Interesting read about the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic.
“Mask wearing gained considerable popularity as an emblem of public spiritedness and discipline. Newspapers carried instructions on how to make and launder them”
“Still, gauze masks had their detractors within the public health community. One notable critic was the Detroit health commissioner, Dr. J.W. Inches, who declared “.. . these masks are worthless.” They were so porous that not only “.. . a mosquito could jump through them,” he remarked, but, “I have sprinkled granulated sugar through them,” telling proof that a microbe could get through the mask's defenses. Inches thought masks might have some utility for doctors and nurses treating flu victims, but for the ordinary citizen, the use of an ordinary paper napkin that could be destroyed after each use was far more advisable. (Dr. Inches was ahead of his time, anticipating the rise of disposable paper handkerchiefs in the 1920s.)”
Amazing how the world wide government effort to promote and educate how to handle a used mask (even how to take off a soiled mask safely) or how to launder a reusable mask was literally zero. Common sense would infer it’s the most risky part - touching likely contaminated materials.
We had clear evidence from July 2020 how air-conditioning location and positioning impacted spread (link below). Yet somehow we were told it was ‘droplet only’ and cloth masks worked? Only later was it admitted to be aerosol - meanwhile hospitals had been treating Covid as aerosol from day one…
“Virus transmission in this outbreak cannot be explained by droplet transmission alone. Larger respiratory droplets (>5 μm) remain in the air for only a short time and travel only short distances, generally <1 m (2,3). The distances between patient A1 and persons at other tables, especially those at table C, were all >1 m.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862334/#
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article
wakoinc / Blake
npub1ktw…mrvj
2023-06-15 17:26:57
Author Public Key
npub1ktw5qzt7f5ztrft0kwm9lsw34tef9xknplvy936ddzuepp6yf9dsjrmrvjPublished at
2023-06-15 17:26:57Event JSON
{
"id": "fe9464d7592bcd4d0b1dd6e1d82675b5ee85e0986481bad52c130d4275f38fe3",
"pubkey": "b2dd40097e4d04b1a56fb3b65fc1d1aaf2929ad30fd842c74d68b9908744495b",
"created_at": 1686842817,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Interesting read about the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic. \n\n“Mask wearing gained considerable popularity as an emblem of public spiritedness and discipline. Newspapers carried instructions on how to make and launder them”\n\n“Still, gauze masks had their detractors within the public health community. One notable critic was the Detroit health commissioner, Dr. J.W. Inches, who declared “.. . these masks are worthless.” They were so porous that not only “.. . a mosquito could jump through them,” he remarked, but, “I have sprinkled granulated sugar through them,” telling proof that a microbe could get through the mask's defenses. Inches thought masks might have some utility for doctors and nurses treating flu victims, but for the ordinary citizen, the use of an ordinary paper napkin that could be destroyed after each use was far more advisable. (Dr. Inches was ahead of his time, anticipating the rise of disposable paper handkerchiefs in the 1920s.)”\n\nAmazing how the world wide government effort to promote and educate how to handle a used mask (even how to take off a soiled mask safely) or how to launder a reusable mask was literally zero. Common sense would infer it’s the most risky part - touching likely contaminated materials. \n\nWe had clear evidence from July 2020 how air-conditioning location and positioning impacted spread (link below). Yet somehow we were told it was ‘droplet only’ and cloth masks worked? Only later was it admitted to be aerosol - meanwhile hospitals had been treating Covid as aerosol from day one…\n\n“Virus transmission in this outbreak cannot be explained by droplet transmission alone. Larger respiratory droplets (\u003e5 μm) remain in the air for only a short time and travel only short distances, generally \u003c1 m (2,3). The distances between patient A1 and persons at other tables, especially those at table C, were all \u003e1 m.”\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862334/#\n\nhttps://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article",
"sig": "7a80ad13789a8c5d0479c5737cf4fa6f6abcb3c811c35eac43f7a459936081dd3a3219dffdf2746d1b6d61c6f49596f6054e9ce3959317d9564d4e00178b1126"
}