The Drewnwick study affirms that is if one has a gap area ~3% of the mask area whatever effectiveness the mask had is ~0%. Yes, over 3% gap in your mask provides no protection! How much of a gap do you think exists with a surgical mask? Clearly its over 3%!
Even the K95 will have gaps above 3% because they now have ear loops which restricts sealing capability. In addition, most people (especially women and children) are wearing K95s too large for their face. Without a proper seal a mask cannot protect the wearer because of the gap issue, yet we continue to receive this propaganda to wear a mask for protection.
I especially love it when I visit my doctor’s office and my previous physician attempted to push the “source control” argument with me. I showed her this standard, and needless to say, she didn’t want to be my doctor anymore.
The source control aspect was tested for the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and this is what the ASTM F3502 - 21 Standard Specification for Barrier Face Coverings yielded; “NOTE 5 - The leakage assessment represents the total inward leakage likely to occur during wear. Whether measured quantitatively or assessed qualitatively, the leakage assessment does not represent the likely outward leakage of particles generated by the wearer. This is because 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.” This clearly null and voids the source control argument.
There has been great disinformation about COVID being a droplet. Particles can be classified as droplets or aerosols based on their size. Droplets are over 5 microns, while aerosols are under 5 microns, with the COVID particle is less than 1 micron. A 2021 study using monkeys has shown that over 99.9% of COVID particles are aerosols of less than 5 microns, which means the virus is not being transmitted in a significant manner via droplets. Maybe the Public Health Director in Santa Clara County should read this study for edification since she recently admitted under oath that she does not know the particle size of the COVID particles.
An attempt to correct CDC from this droplet buffoonery on February 15, 2021, the following scientists wrote a lengthy memo regarding CDC’s misleading language of droplets and requested that it be corrected. The names of these scientists are:
· Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, University of Minnesota CIDRAP; 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; 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:
· 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.
· 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.”
Stay tuned, I’ve been in contact with the Director of Science Integrity at CDC. I’m going to share some of that conversation in a future post!