Cuomo Caught Violating His Own Mask and Self-Quarantine Rules
Even as he imposed strict mask mandates and social distancing rules on his own constituents, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was recently seen in Georgia flouting them.
Cuomo also refused to self-quarantine upon his return to New York, even though he imposed strict self-quarantine rules for out-of-state visitors, saying that his status as an “essential worker” exempts him
Cuomo Caught Violating His Own Mask and Self-Quarantine Rules
Even as he imposed strict mask mandates and social distancing rules on his own constituents, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was recently seen in Georgia flouting them.
Cuomo also refused to self-quarantine upon his return to New York, even though he imposed strict self-quarantine rules for out-of-state visitors, saying that his status as an “essential worker” exempts him
"Fact check: No, N95 filters are not too large to stop COVID-19 particles"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/5343537002/
The claim: "N95 masks block few, if any" COVID-19 particles due to their size
As many states and communities ease restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the debate over mask usage has intensified.
Businesses, churches and governments have implemented all manner of policies — some requiring masks, some leaving it up to each person, some even banning masks. And that has spurred many armchair epidemiologists to weigh in, including a Facebook page with nearly 1 million followers.
A June 4 post from Why don’t you try this? went a step beyond the homemade mask debate to claim that even the N95 masks used by health care workers are pointless in the face of COVID-19.
“COVID 19 virus particle size is 125 nanometers (0.125 microns); the range is 0.06 microns to .14 microns,” the post said. “The N95 mask filters down to 0.3 microns. So, N95 masks block few, if any, virions (virus particles).”
In other words, the post asserts the virus is smaller than the filter on the N95 mask, so the N95 mask doesn’t work.
Experts say this claim flies in the face of numerous studies and reflects a failure to grasp fundamental principles of how viruses behave and how face masks work.
<figure class="gnt_em gnt_em_img" style="contain: content; display: flex; flex-flow: row wrap; clear: both; width: 660px; margin: 30px 0px; color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: "Georgia Pro", Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif; font-size: 18px;">
</figure>Here’s what we found.
Virus particles don’t exist alone
The science of mask functionality gets really small, really fast. The unit of measurement here is microns — 1/1000th of a millimeter.
The size-based argument against N95 laid out in this claim assumes mask filtering works something like water flowing through a net — particles in the water smaller than the net opening pass through, while larger items don’t.
But the physics involved don’t work like that at all.
The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.
“There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses.
<figure class="gnt_em gnt_em_img" style="contain: content; display: flex; flex-flow: row wrap; clear: both; width: 660px; margin: 30px 0px; color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: "Georgia Pro", Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif; font-size: 18px;">
</figure>The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.
“Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency,” said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection.
Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since “there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19,” said Patrick Remington, a former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Fact check: What's true and what's false about coronavirus?
Size matters, but not how you think
But that’s not the only logical flaw in this claim.
The N95 filter indeed is physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. The masks are actually best for particles either larger or smaller than that 0.3 micron threshold.
“N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3,” Marr said. “If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.”
N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns.
Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones noted by experts:
The first is something called “Brownian motion,” the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers.
Secondly, the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through.
“Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck,” said Professor Jiaxing Huang, a materials scientist at Northwestern University working to develop a new type of medical face mask. “When the charges are dissipated during usage or storage, the capability of stopping virus-sized particles diminishes. This is the main reason of not recommending the reuse of N95 masks.”
<aside aria-label="advertisement" class="gnt_m gnt_x gnt_x__lbl gnt_x__al" style="margin: 14px auto 32px; height: 408px; clear: both; color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: "Georgia Pro", Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif; font-size: 18px;">Our ruling: False
We rate this claim FALSE because it is not supported by our research. The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well.
Our fact-check sources:
Our fact-check sources:
</aside>
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/5343537002/
The claim: "N95 masks block few, if any" COVID-19 particles due to their size
As many states and communities ease restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the debate over mask usage has intensified.
Businesses, churches and governments have implemented all manner of policies — some requiring masks, some leaving it up to each person, some even banning masks. And that has spurred many armchair epidemiologists to weigh in, including a Facebook page with nearly 1 million followers.
A June 4 post from Why don’t you try this? went a step beyond the homemade mask debate to claim that even the N95 masks used by health care workers are pointless in the face of COVID-19.
“COVID 19 virus particle size is 125 nanometers (0.125 microns); the range is 0.06 microns to .14 microns,” the post said. “The N95 mask filters down to 0.3 microns. So, N95 masks block few, if any, virions (virus particles).”
In other words, the post asserts the virus is smaller than the filter on the N95 mask, so the N95 mask doesn’t work.
Experts say this claim flies in the face of numerous studies and reflects a failure to grasp fundamental principles of how viruses behave and how face masks work.
<figure class="gnt_em gnt_em_img" style="contain: content; display: flex; flex-flow: row wrap; clear: both; width: 660px; margin: 30px 0px; color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: "Georgia Pro", Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif; font-size: 18px;">
</figure>Here’s what we found.
Virus particles don’t exist alone
The science of mask functionality gets really small, really fast. The unit of measurement here is microns — 1/1000th of a millimeter.
The size-based argument against N95 laid out in this claim assumes mask filtering works something like water flowing through a net — particles in the water smaller than the net opening pass through, while larger items don’t.
But the physics involved don’t work like that at all.
The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.
“There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses.
<figure class="gnt_em gnt_em_img" style="contain: content; display: flex; flex-flow: row wrap; clear: both; width: 660px; margin: 30px 0px; color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: "Georgia Pro", Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif; font-size: 18px;">
</figure>The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.
“Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency,” said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection.
Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since “there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19,” said Patrick Remington, a former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Fact check: What's true and what's false about coronavirus?
Size matters, but not how you think
But that’s not the only logical flaw in this claim.
The N95 filter indeed is physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. The masks are actually best for particles either larger or smaller than that 0.3 micron threshold.
“N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3,” Marr said. “If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.”
N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns.
Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones noted by experts:
The first is something called “Brownian motion,” the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers.
Secondly, the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through.
“Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck,” said Professor Jiaxing Huang, a materials scientist at Northwestern University working to develop a new type of medical face mask. “When the charges are dissipated during usage or storage, the capability of stopping virus-sized particles diminishes. This is the main reason of not recommending the reuse of N95 masks.”
<aside aria-label="advertisement" class="gnt_m gnt_x gnt_x__lbl gnt_x__al" style="margin: 14px auto 32px; height: 408px; clear: both; color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: "Georgia Pro", Georgia, "Droid Serif", serif; font-size: 18px;">Our ruling: False
We rate this claim FALSE because it is not supported by our research. The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well.
Our fact-check sources:
Our fact-check sources:
- Interview with Patrick Remington, former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, June 9, 2020
- Interview with Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, June 9, 2020
- Email exchange with Lisa Brosseau, retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, June 9, 2020
- Email exchange with Jiaxing Huang, materials scientist at Northwestern University, June 9, 2020
- Email exchange with Bill Hanage, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, June 9, 2020
- Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data, April 1, 2020
- Email exchange with Nancy Leung, post-doctoral researcher in infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Hong Kong, June 9, 2020
- Email exchange with Yang Wang, assistant professor of civil, architectural and environmental engineering at the Missouri University of Science and Technology, June 9, 2020
</aside>
[FONT="]Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish. “Both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
[/FONT][FONT="]We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="]We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
[/FONT]
"[h=1]Anti-masking groups draw from anti-vaccination playbook to spread misinformation"[/h]
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...p-tied-to-anti-vaccination-covid-19-1.5661790
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...p-tied-to-anti-vaccination-covid-19-1.5661790
Not sure why window licker mango, ol beatitoff and xfly especially since they live in different countries want to be Russian trolls and spread false propaganda and believe the MSM that lies to them for years and years
I’m sure they are just miserable old men as one he stated
Touched on this earlier
"An N-95 mask filters out particulate matter larger than .3 microns. So the question then is how big is a COVID particle. A COVID particle is about .1 micron....this idea of people doing anything particularly useful w...a mask is just LOONEY TUNES." - Sen. Dr. Scott Jenson, M.D.
“From the New England Journal of Medicine on masks for COVID: "We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection."
“From the US Department of Labor, on surgical masks for COVID: "Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration."
From "Inside Surgery," a premier surgeon's journal, in 2009 during the swine flu outbreak, in an article titled "Standard Surgical Masks Do Not Protect Wearer From Getting Swine Flu." "For the prevention of transmission of swine flu this type of mask is ESSENTIALLY WORTHLESS.
“you believe COVID fatality numbers that Western govts & the mainstream media give you at face-value, you're not thinking at all. "Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19”
“The "droplet" argument for wearing masks is basically just uninformed. It's a nice idea until you look at the research & how porous masks are. "Surgical masks will NOT block aerosolized particles AS SMALL AS A DROPLET CONTAINING INFLUENZA VIRIONS."
“It's a serious problem to compare Asia w the West to justify masks. Asia & the West approach it completely differently. COVID is politicized in the West to ratchet up fear, justify lockdowns & as a left anti-Trump campaign. Asia wants to MINIMIZE it, even in just appearance.”
“China has given questionably low COVID numbers, while the US does the OPPOSITE. The West's (incl Europe) politics bleed into $$$. Western hospitals get paid MORE for COVID deaths. NOT in Asia. "COVID-19 had been incentivized."
Why “face mask don’t work” in Oral Health Journal: "Traditionally face masks have been recommended to protect...from the 'DROPLET' route of infection....[BUT] neither the filter performance nor the facial fit...qualify them as being devices which protect against respiratory infections."
“"Masks were INCAPABLE of filtering out 80-85% of particles varying in size from .3 to 2.0 (!) microns....the filter material of face masks does NOT retain or filter to viruses or other submicron particles.”
“The primary reason for mandating...face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are INCAPABLE of providing such....protection. Unless the CDC [et all] admit this, they will be GUILTY OF PERPETUATING A MYTH."
“Between 2004 & 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. All agree that the poor facial fit & limited filtration...of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles."
For Xfly. “The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety in 2016: "The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles [COVID-19 is .1 micron, thus a submicron]."
“Dr. Leonie Walker, Principal Researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization: "There are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection [against influenza]. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes."
“For those claiming N-95 offer more protection than surgical or other masks, there are studies & meta-studies (studies that compile MULTIPLE studies) that show that in fact, N-95 masks (which filter 95% of .3 microns+) are as helpless against viral-sized particles (.1 microns)”
The kicker and the slam dunk
Fauci “masks do not work” , “not effective” ,” goes thru mask”
Clueless, as usual:
"The surgical mask blocked about 60% of .03 micron particles and over 90% of 1 micron and 2.5 micron particles."
"in one study, researchers tested particles down to .007 microns (even smaller than viruses) and found that a simple surgical mask blocked 80%."
"... it’s downright surprising that surgical masks are just as effective [as N95 masks]! Maybe virus particles are actually easy to capture because they fly on water droplets.
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/n95-mask-surgical-prevent-transmission-coronavirus/?rel=1
