Thread by @mamasaurusMeg, Sneezes are plosive events that send airborne Covid up to 10m in [...]

Sneezes are plosive events that send airborne Covid up to 10m in range.
Why do we sneeze, and do sneezes in masks exacerbate airborne spread?
Let’s discuss fiber friability as a catalyst.
A sneeze thread

@jhaskinscabrera
@crislerwyo @andrewbostom
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1753465809340571

First, the fibers themselves. Here, we see the longterm detriment that mask fiber friability causes, but short-term, these rogue fibers act as irritants increasing likelihood of sneezes in nasal irritation, and coughing in respiratory tract.

https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part1/

2/

So the masks, which filter exhale at 4 μm or greater, not only do not block the Covid particulates at .06-1.4 μm, but pressurize exhale of smaller particulates that don’t respond predictably to gravity within respiratory range, increasing atmospheric viral load.
Confused?
3/

Think of plosive force like a party blowout (never knew the name of those thingies).
The pressure has to escape somewhere, and when it does, it can only release particles small enough to get through the filter to begin with.
4/

If only the larger particles are blocked, you’d then assume you’re only releasing particulates small enough to fit through the filter, eh?
Ah, but that is when forced filtration comes into the equation.
Pressurization dismantles larger particulates
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083.full

5/

Think of mask fibers like a flour sifter, only with the flour clumps being thrown at the sieve with greater velocity. Did you block anything?
Possibly at first, but respiration isn’t exactly a one and done activity now, is it?
As you continue to breathe/sneeze/cough in one..
6/

You’re only increasing the likelihood of those particulates being sent aloft. But are you wearing one for personal protection? Begin looking closer at the masked hoards themselves. What do you see here?
Do you see a single N95 or higher grade respirator plus eye protection?
7/

I don’t.
How about test sites? Surely, the folks in close contact with our most vulnerable would wear exhale filtering respirators, since they’re the most likely people to come into contact with contagion, right?
Ha!
Here’s one in Florida.
But what are you seeing, truly?
8/

Add these two photos together and what do you get?
Solely particles within the Covid range exhaled right into that car.

Still think @CDCgov is doing their homework?

But proximity in other areas like airplanes show lower rates of exposure. Why? This is be critical, right?

9/

UV kills viral matter. Where do you go in a plane? Oh that’s right... up in the sky, where you’re exposed to far higher rates of UV within the cabin, which fully circulates air in 3-4 mins.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476387/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7319933/
10/

The Risk of Melanoma in Pilots and Cabin Crew: UV Measurements in Flying Airplanes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4476387/

So sure, they’re in close proximity, but there are multiple atmospheric mitigation tools in place that make them different than say, nasty public restroom air.

Good time to talk about

fecal/oral

transmission and masks?
11/

Oooh you nasty if you’re wearing a mask in a public restroom. Why?

When you flush, all of that nastiness averaging is sent aloft in a plume, while you’re breathing through a porous petri dish, accumulating matter within flush range.

https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-018-0301-9

12/

Bioaerosol concentrations generated from toilet flushing in a hospital-based patient care setting

In the United States, 1.7 million immunocompromised patients contract a healthcare-associated infection, annually. These infections increase morbidity, mortality and costs of care. A relatively...

https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-018-0301-9

It’s not as if the pathogens that accumulate on your mask up and disappear.
They go forth and multiply, creating an excellent transmission route for all of that complete and total nastiness

right in front of oral/nasal mucosa. Including

https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part2/

13/

So let’s regroup.
.06-1.4 μm is not only not blocked by 4 μm openings, so you wearing a mask doesn’t protect others and aerosolizes larger particles.
The masks break down and you inhale the fibers, increasing likelihood of sneezes/disease.
So what the heck do we do next?
14/

It ain’t rocket science.

This addresses our failures in airborne contagion mitigation, what to do differently in order to protect our most vulnerable while restoring free will, as well as which laws are being violated.
https://rationalground.com/a-rational-reopening-guide/
#RationalGround
15/

A Rational Reopening Guide

Megan Mansell offers a framework for operating any facility or business during COVID.

https://rationalground.com/a-rational-reopening-guide/

How to fully reopen schools with methods that accommodate all learners:
https://rationalground.com/using-the-bubble-isolate-concept-to-reopen-schools-without-universal-masking/

On people forced to live in extended isolation and die alone without family, surrounded by masked strangers:
https://rationalground.com/a-dying-shame/
16/

Using the bubble isolate concept to reopen schools without universal masking

Megan Mansell offers a proposal for isolating those who are worried about COVID infection at school while allowing the rest to resume normal activities.

https://rationalground.com/using-the-bubble-isolate-concept-to-reopen-schools-without-universal-masking/

A takedown of a ludicrous CDC brief:
https://rationalground.com/cdcs-sloppy-scientific-brief-adds-nothing-to-the-evidence-for-masks/

17/

CDC’s sloppy “Scientific Brief” adds nothing to the evidence for masks

Megan Mansell breaks down the CDC Scientific Brief on “Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2”

https://rationalground.com/cdcs-sloppy-scientific-brief-adds-nothing-to-the-evidence-for-masks/

Still think masks are saving you?

How about our unborn children?

Stillbirth rates are up fourfold in mask-happy England. Between extended deoxygenation and heightened CO2 exposure (levels over meter capacity within 90 seconds), can you guess why?

https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part3/

18/

On the caste system we are creating for our essential workers and their children, including the unborn children of workers forced to mask for entire shifts in deoxygenating apparatuses that can lead to fetal death and disability:
https://rationalground.com/justice-is-essential/
19/

Justice is Essential

Megan Mansell writes that justice under ADA law has been denied to pregnant women, babies, children, and anyone who is unable to wear a mask.

https://rationalground.com/justice-is-essential/

If you have read all of this including all links and still feel masks are the answer, I’ll leave you with a few more details.
Surgical masks are expressly not for airborne contagion mitigation per OSHA, yet our govt hands them out to people who think they’re safe.
20/

Cloth masks are expressly non-PPE under OSHA, expressly not for airborne contagion mitigation, and have no production standards to assert that any two are alike, and therefore have no percentage efficacy - but there are higher grade respirators that do.
21/

The absolute barebones minimum for personal protection is N95 or higher grade respirators + eyecover. That looks like this. But remember, on exhale, it looks like the second photo. How many people do you see meeting the bare minimum?
This only translates to about 80% efficacy.

Or you could just stay home if you’re sick and stop being a ding dong to others in public spaces for daring to be so bold as to have a horrible, disgusting, terrifyingly naked face.
The end. Happy New Year.

23/

Latest Threads Unrolled: