https://reason.com/2021/11/09/the-cdcs-director-implies-that-face-masks-are-more-effective-than-vaccines-at-preventing-covid-19-infection/

The CDC’s Director Implies That Face Masks Are More Effective Than Vaccines at Preventing COVID-19 Infection

Rochelle Walensky seems to be relying on a laboratory study that did not measure infection risk.

| 

Are face masks more effective than vaccination at preventing COVID-19 infection? That is the implication of a new public service announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) featuring Rochelle Walensky, the agency’s director.

“The evidence is clear,” Walensky says in the 37-second video, which she posted on Twitter last Friday. “Masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 by reducing your chance of infection by more than 80 percent, whether it’s an infection from the flu, from the coronavirus, or even just the common cold. In combination with other steps like getting your vaccination, hand washing, and keeping physical distance, wearing your mask is an important step you can take to keep us all healthy.”

If wearing a mask reduced your risk of infection by “more than 80 percent,” as Walensky seems to be saying, that safeguard would be amazingly effective. Such a risk reduction would be higher than the effectiveness rates found in several real-world studies of mRNA vaccines. (See link for article)

________________

**UPDATE, Nov. 24, 2021**

Watch a series of brief videos where Tyson Gabriel, an industrial hygienist, safety engineer, and risk manager who trains doctors and has 20 years of experience implementing exposure prevention plans in industry, and is lead researcher for his team, examined each mask study on the CDC’s website.  Also see these reports.

Once again our corrupt public health ‘authorities’ are convoluting data.

  • The author asked the CDC about this claim. When they finally responded, they did not cite any specific research to back it up and essentially gave boilerplate advice
  • It appears Walensky is relying on a laboratory study that was reported in the journal Science Advances last September where researchers used a camera to record laser-illuminated respiratory droplets from speakers wearing 14 different types of face masks which found:
    • valveless N95 mask was 99.9 percent effective at retaining “droplet sizes larger than 0.5 μm” (the estimated detection limit) Please listen to a N95 developer explain the reason your glasses fog up wearing these masks is due to holes at the top where viruses can easily gain entry. Further, he estimates that 70% of the air you are breathing does not go through the mask
    • neck gaiter seemed worse than useless and actually broke larger droplets into smaller ones
    • three-layer surgical masks and several kinds of cloth masks reduced the number of droplets detected by more than 80%. Again, the PPE N95 develper shreds this to bits by stating when you cough or sneeze with a cloth mask on, it goes right through the mask.  Another PhD in infectious disease states cloth masks offer NO protection against COVID
Based on these results of a study done in a lab the CDC’s summary says “upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets.”

Her statement is misleading as it doesn’t include the numerous limitations in the study, and it certainly doesn’t quantify real-world implications of masks on a study contained in a lab that didn’t even measure for it. The study contained some laughable details:

  • In one particular study, the person wearing a mask spoke through a hole in a box reciting the phrase “Stay healthy, people,” but did not cough, sneeze, shout, or sing
  • Masks were clean and worn properly, which rarely happens in the real world
  • Walensky’s message assumes everyone is wearing the most effective mask
  • When parents had their child’s masks tested, the lab found Lyme, Tularemia, Ridkettsia, and other bacteria
  • Worse, Walensky’s ambiguous statement could be interpreted to mean that people who wear masks reduce their own risk of catching COVID-19 by “more than 80 percent.” The study, which looked at droplets emitted by mask wearers, provides no basis for this claim
  • There continues to be no basis in science for wearing masks unless you are trying to filter dust
  • A large meta-analysis shows that while masks may filter droplets there are numerous drawbacks which our corrupt public health ‘authorities’ never mention including that they may actually increase transmission. Every time I see someone wearing a mask, they are constantly touching it.  Constantly.  They also lower the oxygen you are breathing which is terrible for overall health
  • Walensky has repeatedly caught flak for distorting COVID-19 research
  • In a large, randomized controlled study on 6,000 people, no statistically significant difference was noted in infection rate between the mask wearing group vs the unmasked group.  These results reflect other reviews and nine other trials that found masks make little or no difference in infection rates.  But, again, none of this matters in a world without logic

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/well/live/coronavirus-restaurants-classrooms-salons

Clear barriers have sprung up at restaurants, nail salons and school classrooms, but most of the time, they do little to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
Credit…Rich Pedroncelli/File, via Associated Press

Covid precautions have turned many parts of our world into a giant salad bar, with plastic barriers separating sales clerks from shoppers, dividing customers at nail salons and shielding students from their classmates.

Intuition tells us a plastic shield would be protective against germs. But scientists who study aerosols, air flow and ventilation say that much of the time, the barriers don’t help and probably give people a false sense of security. And sometimes the barriers can make things worse.

Research suggests that in some instances, a barrier protecting a clerk behind a checkout counter may redirect the germs to another worker or customer. Rows of clear plastic shields, like those you might find in a nail salon or classroom, can also impede normal air flow and ventilation.

Under normal conditions in stores, classrooms and offices, exhaled breath particles disperse, carried by air currents and, depending on the ventilation system, are replaced by fresh air roughly every 15 to 30 minutes. But erecting plastic barriers can change air flow in a room, disrupt normal ventilation and create “dead zones,” where viral aerosol particles can build up and become highly concentrated.  (See link for article)

__________________

**Highlights**

  • A study published in June and led by researchers from Johns Hopkins showed that desk screens in classrooms were associated with an increased risk of coronavirus infection
  • In a Massachusetts school district, researchers found plexiglass dividers with side walls in the main office were impeding air flow
  • A study looking at schools in Georgia found desk barriers had little effect on the spread of the coronavirus compared with ventilation improvements and masking
  • A study published in 2014 found that office cubicle dividers were among the factors that may have contributed to disease transmission during a tuberculosis outbreak in Australia
  • British researchers have conducted modeling studies simulating what happens when a person on one side of a barrier exhales particles while speaking or coughing under various ventilation conditions. The screen is more effective when the person coughs, because the larger particles have greater momentum and hit the barrier. But when a person speaks, the screen doesn’t trap the exhaled particles — which just float around it. While the store clerk may avoid an immediate and direct hit, the particles are still in the room, posing a risk to the clerk and others who may inhale the contaminated air
  • A study published in 2013 that looked at the effect of partitions between beds in hospitals. The study showed that while some people were protected from germs, the partitions funneled the air in the room toward others
  • All the aerosol experts interviewed agreed that desk shields were unlikely to help and were likely to interfere with the normal ventilation of the room. Depending on the conditions, the plastic shields could cause viral particles to accumulate in the room
  • As with everything else in this ‘pandemic’, those in charge are simply in lockstep following corrupt public health advice without consulting with engineering experts.  It appears those in authority are tin men lacking a brain.

%d bloggers like this: