about wearing masks.

Those studies assume, that the risk of infection is mainly due to droplets, which does ignore, that the higher risk is in aerosols
Even infection by aerosols seems to be more hazardous and harmful, because it directly affects lungs.
We don't have real profound data backed by real field-collected research.

@0x00@panthermodern.net @stux @nergal


We compared disposable surgical masks (180 mm × 90 mm, 3 layers [inner surface mixed with polypropylene and polyethylene, polypropylene filter, and polypropylene outer surface], pleated, bulk packaged in cardboard; KM Dental Mask, KM Healthcare Corp) with reusable 100% cotton masks (160 mm × 135 mm, 2 layers, individually packaged in plastic; Seoulsa).

A petri dish (90 mm × 15 mm) containing 1 mL of viral transport media (sterile phosphate-buffered saline with bovine serum albumin, 0.1%; penicillin, 10 000 U/mL; streptomycin, 10 mg; and amphotericin B, 25 µg) was placed approximately 20 cm from the patients' mouths. Patients were instructed to cough 5 times each onto a petri dish while wearing the following sequence of masks: no mask, surgical mask, cotton mask, and again with no mask. A separate petri dish was used for each of the 5 coughing episodes. Mask surfaces were swabbed with aseptic Dacron swabs in the following sequence: outer surface of surgical mask, inner surface of surgical mask, outer surface of cotton mask, and inner surface of cotton mask.

The median viral loads of nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from the 4 participants were 5.66 log copies/mL and 4.00 log copies/mL, respectively. The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively. All swabs from the outer mask surfaces of the masks were positive for SARS–CoV-2, whereas most swabs from the inner mask surfaces were negative.

Discussion: Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. Prior evidence that surgical masks effectively filtered influenza virus (1) informed recommendations that patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear face masks to prevent transmission (2). The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm (5); assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.

Of note, we found greater contamination on the outer than the inner mask surfaces. Although it is possible that virus particles may cross from the inner to the outer surface because of the physical pressure of swabbing, we swabbed the outer surface before the inner surface. These observations support the importance of hand hygiene after touching the outer surface of masks.

This experiment did not include N95 masks and does not reflect the actual transmission of infection from patients with COVID-19 wearing different types of masks. We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing.

@blight @stux @0x00 @nergal
@theblessing @blight @0x00 @nergal @stux Sometime in the past couple years the WHO did a study showing that masks and handwashing have no practical effect on the spread of disease, which is exactly what you'd expect, because you can't not have micro-organisms on things for more than a few seconds at a time, absolute maximum. It's a religion.
@boob @theblessing @0x00 @blight @nergal @stux

Get to the part where they stuck the Jew in the straightjacket and beat him to death.
@theblessing @0x00 @blight @nergal @stux The problem isn't the physical properties of soap and disinfectants, those are proven, it's that this doesn't translate into reality. We touch things, all the time, without realizing it. Everything is contaminated. Be very afraid!

Once I'm done with the project I'm working on I'll try to find the study for you.
@nergal @theblessing @stux @blight @0x00 You have to understand, the problem isn't the tools, it's the fact the people touch more things than they can possibly be conscious of, and everything is gross. One mistake negates the entire hygienic process. In the case of a surgery, where the environment is designed for sterility, it doesn't apply. But in a mass outbreak like Covid, it most likely has no effect at all.

@boob so that poem from way back about the old lady that swallowed a fly is prophetic? going to have to feast on phages soon engineered to target specific microbes against which bodies would not have a defense? @theblessing @stux @blight @0x00

@nergal @theblessing @stux @blight @0x00 Or we could live in reality, where disease exists. Antibiotics are gonna fail in a few hundred years, buckle up buckeroo.

@boob disease is what happens when the invader wins. pus and scarring are a sign of winning. most infections happen because people abuse products. like lysol and protex. superbugs get stronger because people don't stick to k.i.s.s. principles. bet bathing with brine does wonders too. @theblessing @stux @blight @0x00

@boob antibiotics get abused all the time. biologies form antibiotics naturally. when phages become a thing, they are guaranteed to be something for profit, patented and genetically coded to malfunction once payment has not been received. @theblessing @stux @blight @0x00

@meowski it would be better to have this experiment done elsewhere. repeating the procedure in one place would turn up varying results. having the experiment done in multiple locations would yield more useful data. @theblessing @stux @blight @0x00

@theblessing @nergal @0x00 @blight @stux the only logical explanation for this finding (4 people is too few to say anything) is that the people with no virus particles were not actually infected and had false positive results on their tests, and their culture medium was contaminated.

or there is some other flaw in the testing methodology, aside from only testing 4 people
@theblessing @0x00 @blight @nergal @stux *the people with no virus particles detected on the inside of their masks, but with them on the outside.
@colonelj @nergal @0x00 @blight @stux @theblessing
this is an overly broad generalization. good quality masks, worn properly, can offer some protection.

the devil is in the details though. just putting cloth over your face is not going to help and there's some evidence it actually increases respiratory infections

95% of people also neglect eye protection which is a mucus membrane
@colonelj @meowski @0x00 @blight @nergal @stux @theblessing i wore a mask so i could actually go into a store. i never wear them otherwise. shits pointless

@HDValentin @nergal @0x00 Found it on the web and made a few little edits 😮

@stux @nergal @0x00 where are you getting these numbers? are they just completely made up? put some citations with this if you're going to the trouble of making an info graphic
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..