Mask pore size vs virus size

EvMetro

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2017
10,328
6,731
970
This is a really simple thread. All I want to see is the average mask pore or hole size, and the average size of the coronavirus. I'd like to see just those two figures, without any consideration for droplets, how masks work, propaganda that supports masks, or anything else. I realize that these two simple figures that I am requesting vary, so I'm looking for average figures. I'd like to be able to express these in a ratio.

If you need more information about why I am requesting these figures, it is because I suspect that nobody actually knows these figures, and that mask culture is purely faith based. I also suspect that maskers will be tempted to use n95 specs to support wearing cheap cloth masks and surgical masks. I also suspect that lefties will evade posting the figures I am requesting, and will only post about this second paragraph.
 
iu
iu


Coronavirus Fact-Check #6: Does wearing a mask do anything?

Governments around the world are enforcing facial coverings to prevent SARS-Cov-2 infection, but does the science support their use?



 
iu
iu


Coronavirus Fact-Check #6: Does wearing a mask do anything?

Governments around the world are enforcing facial coverings to prevent SARS-Cov-2 infection, but does the science support their use?




Doctors and nurses should just stop wearings masks, hmm?
 
iu
iu


Coronavirus Fact-Check #6: Does wearing a mask do anything?

Governments around the world are enforcing facial coverings to prevent SARS-Cov-2 infection, but does the science support their use?




Doctors and nurses should just stop wearings masks, hmm?

Doctors and nurses have been wearing masks since LONG before the scamdemic. This is because there is a bacteria problem in medical facilities. Bacteria are a thousand times bigger than viruses. What do you make of the last sentence in my opening post?
 
iu
iu


Coronavirus Fact-Check #6: Does wearing a mask do anything?

Governments around the world are enforcing facial coverings to prevent SARS-Cov-2 infection, but does the science support their use?




Doctors and nurses should just stop wearings masks, hmm?

I have been in and out of the doctors offices and hospitals all my life for my condition.

Rarely, if ever, do/did doctors and nurses where them.

The only time they have ever worn them is when there was a possibility of being exposed to bodily fluid. And at those times, not only did they wear those, if blood was drawn, they would also wear googles or eye wear as well. This was, of course, because of the AIDS epidemic. It is known that the AIDS virus is carried in bodily fluid. It has nothing to do with "air born" viruses.

Masks and gloves are strictly to make sure patients and health care providers do not have an exchange of blood, saliva or other bodily fluids in procedures.


If something is "air borne," intelligent folks know you need something like this;

iu

iu


Now stop already.
 
The cultural argument against masking is ludicrous enough.

But now the anti-maskers are trying to employ science, the very science they dismiss, to argue against this most minimal of efforts to assure public health and safety.

The question shouldn't argue porosity against individual virus cells. The question should be porosity versus water droplet size.

The virus is carried by exhaled water droplets, not individual virus cells.
 
The cultural argument against masking is ludicrous enough.

But now the anti-maskers are trying to employ science, the very science they dismiss, to argue against this most minimal of efforts to assure public health and safety.

The question shouldn't argue porosity against individual virus cells. The question should be porosity versus water droplet size.

The virus is carried by exhaled water droplets, not individual virus cells.
The opening post clearly addressed droplets, and it clearly discussed evasion. You are like clockwork, look:

"This is a really simple thread. All I want to see is the average mask pore or hole size, and the average size of the coronavirus. I'd like to see just those two figures, without any consideration for droplets, how masks work, propaganda that supports masks, or anything else. I realize that these two simple figures that I am requesting vary, so I'm looking for average figures. I'd like to be able to express these in a ratio.

If you need more information about why I am requesting these figures, it is because I suspect that nobody actually knows these figures, and that mask culture is purely faith based. I also suspect that maskers will be tempted to use n95 specs to support wearing cheap cloth masks and surgical masks. I also suspect that lefties will evade posting the figures I am requesting, and will only post about this second paragraph
 
The cultural argument against masking is ludicrous enough.

