STILL Going on About Masks

 

Talk about not being able to let go.  

In the most recent edition of The Valley Voice, March 9th. 2023, page 5, is yet ANOTHER letter to the editor complaining about masks.  You know, the masks we were encouraged to wear for a time during the pandemic?  The masks some still wear when inside where there are many other people?

The mandates are over, although if you visit a hospital or a medical clinic, you will have to wear one, so I wonder why these people can't just let it go.  The masks had a purpose, they helped a certain amount in limiting the spread of a number of viruses and they weren't invasive at all.

What made me take notice were two seemingly contradictory claims made in the letter, separated only by a couple of paragraphs.  So, some numbers.  Bear with me.

The Numbers:

First, the writer claims that masks trap "hazardously high levels of CO2, thereby restricting available oxygen....  It is very hazardous to re-inhale your exhaled carbon dioxide."  The writer claims levels of 40,000 ppm within minutes accompanied by a drop in measured oxygen levels.

This notion has been refuted by any number of studies.  Here is a small selection:

Inhaled CO2 concentration while wearing face masks....

Does wearing a face mask reduce oxygen.. ..

Do face masks make you retain carbon dioxide?

Most of the articles that I looked at didn't show there was much of a problem, but it's been a topic that's received quite a bit of attention over the past couple of years.

Later in the same letter, the writer claims that masks are ineffective because the coronaviruses are too small.  He notes that the virus is around 0.2 microns (micrometers) in size, whereas the mask openings are between 2-10 microns.  He wavers between calling them surgical and cloth masks, so it's not quite clear which one he really dislikes, but it's probably safe to say he dismisses both as a means of controlling virus transmission.

So, there we are.  Masks, according to the writer and his expert, trap CO2 molecules.  Carbon dioxide molecules are 0.33 nm (nanometers) in diameter, according to my quick Google search.  (Remember that there are 1000 nm in a micrometer, also known as a micron).  So CO2 molecules are 0.33 nm in diameter, which is 0.00033 micrometers.

The viruses are around 0.2 micrometers (which is 200 nanometers) and the mask openings are between 2-10 micrometers (between 2000 and 10,000 nanometers) and the CO2 molecules are 0.33 nanometers in diameter.  

It's worth noting that the water droplets we exhale (on which the viruses actually float around), are between 20 and 2000 micrometers in size (20,000 nanometers to 2,000,000 nanometers).

The Contradiction:

There's something strange going on here, so let's put everything in a list so they can be compared more easily.  My list will go from smallest to largest, giving the size first in nm and then the equivalent in micrometers.  I've highlighted the commonly used measurement for each item because it's easy to get confused because of the very different scale in sizes involved.

• CO2 Molecules - 0.33 nanometers (0.00033 micrometers)
• SARS Viruses - 200 nanometers (0.2 micrometers)
• Mask openings - 2000 to 10,000 nanometers (2 to 10 micrometers)
• many bacteria - 5000 to 10,000 nanometers (5-10 micrometers) in length.
• Exhaled H2O droplets - 20,000 to 2,000,000 nanometers (20 to 2000 micrometers)

Remember, once again, the viruses don't generally float around on their own.  They're carried on water droplets that we exhale as we breathe or talk or sneeze.

The contradiction that struck me is the claim that masks would trap CO2 but won't trap virus particles, with the writer forgetting that it's the water droplets on which the viruses are carried that we're trying to capture.

The foolishness of such a claim is astounding.

At a very, very rough calculation, exhaled water droplets with their little viruses are around 1.5 MILLION times larger than CO2 molecules, give or take quite a bit, given the range in sizes.  And yet the writer is claiming the mask will trap CO2 but won't trap the viruses (which are carried on water droplets).   Let that sink in a bit.

And There's More:

I don't know if the writer of the letter is aware of things like Artificial Respiration (or Mouth-to-Mouth, if you prefer).  This is where you literally blow into another person's mouth to get them breathing again.  The writer claims that "...it's very hazardous to re-inhale your exhaled carbon dioxide."  So why do they bother teaching AR if it's so hazardous?

I also wonder if the writer is aware that many medical personnel wear masks for quite long periods of time, often while performing complex surgeries and other procedures.  Honestly, if I had realized that my surgeon was going to be anoxic within 2 minutes, I would certainly think twice about ever submitting to surgery.

He also goes on to worry about the perfect environment for bacterial growth inside a mask, where it is warm and moist.  Now there ARE some mild areas for concern here.  Masks DO trap bacteria, both exhaled AND from the surrounding air.  This study from a hospital in Bangkok found microbial contamination on both sides of used masks, with the outsides being several times greater than on the inside.  I would say that the take home messages here would be to discard the masks occasionally, don't take used masks and chew on them, don't rub used masks in your eyes, but discard of them as you would any hazardous waste.  OR, you could just wash them in a solution of warm water and soap and hang them up to dry.

I'd also suggest that this last study indicates pretty clearly that you have more to worry about from the bacteria OUTSIDE in the air outside your body than the bacteria INSIDE you.  After all, your body probably has come to a temporary truce with the bacteria inside your body, but it  might not be able to handle those from someone else quite as well.  It also shows that masks work in preventing bacterial transmission.  So there is that.  Just for reference, most bacteria are 1-2 micrometers in diameter and 5-10 micrometers long., so they're roughly in the same size range as the openings in the masks.

So where and how did the writer come to these conclusions?  From the current narrative of the anti-mask adherents and the pages of a publication called Common Ground.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.