Surgical Face Diaper Just 12% Effective Against Aerosols — But SARS-CoV-2 Isn’t an Aerosol

Failing at the wrong job

Everyone in the media and their grandmother reporting on a new study that supposedly shows that humanity ought to be muzzling with heavy-duty face diapers —— because the study finds paper ones to be utter trash that are only about 12% effective against aerosols.

Thank you for showing that masks wouldn’t work even if SARS-CoV-2 was an aerosol, but it’s a moot point.

Trouble is, SARS-CoV-2 isn’t an aerosol. Thanks for showing attaching a piece of paper to your face wouldn’t protect you from an aerosol virus to start with, but that’s not how SARS-CoV-2 spreads to begin with:

One study from the University of California tracked down 421 healthcare workers who had been exposed to two infected patients, and were highly at risk because of performing aerosol-generating procedures. Yet only eight became infected, and none were found to be from airborne causes.

Professor Carl Heneghan, of Oxford University, another author of the review, said: “RNA mills about in the air. Very small fragments. You will pick this up in the air of nursing homes and hospitals.

“The misconception is that this means the virus is airborne. Nobody has managed to capture a viable virus because once it’s in the environment it becomes unstable very quickly.”

Yet another problem with the airborne theory is that it has not been proven that humans infected with Covid-19 can generate infectious aerosols of less than five micrometres just by speaking or coughing.

Although experimental models suggest it could happen, nobody has shown that it actually has.

The US lab scientist who showed the virus can linger in the air for several hours, used high-powered jet nebulizers to make the particles airborne, which in no way reflect normal human interaction.

And although lab studies have shown coronavirus can linger in the air, real-world studies have yet to show airborne virus. [And not for a lack of trying.]

A recent study by Imperial College and Network Rail, which sampled air from London Euston, Birmingham New Street, Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Piccadilly during the peak of the winter wave, and again in June, found no evidence of the virus, either in stations or trains.

And there are other problems with the airborne theory.

In an article published last year, Michael Klompas, Professor of Population Medicine at Harvard University, pointed out that the natural R number for Covid (2.5) should be higher if it was spread through the air, closer to the 18 of measles.

“Considering that most people with Covid-19 are contagious for about one week, a reproduction number of two to three is quite small given the large number of interactions, crowds, and personal contacts that most people have under normal circumstances within a seven-day period,” he wrote.

“Either the amount of Sars-CoV-2 required to cause infection is much larger than measles or aerosols are not the dominant mode of transmission.”

To date, the WHO remains unconvinced that airborne transmission is having a major impact on the pandemic.

We know why masks fail to have an impact anywhere. Yes, they are utterly incapable of hindering aerosols, but even if they were not they would be “protecting” against the wrong mode of transmission to start with.

Of course, their real intent was always psychological and social.

A new study is highlighting a need for widespread use of better face masks and the importance of good ventilation to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 indoors.

Engineering researchers at the University of Waterloo performed experiments using a mannequin to simulate a seated person breathing in a large room. The studies showed a significant buildup over time of aerosol droplets – exhaled droplets so tiny they remain suspended and travel through the air – despite the use of common cloth and blue surgical masks.

  1. ken says

    “Trouble is, SARS-CoV-2 isn’t an aerosol. Thanks for showing attaching a piece of paper to your face wouldn’t protect you from an aerosol virus to start with, but that’s not how SARS-CoV-2 spreads to begin with”

    Sars Cov 2 isn’t a anything,,, it doesn’t exist except in the virus sized mind of our new lord and savior, Anthony Fraudci. I hear he is writing a new book for the good book saying JC was an imposter. Oh, the science! (lol)

    If you have proof that it has been isolated to just the virus and found to be the cause of the new mild flu going around then please send that information to the Health Nazis in Alberta, Canada. They could use it for a recent court case they were forced to admit,,, proof of the virus did not exist.

    Also might consider sending a copy to the CDC in Washington DC.

    1. CalDre says

      If you have proof that it has been isolated

      There are numerous studies proving this. I’ll just cite the two earliest ones I have found:

      • China: Sun, Zhu et. al, Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient
      • US: Harcourt, Tamin et al., Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient

      They could use it for a recent court case they were forced to admit,,, proof of the virus did not exist.

      That’s not what happened. They were asked to provide a specimen of a deadly pathogen (you should be pretty happy they refuse to do that, lol) and the government simply argued it was not relevant for that case, and they are probably right. Saying “I won’t give a deadly pathogen to anyone that sues me” and “whether or not COVID-19 exists is irrelevant to this case” is completely different from saying the virus has not been isolated.

      1. geo says

        You’re playing a schizophrenic game here.
        Something not seen, unidentifiable is not a scientific factor to work and study, is a para-Philosophical attempt to create a story.
        Is bacterial over-population, easy to keep away and live with no fear, no problems execpt you startr poison your body as a stupid believer of these sicko-fraudulent scientists.

      2. Joe Smith says

        Okay, if they were afraid to provide a specimen of the covid virus, then why didn’t they just say so?? Why didn’t they point out it would be dangerous?? Instead, all they said (according to you, at least) was” “Providing a specimen is not relevant for the case”. IF they really felt it was too dangerous to provide a specimen of the virus, then they would have said so!!! The fear that YOU think they had of providing a specimen was obviously not the case. Otherwise, they would have pointed out the “danger” of doing so. In other words, the virus has not been isolated and they had NO specimen of it to present to the court.

  2. Voz 0db says

    Still talking about the MUZZLES!

    They CLEARLY WOKE… CULT… sorry, WORK!

    1. Mr Reynard says

      Rabbit foot work better IMO…

  3. Mark says

    Perform this simple test. Call up your Public Health officer, and tell him/her you plan to spread herbicides on your apple trees. Actually having apple trees is not necessary; God will forgive you this minor transgression if you haven’t any. Ask your Public Health officer if wearing a non-surgical cloth mask will provide the proper protection.

    You will be told no, you must wear a full or half respirator with dual HEPA filters. And you can SEE herbicide in the air, the particles are that large. But a non-medical cloth mask protects you from a virus so deadly it has brought the world to its knees?

    As if.

  4. Dano S. says

    What meaning does “12% effective” even have? A mask or filter is either effective or ineffective. That’s why they have ratings. 12% effective means it’s not effective at all. Anything less than at least 99.95% effective (True HEPA rating) might as well be 0% effective because it’s an all or nothing application, meaning you are either exposed to the virus or not because of mask performance. And I won’t even mention the lack of a proper seal that even the N95 masks have along with all other masks aside from the full faced rubber seal ones.

  5. Joe Smith says

    So we know from the article that the covid virus isn’t an aerosol and does not spread in that way. Okay, but in WHAT WAY does it spread? How come the author of the article left that very important info out?

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.