ARGUMENTS TO MAKE TO SHOW MASK SCIENCE FICTION - PART 2
Please share these arguments with your loved ones who still believe in the CDC
On February 15, 2021, the following scientists wrote a lengthy memo regarding their misleading language in this area and requested that it be corrected:
· Rick Bright, PhD, Former Director of BARDA, Dept of Health and Human Services
· Lisa M. Brosseau, ScD, CIH, University of Minnesota CIDRAP
· Lynn R. Goldman, MD, MS, MPH, George Washington University
· Céline Gounder, MD, ScM, NYU Grossman School of Medicine & Bellevue Hospital Center
· Jose Jimenez, PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder
· Yoshihiro Kawaoka, DVM, PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Tokyo
· Linsey Marr, PhD, Virginia Tech
· David Michaels, PhD, MPH, George Washington University
· Donald K. Milton, MD, DrPH, University of Maryland
· Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, University of Minnesota CIDRAP
· Kimberly Prather, PhD, University of California San Diego ➢ Robert T. Schooley, MD, University of California San Diego
· Peg Seminario, MS, AFL-CIO (retired)
They wrote in part:
“To address and limit transmission via inhalation exposure and prevent COVID infections and deaths, we urge the Biden administration to take the following immediate actions:
o Update and strengthen CDC guidelines to fully address transmission via inhalation exposure to small inhalable particles from infectious sources at close, mid, and longer range. Updated guidelines should be informed by a risk assessment model that focuses on source and pathway (ventilation) controls first, followed by respiratory protection.
o Issue an OSHA emergency standard on COVID-19 that recognizes the importance of aerosol inhalation, includes requirements to assess risks of exposure, and requires implementation of control measures following a hierarchy of controls.”
Edwards et al. (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/8/e2021830118) demonstrated that that the vast majority of COVID particles emitted during illness are aerosols not droplets (see Figure 2-A).
(Figure 2-A: Edwards et al., 2021 - Particle Size Emissions by Size and Time)
Edwards et al. concluded their paper with the following statements:
o Our finding that the proportion of small respiratory droplets (i.e., aerosols) were the majority of particles exhaled in all subjects.
o There may be an elevated risk of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by way of the very small droplets (aerosols) that transmit through conventional masks and traverse distances far exceeding the conventional social distance of 2 m (~7’).
o Exhaled aerosol numbers appear to be not only an indicator of disease progression, but a marker of disease risk in non-infected individuals.
While the mask may contain droplets, they only do so for a period. As the masks are exposed to heat and moisture they suffer from degradation within a few hours, depending upon those heat and moisture levels. However, masks are not designed to stop aerosols and are therefore a nonsensical tool.
Masks cannot ever obtain a perfect fit to the face and efficiencies of masks when worn in real world scenarios (day-long usage). When the mask has more than a 3% gap, it effectively offers zero protection (see Figure 2-B).
(Figure 2-B: Loss of Mask Effectiveness in the Real World)
The foundational debate around masks is its capability to protect the wearer and offer source control. Therefore, the critical issue to understand is how well does the mask seal to the face to offer such solutions and what is clear is small gap areas effectively render these devices ineffective.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification for Barrier Face Coverings F3502-21 states the following:
o Note 2 states: “There are currently no established methods for measuring outward leakage from a barrier face covering, medical mask, or respirator. Nothing in this standard addressed or implied a quantitative assessment of outward leakage and no claims can be made about the degree to which a barrier face covering reduces emission of human-generated particles.”
o Note 5 states: “There are currently no specific accepted techniques that are available to measure outward leakage from a barrier face covering or other products. Thus, no claims may be made with respect to the degree of source control offered by the barrier face covering based on the leakage assessment.”
If such a device is designed for a specific purpose and now it’s use is driven for something else, it cannot be claimed that the new form of use is working unless it can be measured.