it's about science. as in, published results in the top-reputed scientific journals in the world.
Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols12. Both the previous and current study used a bioaerosol collecting device, the Gesundheit-II (G-II)12,15,19, to capture exhaled breath particles and differentiated them into two size fractions, where exhaled breath coarse particles >5 μm (respiratory droplets) were collected by impaction with a 5-μm slit inertial Teflon impactor and the remaining fine particles ≤5 μm (aerosols) were collected by condensation in buffer. We also demonstrated the efficacy of surgical masks to reduce coronavirus detection and viral copies in large respiratory droplets and in aerosols (Table 1b). This has important implications for control of COVID-19, suggesting that surgical face masks could be used by ill people to reduce onward transmission.
Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols, whereas for rhinovirus we detected virus in aerosols in 19 of 34 (56%) participants (compared to 4 of 10 (40%) for coronavirus and 8 of 23 (35%) for influenza). For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low (Fig. 1). Given the high collection efficiency of the G-II (ref. 19) and given that each exhaled breath collection was conducted for 30 min, this might imply that prolonged close contact would be required for transmission to occur, even if transmission was primarily via aerosols, as has been described for rhinovirus colds20. Our results also indicate that there could be considerable heterogeneity in contagiousness of individuals with coronavirus and influenza virus infections.
ehm, cute, but also very very dumb. 2 years have passed. you were advocating for 'let her rip' in a pre-vaccine era, without any hospital treatments, any antiviral medicine, and with a much more dangerous epidemiological situation (novel pathogen, totally unexposed populations, exponential spread and linear correlated exponential death).I will say that it's nice to see you come around to the position I was in nearly two years ago. Protect the old and the sick and move on with our lives.
we decoupled serious illness and death in the general population when we invented highly effective vaccines. from that point on, yes, it was only the elderly and especially immunocompromised who were still at particular risk. VERY different to your proposal.
nice to know you're still thick as plank and wrap yourself in the raiments of sage wisdom.
Last edited by uziq (2022-01-15 12:32:45)