But now the anti-maskers are trying to employ science, the very science they dismiss, to argue against this most minimal of efforts to assure public health and safety.

The question shouldn't argue porosity against individual virus cells. The question should be porosity versus water droplet size.

The virus is carried by exhaled water droplets, not individual virus cells.
The opening post clearly addressed droplets, and it clearly discussed evasion. You are like clockwork, look:

"This is a really simple thread. All I want to see is the average mask pore or hole size, and the average size of the coronavirus. I'd like to see just those two figures, without any consideration for droplets, how masks work, propaganda that supports masks, or anything else. I realize that these two simple figures that I am requesting vary, so I'm looking for average figures. I'd like to be able to express these in a ratio.

If you need more information about why I am requesting these figures, it is because I suspect that nobody actually knows these figures, and that mask culture is purely faith based. I also suspect that maskers will be tempted to use n95 specs to support wearing cheap cloth masks and surgical masks. I also suspect that lefties will evade posting the figures I am requesting, and will only post about this second paragraph
The one and only respirator that could give you absolute protection from viral infection is a positive pressure air supplied full faced respirator, what OSHA categorizes as Level A respiratory protection.

Negative pressure half faced respirators fitted with true HEPATITIS filters will provide protection from airborne particles as small as .5 microns. Not adequate against anything as small as a bacterium, let alone a virus.
 
The cultural argument against masking is ludicrous enough.

But now the anti-maskers are trying to employ science, the very science they dismiss, to argue against this most minimal of efforts to assure public health and safety.

The question shouldn't argue porosity against individual virus cells. The question should be porosity versus water droplet size.

The virus is carried by exhaled water droplets, not individual virus cells.
The opening post clearly addressed droplets, and it clearly discussed evasion. You are like clockwork, look:

"This is a really simple thread. All I want to see is the average mask pore or hole size, and the average size of the coronavirus. I'd like to see just those two figures, without any consideration for droplets, how masks work, propaganda that supports masks, or anything else. I realize that these two simple figures that I am requesting vary, so I'm looking for average figures. I'd like to be able to express these in a ratio.

If you need more information about why I am requesting these figures, it is because I suspect that nobody actually knows these figures, and that mask culture is purely faith based. I also suspect that maskers will be tempted to use n95 specs to support wearing cheap cloth masks and surgical masks. I also suspect that lefties will evade posting the figures I am requesting, and will only post about this second paragraph
The one and only respirator that could give you absolute protection from viral infection is a positive pressure air supplied full faced respirator, what OSHA categorizes as Level A respiratory protection.

Negative pressure half faced respirators fitted with true HEPATITIS filters will provide protection from airborne particles as small as .5 microns. Not adequate against anything as small as a bacterium, let alone a virus.

Wrong!
This is not the size of mask pores and the size of viruses.
 
As we can see, lefties do not know how big the holes in masks are, in comparison to the virus. This is what I described in the opening post.

Mask culture is based upon faith.
 
This is a really simple thread. All I want to see is the average mask pore or hole size, and the average size of the coronavirus. I'd like to see just those two figures, without any consideration for droplets, how masks work, propaganda that supports masks, or anything else. I realize that these two simple figures that I am requesting vary, so I'm looking for average figures. I'd like to be able to express these in a ratio.

If you need more information about why I am requesting these figures, it is because I suspect that nobody actually knows these figures, and that mask culture is purely faith based. I also suspect that maskers will be tempted to use n95 specs to support wearing cheap cloth masks and surgical masks. I also suspect that lefties will evade posting the figures I am requesting, and will only post about this second paragraph.

I raised this point a year ago, myself.

If you can smell ANYTHING with your mask on. . . Coffee, food or even a fart. It aint protecting you from anything. Not especially, Covid-19 virus elements.
 

Forum List

Back
Top