Coronavirus 2019-nCov: Political Thread

[dregn]

You missed the argument. The argument was that particles much larger than C19 escape the mask. It doesn’t matter whether or not they wet through the filter, they became airborne. If particles much larger than C19 are not stopped from exiting, then why is a mask effective?

This is specifically about Covid. Why were you not talking about Covid?

My point was only on the visualization of breath outside of the mask is not a valid test as to the effectiveness of the mask itself at filtering. It only demonstrates the locations where a gas can pass through. It is a good test to test the fit of your mask and shows a poor fit if the sublimation occurs around the perimeter of the mask. However it is likely that the water vapor exhaled was still gaseous when it passed by the perimeter and only sublimates to a liquid or ice crystal after hitting cold air outside of the mask.

[Atxshoxfan]

But there is really TONS of science that exists around this, and TONS more that is being done. We could really answer this question if we wanted to.

Do you have any idea when the global warming is started? I'm not positive myself, but have heard it was preached in the 50's.
I do think there is a lot of supposed scientific studies being done by universities that find evidence to support about any subject they are researching. This is created by senators doling out money to these science project, normally by sliding the funding into bills that have nothing to do with the subject.
If a university professor can't find evidence to support their study, they risk losing future federal funds. So they are going to find something, no matter how insignificant.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Aerosolized means it is transmitted without water droplets. It means that the particle is 0.1 um in size and is not stopped 95% of the time if you have a 0.3 um filter.

My dude... with all due respect... why must you persist? You are alone on an island. "Aerosolization" in the most strictest definition, in the context of disease transmission, is < 2 µm, and more commonly, < 5 µm.

I don't know if you use some different kind of air cleaner terminology, but EVERYTHING I have read indicates they are "droplets"... droplets made mostly of water. Perhaps in your case, particularly tonight, the droplets would be made mostly of whiskey. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosolization

Aerosolization is the process or act of converting some physical substance into the form of particles small and light enough to be carried on the air i.e. into an aerosol. Aerosolization refers to a process of intentionally oxidatively converting and suspending particles or a composition in a moving stream of air for the purpose of delivering the oxidized particles or composition to a particular location.^[1]

The term is often used in medicine to refer specifically to the production of airborne particles (e.g. tiny liquid droplets) containing infectious virus or bacteria. The infectious organism is said to be aerosolized. This can occur when an infected individual coughs,^[2] sneezes^[3] exhales,^[4] or vomits,^[5] but can also arise from flushing a toilet,^[6] or disturbing dried contaminated feces.^[7] Aerosolization becomes critical in cases of Coronavirus and Pneumonic plague because of the high lethality of these diseases and human-to-human transmission disease vector.

Treatment of some respiratory diseases relies on aerosolization of a liquid medication using a nebulizer, which is then breathed in for direct transport to the lungs.

In the context of chemical and biological weapons, aerosolization is a means of dispersing a chemical or biological agent in an attack. See for example "Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon".^[8]

https://first10em.com/aerosols-droplets-and-airborne-spread/

I have to say, I didn’t expect this to be such a complicated question to answer. There is actually a pretty heated academic debate, centering around desiccation rates and the formulas for turbulent flow, such that it seems that no one really agrees on an exact definition. You will see some pretty definitive definitions in some sources, but that definition will invariably be refuted in the next paper you encounter. In general, aerosols are liquid or solid particles suspended in air. (Tellier 2009; Judson 2019) They can be visible, like fog, but are most often invisible, like dust or pollen.

They are often divided into small droplets (and many, but not all, people reserve the term “aerosol” to refer only to these small droplets) and large droplets. Large droplets drop to the ground before they evaporate, causing local contamination. Disease transmission through these large droplets is what we often refer to as “droplet/contact spread”, where disease transmission occurs because you touch a surface contaminated by these droplets, or get caught within the spray zone when the patient is coughing. Aerosols are so small that buoyant forces overcome gravity, allowing them to say suspended in the air for long periods, or they evaporate before they hit the floor, leaving the solid particulate (“droplet nuclei”) free to float very long distances, causing what we often refer to as “airborne” transmission. (Nicas 2005; Judson 2019)

Respiratory aerosols are created when air passes over a layer of fluid. (Fiegel 2006; Morawska 2006) There are a large number of factors that can alter this process. The viscosity of the fluid layer is an important determinant of aerosol generation, and could be a very important practical consideration in medicine. Increases in surfactant increase overall droplet formation, and produce smaller droplets (which will travel farther). (Fiegel 2006) This could be an important consideration, as some people are discussing the use of surfactant to manage COVID-19 lung disease. Conversely, nebulized saline has been shown to decrease the number of bio-aerosols produced, and has been suggested as a possible (but unproven) infection control strategy. (Fiegel 2006)

In the world of aerosols, there seems to be two main points of contention. The first is the size cutoff between large and small droplets. Various sources will put the cutoff at 2 µm, 5 µm, 10 µm, 20 µm, or even 100 µm. (Judson 2019; Morawska 2006; Fiegel 2006; Xie 2007; Chen 2010; Nicas 2005; Tellier 2009) This is a key distinction, because it is the difference between airborne and droplet precautions. Many papers make definitive statements based on one of the cutoffs that would be incorrect if a different cutoff was used. (For example, Morawska 2006 states that droplets smaller than 100 µm, which is almost all droplets, will evaporate before hitting the floor, meaning that they can transmit disease through the airborne route, while other documents will use 5 µm as the cutoff.) There is probably a grey area in which droplets can behave either way, depending on how quickly they evaporate compared to how quickly they fall to the ground based on the atmospheric conditions of the room.

