Following the non-science on masking

Vincent J. Curtis

18 July 20

On Friday, Hamilton city council passed a by-law that required the wearing of masks indoors.  The problem is tow-fold.  First, the business is required to enforce the by-law on customers, setting up hostility between the smarter customers and the business.  Second, the masks mandated are shown not to be effective as virus filters.

So, city council finally bowed to non-science and mandated the wearing of masks.  Does this mean that we can be free and end the lockdown?  If not, why not?

In the literature given the councilors by the Medical Officer of Health, which they obviously didn’t understand, was that the masks they were mandating are ineffective.

City council mandated the ineffective - and hence the mandate gives a false sense of security.

The Lancet article stated that it had confidence that N95 masks or stronger would likely be effective in reducing transmission within 1 meter, but the word ‘might’ was used when addressing disposable surgical and lessor kinds of masks.  There is, of course, no scientific evidence even possible for home-made masks for efficacy as a virus filter.

According to Lancet, masking may be useful if engaged in intense interaction with an infected person within 1 meter distance, and hence the article recommended social distancing of 1 m, obviating the need for masking altogether.  At 2 m social distancing, masking is quite useless because there is nothing left in the air to filter.  The general uselessness of masking to filter transmission of respiratory viruses is acknowledged in the New England Journal of Medicine, and explains why the W.H.O. doesn’t recommend masking.  But our councilors know better.

Let people decide for themselves if they want to eat indoor in a restaurant, get their hair cut, go into a bar, or wear a mask.  Stop all this drunk-on-power coercion!

-30-

 End-note:  The problem with masking is two-fold: (1) does the mask provide a seal around the face, forcing the air to pass through the filter?  If there is no seal, then air can and tends to pass around the filter. (2) Can the filtration material remove the virus, or are the pores too large?  N95 masks are intended to remove dust in an industrial environment, and so are pretty form-fitting to the face.  Disposable surgical masks are not form-fitting, and the filtration material can remove mist from breathing but are not effective with dust.  Hence, the mist from the breath of an infected person can partially be filtered by a surgical mask, and hence is slightly efficacious in removing virus-contaminated mist from an infected person's breath, and that's it.  A healthy person is not protected from dry virus in the air by a surgical mask.  The N95 is pretty good.  But a fire-fighter or a soldier who have to wear gas-masks to removed gas or smoke from the air they breathe, have to use rubberized, form-fitting masks to be protected.  Beard wearers have to prove that they can get a seal with their mask, or else they have to cut their beards.  Getting a good seal is a pre-requisite for a mask to work.  Then, the filter has to work also.  Surgical masks don't meet these requirements, and neither do any of the home-made jobs.