@NullVoid733 @BenK_Data @danitasteinberg Do you agree that viral infection is dependent on viral load? https://t.co/50vsjOnhlU Do you agree that masks filter viral particles? https://t.co/SICAxF4R42
@BenK_Data @BiTurbo290bhp @danitasteinberg The math? Your over simplified formula and assumptions? lol, k. Except your 20% efficiency is bs. https://t.co/SICAxF4R42
@Sam3352 Here’s the next one cited in the thread, which compared different types of mask fabrics (not N95s) https://t.co/YJFoF3VkQD https://t.co/uQwnr9tfzr
@VirusSmThanHole @RagToo We knew they were effective way before Covid-19 came around. Nothing changed. https://t.co/cyYD5ORswx https://t.co/YaLpvUlqfi https://t.co/FZHVCCaVvT https://t.co/wOwaiQn9Yz https://t.co/CuqzAXkpt3 https://t.co/p1UjSPnPVO ht
@Seph_Nagatman @MixtUpMixy @floofadootz This paper talks about cloth masks but the efficiency is much better with n95s. And the mechanisms are the same. Namely brownian motion and elecrostatic attraction. https://t.co/wIzleSvMit https://t.co/p4DhAJOlyD
@booyah2yah @ianmSC @targettories @ScholerinED performance is higher in the lab than it would be expected to be for use in the real world. For example: https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ https://t.co/G2UzIQ9MR2 https://t.co/to9EM1u4uL https://t.co/vJSp1swPOb ht
@OpticalMagician @ThatDudesMother @JohnKleinRegina @KayleWarkentin @barniefh1999 @trainwithtish 1) see link below 2) the gentleman died of Covid https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@JefferysSteven @Julxxx0 @TalionJustice79 @Majick666 @gator_gum Pre Covid study so completely objective https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@Vasserbee @jessyroos @steadybacon1 N95s are certified based on testing of 300nm particles. When tested against particles/aerosols in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses, they perform poorly, even under ideal conditions in labs (clamped to a te
@JuliaHB1 @thatsnotmine125 Did you really, or did you just look for information to confirm your bias Here read this https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@VPrasadMDMPH @AdeAdamson Source of picture... https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ
@AnnadeBuisseret @juanlibre1950 This one states otherwise https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@AnnadeBuisseret Yes the masks do work, the research backs it. The PCR is accurate, & you are more likely to be struck by lightning than affected by a vaccine. Back to your old ways of spouting total & utter bollocks https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@JamesR40889022 @DrNice2022 @NB9058343185701 @kevinnbass @JosephWarren999 Your screenshots are definitely facts https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@katariinatwi @caritarauha Jo alussa '20-'21 VTT:n tutkija Ari Harlin selitti sitä tv:ssä. Ja kansakin saattoi hätävarana tehdä itse vastaavan jos yhdisti eri aineita, esim. puuvilla+sifonki: https://t.co/tlESHceFtq https://t.co/jacdaoDy7z
@SorenUchiha @msabouri @Rabelais1492 @kevinnbass List the paper here, seems to contradict this study https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@LegalizeItLala_ @katieappleseed7 Hi Lauren, since you clearly don’t have mental illness, can you provide your evidence- because your claim goes against actual studies https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@MRSHL0 @324cat https://t.co/mDxyB71ukB Li he respost això a una dels teus comentaris que m'atacava. "there is limited knowledge available on the performance of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks". Insisteixo, no critico dogmes de fe
@Raquel12264270 @MRSHL0 @324cat Quins estudis científics? Una FPP2 és suficient per aturar un virus? Té, un exemple: https://t.co/5bBEiAoG28 "there is limited knowledge available on the performance of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth mask
@GerardoRiordan8 @turdsley @teachertwit2 @LongCovidHell 'reduce' and 'eliminate' do not mean the same thing. They do reduce transmission, but not as well. High thread count cotton cloth masks do a pretty good job. Here's a study https://t.co/cBRj1V0oTl
@Pablo_1791 @ma2eight_b @JeromeAdamsMD Here’s an article from April 2020. States that there were “a few” studies on cloth masks, mostly around 2009. Not 20 years ago. Do you get that almost nothing in healthcare or science is 100%? https://t.co/3Zfi6J1W
@thehealthb0t And another https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@ANTlWEF But then mask work very well https://t.co/eM4BLoHh7X
@juliettemorin45 @KatteLeah Un masque de procédures ne sert pas à se protéger contre un virus Il sert à protéger les autres si vous avez des symptômes C'est pas pour vous le masque, mais pour les autres https://t.co/SKroxOvEui
@trutharmyfilms Masks do work, time to read actual research rather than something someone else posted on twitter https://t.co/eM4BLoHh7X
@ghhughes @mkarolian @TaylorLorenz @amazon @masknerd @CriticalAerosol I had some of these made and used them when supplies were tight on everything else. Never had the ability to test them formally but I didn't get covid 🤷 https://t.co/YuQ5cCnfTF
@FusionProgGuy @DirtyBalls1350 @MsJulieSLam @Uber @TogetherWeMask That's false. It's well-known that the MPPS for N95s is lower than 0.3 microns and rather in the relevant range for respiratory viruses. https://t.co/6Iy57A2xVG https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ http
@julie4butte5 @ValZimmer2 Research states otherwise https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@Davc2663882792 @Patrickdery Why do you lie? https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@BigKazy8_50 @Patrickdery Do you actually have a link? Or just trust me bro? Because this precious study is objective and disproves your claim https://t.co/JJZier2hTl
@crosscheck93441 Why is it only antivaxers abd antimaskers that call masks useless? This study predates Covid so it is objective. https://t.co/JJZier2hTl
@IfuekoNadine https://t.co/b0GghKYyue 🙋🏻♀️🙋🏻♀️🙋🏻♀️ After much R&D have found this layering best from face➡️outer layers silk twill, poly chiffon, satin chiffon, cotton canvas & 2 layers satin chiffon on top I make complicated stuff but this mas
@vnorian @BohemianAtmosp1 Where’s your proof ? Oh that’s right…. None https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@kristenmag @Magic14272090 Any link to theses studies? This one predates Covid so objective in terms of recent mask “debates” https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@Lawrence_505 @TwoBitWhackJob @rorivas8 @MumsyNancy @kristenmag @RoomHelper @GrantAcosta5 Anything to back up your lie? https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@suzy_redd @catfish8888 And with that we see you are basically an idiot. Despite the evidence you think you know better, but you don’t. All this is doing is showing your ignorance on this matter. https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@KLVeritas But they do work & you’re just some grifting kook that should have all accreditation removed https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@Nahanchi7068 @CPCDouches @IanCopeland5 Funny how you avoid answering such a simple question and funny how you do t offer any proof of your claim and funny how this study pre Covid negates your claim https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@kristenmag Odd the research on masks say otherwise, but don’t let facts get in the way of your BS https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@Libby_115 @gator_gum @ryangerritsen Libby let me guess you saw that online? https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@BohemianAtmosp1 Right. Conveniently you fail to provide any facts to your BS https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@Rod__Mason @paulvmarks Ah there’s the level of stupidity we have come to expect from conspiracy fools. They can’t form a valid argument so resort to other unfounded BS. https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@JoeClemente1 @stkirsch It obviously offends as why mention it. As for critical thinking, you really don’t have the skill set as seen by your post. How do you know what their status is or any comorbidities they may have. Or simply you fail to understand h
@svemirsko_jaje @Branka0505050 @Serbona2 i medicini to primetili. Ne možete baš da žustro pričate jer se zagreva taj predeo ali to je to. Disanje je slobodno. 1. Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics https://t.co/grr75SbPAS 2.Modes of transmissi