The second main point of contention is exactly how clean the distinction between airborne and droplet transmission is. Some sources treat this as black and white, but others point out that large droplets evaporate and become smaller, and most activities create a very large variety of sizes, so it is more like a spectrum than a dichotomous distinction. A lot of epidemiologic studies will make strong claims that a disease is only spread by close contact, but we have to remember, those studies cannot possibly distinguish between short distance aerosol transmission (I caught it while breathing a few feet away from you) and contact transmission (I touched the door handle and then rubbed my eye.) Too often, if you were close together, studies will just assume it was contact instead of aerosol spread, biasing the literature in that direction.

[SB Shock]

It's called deferring to experts. It's how we learn.

I am a scientist, therefore you must defer to me. So just quit talking and listen.

[C0|dB|00ded]

It doesn’t have to go through the mask if it goes around it. Wouldn’t you agree?

[wufan]

My point was only on the visualization of breath outside of the mask is not a valid test as to the effectiveness of the mask itself at filtering. It only demonstrates the locations where a gas can pass through. It is a good test to test the fit of your mask and shows a poor fit if the sublimation occurs around the perimeter of the mask. However it is likely that the water vapor exhaled was still gaseous when it passed by the perimeter and only sublimates to a liquid or ice crystal after hitting cold air outside of the mask.

Okay. Good point.

[C0|dB|00ded]

All this argument about the effectiveness of masks are fruitless. Everyone has made up their mind.
Cold, I appreciate your your thoughts of wearing a mask for me, as you stated, but please don't bother , as I won't do the same for you.
So you best stay locked away somewhere safe. I prefer to live with the risk.

There's no argument about masks, only education. It just appears to you like an argument because you're deluded/uninformed.

Your proclamation of willful noncompliance in the face of a real threat affecting millions of Americans is a chilling display of selfishness and sociopathy. I hope for your sake that you don't have to learn a very difficult lesson like many before you already have.

Your actions affect others.

[wufan]

Do you have any idea when the global warming is started? I'm not positive myself, but have heard it was preached in the 50's.
I do think there is a lot of supposed scientific studies being done by universities that find evidence to support about any subject they are researching. This is created by senators doling out money to these science project, normally by sliding the funding into bills that have nothing to do with the subject.
If a university professor can't find evidence to support their study, they risk losing future federal funds. So they are going to find something, no matter how insignificant.

What?

[wufan]

My dude... with all due respect... why must you persist? You are alone on an island. "Aerosolization" in the most strictest definition, in the context of disease transmission, is < 2 µm, and more commonly, < 5 µm.

I don't know if you use some different kind of air cleaner terminology, but EVERYTHING I have read indicates they are "droplets"... droplets made mostly of water. Perhaps in your case, particularly tonight, the droplets would be made mostly of whiskey. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosolization

https://first10em.com/aerosols-droplets-and-airborne-spread/

Yes, even aerosalization is a debated topic. I defined what I meant by it. The vector by which the particle travels is important to the efficacy of masks. The water droplets are of appropriate size to be filtered. The virus is not demonstrated to be so. That is the discussion, and is being debated and studied.

[C0|dB|00ded]

One other thing that that would lead you to believe that it travels outside of water vapor that no one is talking about. The virus is killed by UV light. If the virus is entrapped in water vapor, UV light should be refracted and shouldn’t damage the virus. The fact that it does in the presence of UV suggests it travels outside of a liquid vector.

Holy Moly! What a softball. Studies have been clear that Covid viral DNA can be destroyed by UV light but only after a period of time, and that time varies. Why do you think this is so? Perhaps in order for desiccation to occur? I'm speaking specifically in the context of fomites.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Yes, even aerosalization is a debated topic. I defined what I meant by it. The vector by which the particle travels is important to the efficacy of masks. The water droplets are of appropriate size to be filtered. The virus is not demonstrated to be so. That is the discussion, and is being debated and studied.

These debates you're having... do they have any application to the real world?

The virus replicates in humans, humans spread the virus via respiratory droplets of varying size. Perhaps if you inserted some viral particles inside a robot and then had it simulate a cough sending the little devils flying wearing only their lipid membranes for protection... that would be a thing. And it would be a very unrealistic thing.

In the real world, a properly fitted N95 mask is going to offer substantial protection from infection... 95% to be exact.

Good night to you sir. Kiss your wife and my kids before you pass out okay?

[1979Shocker]

WHO investigation into COVID-19's origin says lab incident 'extremely unlikely' - CNET

[Shockm]

WHO investigation into COVID-19's origin says lab incident 'extremely unlikely' - CNET

Anyone who listens to WHO, who is in the pocket of the CCP, is not credible. The politics at the top of that organization is as swampy as DC.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mike-pompeo-evidence-coronavirus-originated-china-lab

[ShockerFever]

So Fauci says mask-wearing will cease when infection rates drop to around zero. Is that even possible? Well of course it’s not. It’s a damn virus.

Are we now gonna go about living in a world where it’s either zero risk or nothing? Cuz I can tell you there’s a lot more riskier activities out there that pose a much bigger risk than covid and we still live our lives with them.

This zero infection thing or bust is hilarious now. And it’s why once people get the vaccine, they’re gonna say eff it.

[wufan]

These debates you're having... do they have any application to the real world?

The virus replicates in humans, humans spread the virus via respiratory droplets of varying size. Perhaps if you inserted some viral particles inside a robot and then had it simulate a cough sending the little devils flying wearing only their lipid membranes for protection... that would be a thing. And it would be a very unrealistic thing.

In the real world, a properly fitted N95 mask is going to offer substantial protection from infection... 95% to be exact.

Good night to you sir. Kiss your wife and my kids before you pass out okay?

Yes. It’s central to the effectiveness of masking.