Largely reviled, eh!
Can I marry her? (Jk)
But more seriously, that is about as loud an endorsement as anyone could hope for in public (scripted) opinion. Still waiting for the narrative to fall apart so people can decide for themselves. It's true, how can a person make a decision when the issue is clouded? Currently, we have 10 people with 10 different opinions. Could that be caused by us being lied to so often?
I'm afraid Professor Cahill's married, WIN. (Ha!) Speaking of which, she said she caught COVID-19 from her husband, in fact, who I believe caught it in New York and brought it back to Ireland. She had a pretty nasty case of it too.
Actually, today I've been looking more closely at this whole mask issue, which gets real complicated real quick. For example, aerosol scientists seem hell bent on proving the COVID-19 virus is airborne, even though the WHO claims [or claimed] there's no compelling evidence of this. Actually, I was surprised to see the WHO's recommendations as of March 28, 2020:
Given the above, it's interesting that Fauci started recommending masks as early as April 3rd, from what I can determine.
In any event, as I look more into this matter it occurs to me that, while this particular "pandemic" begs the question of mask wearing for healthy, non-healthcare workers, it still might be a good idea to research the effectiveness of various masks given there is always a chance that a more lethal, airborne virus will be, uh, "introduced."
With that in mind, I came across what appears to be a pretty comprehensive study on a wide variety of masks, which contains some surprising results, actually.
Here's a chart from this article:
Table 1. Filtration Efficiencies of Various Test Specimens at a Flow Rate of 1.2 CFM and the Corresponding Differential Pressure (Δ
P) across the Specimen
��
sample/fabric | <300 nm average ± error | >300 nm average ± error | ΔP (Pa) |
|---|
| filter efficiency (%) | pressure differential | |
|---|
| flow rate: 1.2 CFM | | |
|---|
N95 (no gap) | 85 ± 15 | 99.9 ± 0.1 | 2.2 |
N95 (with gap) | 34 ± 15 | 12 ± 3 | 2.2 |
surgical mask (no gap) | 76 ± 22 | 99.6 ± 0.1 | 2.5 |
surgical mask (with gap) | 50 ± 7 | 44 ± 3 | 2.5 |
cotton quilt | 96 ± 2 | 96.1 ± 0.3 | 2.7 |
quilter’s cotton (80 TPI), 1 layer | 9 ± 13 | 14 ± 1 | 2.2 |
quilter’s cotton (80 TPI), 2 layers | 38 ± 11 | 49 ± 3 | 2.5 |
flannel | 57 ± 8 | 44 ± 2 | 2.2 |
cotton (600 TPI), 1 layer | 79 ± 23 | 98.4 ± 0.2 | 2.5 |
cotton (600 TPI), 2 layers | 82 ± 19 | 99.5 ± 0.1 | 2.5 |
chiffon, 1 layer | 67 ± 16 | 73 ± 2 | 2.7 |
chiffon, 2 layers | 83 ± 9 | 90 ± 1 | 3.0 |
natural silk, 1 layer | 54 ± 8 | 56 ± 2 | 2.5 |
natural silk, 2 layers | 65 ± 10 | 65 ± 2 | 2.7 |
natural silk, 4 layers | 86 ± 5 | 88 ± 1 | 2.7 |
hybrid 1: cotton/chiffon | 97 ± 2 | 99.2 ± 0.2 | 3.0 |
hybrid 2: cotton/silk (no gap) | 94 ± 2 | 98.5 ± 0.2 | 3.0 |
hybrid 2: cotton/silk (gap) | 37 ± 7 | 32 ± 3 | 3.0 |
hybrid 3: cotton/flannel | 95 ± 2 | 96 ± 1 | 3.0 |
The filtration efficiencies are the weighted averages for each size range—less than 300 nm and more than 300 nm.
[end insert]
Interesting how effective cotton quilt is. Who'd a thunk it?
Actually, I'll paste in here the study's conclusions:
"In conclusion, we have measured the filtration efficiencies of various commonly available fabrics for use as cloth masks in filtering particles in the significant (for aerosol-based virus transmission) size range of ∼10 nm to ∼6 μm and have presented filtration efficiency data as a function of aerosol particle size. We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10 nm to 6.0 μm range, provided they have a tight weave. Higher threads per inch cotton with tighter weaves resulted in better filtration efficiencies. For instance, a 600 TPI cotton sheet can provide average filtration efficiencies of 79 ± 23% (in the 10 nm to 300 nm range) and 98.4 ± 0.2% (in the 300 nm to 6 μm range).
A cotton quilt with batting provides 96 ± 2% (10 nm to 300 nm) and 96.1 ± 0.3% (300 nm to 6 μm). Likely the highly tangled fibrous nature of the batting aids in the superior performance at small particle sizes. Materials such as silk and chiffon are particularly effective (considering their sheerness) at excluding particles in the nanoscale regime (<∼100 nm), likely due to electrostatic effects that result in charge transfer with nanoscale aerosol particles. A four-layer silk (used, for instance, as a scarf) was surprisingly effective with an average efficiency of >85% across the 10 nm −6 μm particle size range. As a result, we found that hybrid combinations of cloths such as high threads-per-inch cotton along with silk, chiffon, or flannel can provide broad filtration coverage across both the nanoscale (<300 nm) and micron scale (300 nm to 6 μm) range, likely due to the combined effects of electrostatic and physical filtering. Finally, it is important to note that openings and gaps (such as those between the mask edge and the facial contours) can degrade the performance. Our findings indicate that leakages around the mask area can degrade efficiencies by ∼50% or more, pointing out the importance of “fit”. Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better “fit” and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. In summary, we find that the use of cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of particles in the aerosol size range."
[end quote]
So, maybe this is good to start thinking about: given an extremely virulent, airborne strain could some day arrive, how best to prepare?
You really showed superior restraint in your response even if the exchange got to you a bit. It's really hard to do this "work" from a substantially minority position. As you say, "You'd think on that basis alone they'd at least want to research further the information on that graphic." Logic went out the window a long time ago.
But better maybe to laugh to see how idiots are some.
. 