@UnMaskd_Truth @MartMichaelis @yaneerbaryam Here is the study you failed to link to: https://t.co/B5Hw3Ecw2K
@beverleyturner @surfdoctor @thewhitecompany Are you looking for evidence like this https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
@yeahnaa333 @N1otAnotherName @ID_Denmark @yaneerbaryam Screenshots from: https://t.co/6Iy57A2xVG And: https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ Some other sources: https://t.co/L2MAFlpcpr https://t.co/8y7zYmXS0u https://t.co/vJSp1swPOb https://t.co/to9EM1u4uL 2/2
@CovidConfusion That's the story, but the actual science shows they aren't effective against respiratory viruses - every single RCT on N95s has failed to find any effect. Even clamped to a test tube in a lab for a few minutes they don't work in the nano (
@LRMC_C @shawneriksmith @anon_welsh @DocAhmadMalik Sweetie I referenced multiple global countries in there, not just Japan. Wow you are narrow minded. And here, knock yourself out https://t.co/JJZier1K3N
@DJJonnyTravieso Oh you haven't seen any of the lab studies that use equipment that can measure particles/aerosols in the relevant range for airborne viruses? Are you going to see if you can find opinion pieces to refute them?! https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ He
@JJJJenniferrrr2 @ianmSC Actually, I did. https://t.co/KWd2agIwtw
@LoonaOT124ever @sameo416 That's the only study I've seen that doesn't give any setup/measurement specifics... no info about what size particles they use or what filtration is at different size ranges! Based on the commentary, it appears they measure only
@canadastrong @DrJ56013122 @RachelEph77 @deonandan Nope, not flawed at all. Results are similar for N95s clamped to a test tube using NaCl aerosols. Did you know that N95s are tested using 300nm aerosols and that in studies when they are tested on smaller
@DrEricDing Masks (even N95s clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a lab) don't block fine aerosols/particles in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses (<300nm)... That's why in all of the highest quality studies (RCTs) they fail every
@3DiMMUNE @jljcolorado Well, the actual science shows that masks (even N95s clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a lab) don't block fine aerosols/particles in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses (<300nm)... https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ h
@fritsander @jljcolorado Well the actual science shows that masks (even N95s clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a lab) don't block fine aerosols/particles in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses (<300nm)... https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ
@ProfEmer @jljcolorado Well the actual science shows that masks (even N95s clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a lab) don't block fine aerosols/particles in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses (<300nm)... https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ ht
@ghhughes @jljcolorado Except the actual science shows that masks (even N95s clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a lab) don't block fine aerosols/particles in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses (<300nm)... https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ
@DrEricDing @ABridgen @jljcolorado Except the actual science shows that masks (even N95s clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a lab) don't block fine aerosols/particles in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses (<300nm)... https://t.co
@jljcolorado Except the actual science shows that masks (even N95s clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a lab) don't block fine aerosols/particles in the relevant size range for respiratory viruses (<300nm)... https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ https://t.
@RichardWWard1 @ID_Denmark @greg_travis https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ The issue is that the claim that the MPPS is 300nm is based on instruments that don't properly/accurately measure particles/aerosols <300nm.
