Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	What about people who MUST wear masks?
Date:	7/8/2020 9:27:18 AM (updated 7/8/2020 9:29:36 AM)

I was... year-after-year (1994 to retirement... required to maintain OSHA 1910.120 certification "Hazardous Waste Operator" at the Supervisor level.  10 CFR 1910.120 App B is the part of the federal regulation which deals with PPE (personal protection equipment).  Of special intent is to protect the wearer from substances based on "particle size."   https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.120AppB

The particle size of viruses ranges from .0016 to .01 microns.  In comparison, tobacco smoke is .013 to .19 microns.  Both of these fall in the "ultrafiltration" range. 

https://www.units-of-measure.com/2019/06/osmonics-filtration-spectrum-chart.html

To test our PPE masks, we were required to have a clear shaven face and the mask fitted and adjusted so that we could not smell smoke (if ultrafiltration). 

So... if you are concerned about corona virus put on your mask and have someone smoke a cigarette near you.  The question is: Can you smell the cigarette?

I refuse to be stampeded by the media, politicians, and various "experts."  Their messages are stressful, conflicted, confusing, inconsistent, and amorphous.  Remember this after the election in November.  Because the whole "virus message and behaviors" will change IMMEDIATELY after the election.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	New England Journal of Medicine
Date:	7/8/2020 10:17:55 AM

This is straight from the New England Journal of Medicine:

"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."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	New England Journal of Medicine
Date:	7/8/2020 10:45:27 AM

They don't pay any attention to esteemed medical publications.  I posted the exact same quote from NEJM on this forum 29 May 2020.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	New England Journal of Medicine
Date:	7/8/2020 10:57:47 AM

As did I later on along with other well qualified medical professionals that expressed skepticism about the efficacy of masks.  When people feel helpless and out of control they are very susceptible to accepting any advice or guidance, regardless of whether it helps or even makes sense, simply to reduce their anxiety. Couple this with people in government wanting to appear to be doing something, anything, and you get a recipe for stupid ideas like mandatory masks.  You have to examine what is driving them and for the govt it is to remain in power and increase their control over our lives.  There is no risk to them in going overboard or making useless recommendations or requirements for things like masks and only downside if they don't and things get worse.  It is why I admire Gov. Kemp or President Trump for having the courage to do what is right and follows the science rather than blindly following the herd.

I have said from the beginning that people should wear masks if it makes them feel better but to not get a false sense of security from them and be less diligent with the other measures that actually work.  I will wear them if I must but I will be even more dligent with the other measures because I know the sheeple wearing masks are likely not because they think they are being protected.  You can't fix that kind of stupid with facts, logic or reason.  And there are plenty of them out there because if there weren't there would be no Democrat party.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	New England Journal of Medicine
Date:	7/8/2020 12:26:15 PM (updated 7/8/2020 12:27:29 PM)

Agree with all of the above!  The standard comeback is that mark is NOT for wearer protection but to limit droplet dispersal so that wearer will not infect those around.  Theory holds that asympthomatic can spread, although that has morphed over the months.

In any event they say mask wearing is  show of humility so that we do not infect the vulnerable.   If the droplet submission theory is true then there may be merit.  And they have fancy chart to show.

That being said I have worn a mask twice.  Once to a conference room and for a medical procedure last week at UAB

Ps. I tested negative before the procedure.  Drive thru testing was a circus

Name:	PTClakefan -	Reply
Subject:	New England Journal of Medicine
Date:	7/8/2020 12:41:56 PM

It is simply not true that wearing a face mask provides little to no protection or benefit to the individual wearer.  When properly fitted and worn, a full face mask may prevent the wearer from being identified by surveillance and security cameras when rioting, looting or otherwise vandalizing property.