@UnMaskd_Truth @SeattleiteLeo @willcollier Also, Fig 4A => ↑ efficiency of fabrics (no gaps) and authors say "Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection aga
@JamestNichols @SeattleiteLeo They simply don't measure particles < 300nm and claim that is the MPPS. https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ https://t.co/kghW6uq1Rw
@ID_Denmark @granit29 @SeattleiteLeo It really doesn't make sense for anyone, once you realise that even N95s (clamped to a test tube for a few minutes in a laboratory environment) don't block smaller aerosols... https://t.co/MY4vUHwxNQ https://t.co/6NcY1
High thread count = tighter weave, less porous! Interesting! :)
@EbonyJHilton_MD @projectn95 I'm not scientifically educated enough to know if this article proves that high thread count cotton 3 layer masks are as good as N95 but I think it might be saying so: https://t.co/cBRj1V0oTl
Seems a good time to repost this: https://t.co/KeR4anYHvO
@ratmanbeef @19joho Physics. https://t.co/SICAxF4R42
@ColinDebunks @FLSurgeonGen this study (below) used a separate technology for that range & found that far more than 5% of particles in some of these lower size ranges penetrated the N95, even under lab conditions (a new/clean/dry mask clamped to a test
@Sarahjanecares @Silver_Lining76 @Paul38722059 @aftab_usa That's a propaganda video. It's based on the theory that 300nm is the MPPS for N95s (which is based on limitations of the equipment typically used to measure particle penetration) and other theories
@KristenMeghan @JDVance1 Did you see this study? It's dated 2020, but I hadn't seen it. It seems to show N95s (clamped to a tube in a lab) let through a significant proportion of particles <300nm (weighted ave FE 85% in this range, but goes much lower)
@DanCoop33206515 @patgotweet @ThomasPaineBand @RandPaul Scientists change their views based on the latest data. Coronaviruses were studied in bats at Wuhan by Shi Zenghli. Natural immunity mimics the vaccine, as both start waning around 6 months. Masks wo
@ClayTravis @CNN One study out of many doesn't prove anything. https://t.co/cdGDxv2sIY https://t.co/eJjypz6X3U https://t.co/qPfLNaw2PN https://t.co/qaiao6aZEE https://t.co/rQxa1zrarE
@Shimmering777 @stkirsch If you layer silk with cotton (both tightly woven), you can get a mask with a static charge that has comparable effectiveness to N95s (assuming very good fit). Very early on when supplies were tight, I had some homemade masks like
@toddmodem @DrEliDavid No, you need to wake up, comparing the virus size is useless as masks work by trapping the droplets and particles that are contaminated with the virus, not free floating virus. That masks can stop aerosols and droplets are well resea
@DanishScience @AmiriKing @pettypodcast1 Aerosols are also filtered by masks: https://t.co/xhvmisXPMz
@DanishScience @AmiriKing This study shows that the fabric also protects against aerosols as well as droplets. https://t.co/xhvmisXPMz
@DanishScience @AmiriKing Here's a study that shows that mask fabric stops droplets and aerosols in the air that may contain virus. https://t.co/xhvmisXPMz
@kidrangeree @Wulden83 Here is a study done on the effectiveness of cloth masks. https://t.co/z2jO54TAUz
@VPrasadMDMPH In case anyone reading this thread isn’t a moron. https://t.co/0e0s79k15l https://t.co/cGJkR3eRD4 https://t.co/pJxaRGw0H5 https://t.co/1eqs4Yi4cw https://t.co/XtGOmkSgFp https://t.co/G2z7jrAM4A https://t.co/mqijAdkn7m
RT @Emily_Burns_V: 7/ This is why N-95’s are fit-tested, b/c they offer virtually NO protection with even a 1% gap—as noted in this paper…
RT @Emily_Burns_V: 7/ This is why N-95’s are fit-tested, b/c they offer virtually NO protection with even a 1% gap—as noted in this paper…
@ianmSC @CollignonPeter Odd that actual research disagrees with your opinion https://t.co/eM4BLoGJip
RT @Emily_Burns_V: 7/ This is why N-95’s are fit-tested, b/c they offer virtually NO protection with even a 1% gap—as noted in this paper…
@kevinnbass @TheAnibalArauz Two things 1. this is about surgical masks, not N95. You need electrostatic filtration for a mask to be effective. Not all materials are the same. See https://t.co/m7HelmsVnU 2. The adverse effects are equivalent to an unfit per
RT @AbsintheMindKC: @DACDAC4DAC @To_Be_Benji If masks are totally ineffective then how did all these peer reviewed studies get published?…
Haha, he has no idea.
@JuliaHB1 @TonneTwo @anothermarcusa "Utterly Pointless" "the evidence is clear" "does bugger all". Sorry but your credibility is non existent. https://t.co/mV7VNUdumJ