330 Comments

Using graphs of infection rates and mask usage is not a valid way to measure mask effectiveness. Masks only work when worn properly. How many people in a million know how to achieve a perfect seal around the face? 1? Even the picture you used of the person wearing a P100 respirator does not have a perfect seal - the mask doesn't even touch the sides of the nose. Hilarious.

Expand full comment

The Powers that be will never say to use P100 or above, that would make every user get a fit test. Then that would eliminate the narrative because most smokers, elderly and Obese people will not pass the test. Not to mention doctors visits and them doing the correct thing.

Expand full comment

3M do sell a filter for the exhaust port on the 6000 series respirators and its specifically for covid source control. It is part number 604 called the "3M™ Exhalation Valve Filter 604"

Expand full comment

Steve,

I can’t find any evidence that P100’s work for respiratory viruses.

The 3M data sheet that you linked to relies on a bacterial study and 2 mechanical models to infer that they do, which tells us nothing. Is there any solid evidence that they work for respiratory viruses?

Thanks for all you do!

Expand full comment

From the Instruction leaflet. Here https://www.jondon.com/media/pdf/manuals/3M-R8293-EA_User_Instructions-1248710141.pdf

Do Not Use For

Do not use for gases and vapors, asbestos or sandblasting; particulate concentrations that exceed either 10 times the occupational exposure limit or applicable government regulations, whichever is lower. This respirator does not supply oxygen...

4. Do not use with beards or other facial hair or other conditions that prevent a good seal between the face and the sealing surface of the respirator.

So please stop your BS with total respect.

Expand full comment

Might be better to get a half mask that takes standard gas mask 40mm filters like shown below and then buy the MIRA Particle Max P3 Virus Filters and rotate the filters?

https://northseaworkwear.com/prs278hd-pr-scott-safety-aviva-40-single-filter-half-mask-respirator-kit-p2-pf10.html

Expand full comment

Imagine a comedy video with a talking p100 who doesn't know whether he should follow the advice on left and get a shot to protect his body from an aerosol or follow the right and not worry about breathing it in even though it makes people sick and has killed thousands. He tries to sort out this high tech rocket science with a couple of his working stiff customers at the paint store who don't realize he's talking about covid who think his real problem is he obviously doesn't have a brain. The problem is nobody knows the cure for covid other than here.

Expand full comment

Best mask is the MIRA CM-6M Tactical Gas Mask with Particle Max P3 Virus Filters - Made from ULPA filtration technology, a step above HEPA Rated to stop 99.9995%+ of viral and bio particulates. Of course you may get strange looks at the grocery store...

https://www.mirasafety.com/

Optional NBC-77 SOF CBRN Gas Mask Filter will protect against CBRN agents...

Expand full comment

I'm convinced. I just ordered mine. thanks for the tip.

Expand full comment

Get the exhaust filter as well part number 604. It protects thoose around you as well. Its a standard 3M part for their respirators.

Expand full comment

I've been wearing the Klein Tool p100. Not made in China or Wall Street. $29.95. Very sleek, look more like a bug than Darth Vader.

Expand full comment

I just convinced myself & reordered today :)

Expand full comment

MIRA Safety filters (NBC-77 SOF, VK-450, DOTpro 320) are classified as "combined filters" and contain a P3 filter along with activated carbon. For those that don't know what P3 means, it is a rating for a particle filter that blocks 99.9999%+ of particulates. As viruses travel in liquid aerosols and particulates, this filter (when coupled with a full face respirator) would prevent the Coronavirus from entering your breathing passages and eyes.

Expand full comment

OSHA states that face coverings are not Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). What makes something PPE? Not authorization and not the sayso of some expert who speculates. PPE goes through a process for certification that must be maintained based on THAT process; this includes design/test cycles beginning with proof of concept and progresses to more stringent testing as the design firms-up; then the specs and standards are solidified and matched to the type and degree of hazard; that match is the key to PPE; next the device/product is manufactured to standard, and also packaged to standard to ensure safety of the device; and an information insert is also included to standard outlining the match with hazard and to describe the limitations of the device and the circumstances that would compromise its certified use. So, PPE is designed to purpose, tested against purpose, manufactured to standards, packaged to standards, and is documented for the user's optimal application of the device to realworld situations. That is far more than someone's sayso - or opinion. More ....

Expand full comment

read all your comments. Has anyone sued and won on what you wrote?

Expand full comment

... continued.

Big point to takeaway - there is a distinction between PPE and non-PPE that can not be waved away lawfully. Face coverings can be permitted by an employer - or by a business serving its guests - but can not be required. Lawfully, the employer is obliged to inform its employees and guests of the downside of whatever devices are permitted. Use of such a device is a choice not a requirement. Lawfully, only PPE can be required provided that the PPE matches the identified hazard. In fact, the hazard must be documented clearly so that its features can be shown through evidence and so that the right match with PPE can be selected for the circumstances. This is basic health and safety. Anyone who invokes public health, for example, or invokes reasonable precaution, has made a fact claim and, as such, such an assertion is subject to fact finding. As Steve discussed, from N95s, including the CHICOM knockoffs which are not certified PPE in our country, down to homemade toy masks, none meet the standard against viral spread.

A lot of the guidance from 'saysoers' uses ambiguous language like, the face covering does nto protect the wearer but may protect the other person. That amounts to saying, the covering may or may not protect the other person; in other words, there is insufficient evidence of protection in either direction. That language concedes what Steve outlined. These can not be lawfully required because not PPE or not matched to the hazard.

Of course, as Steve discussed in his post, Personal Protective Equipment (protects the wearer) and is designed to do so safely. This follows the obvious principle that in addressing a known hazard, one does not introduce additional risks that are unnecessary. If a device is for escape, it is not meant for entry into a hazard, for example. There are respirators designed for rescue and for entry into hazards and these are air-supplied and the equipment very well sealed and manufactured and maintained to a standard that matches the hazard.

OSHA and FDA are explicit - as are Canadian healthcare regulators - that there is distinction between use of devices for personal protection and use of devices for 'source control'. Where one contradicts the other, a choice must be made. It would be unlawful to require an individual to take on additional unnecessary risk to himself by wearing a device that blocks breathing, for example, on the absurd notion that this protects the other person. The downside to using face coverings and masks up to N95 are not offeset by benefits; there is no policy-grade evidence of benefit against viral spread. More ...

Expand full comment

To recap - these face coverings and misuse of medical procedure and/or N95s can not be lawfully required. Permitted, sure, but that is the choice of the wearer. PPE are PPE as a result of going through a rigorous process from design, testing, manufacturing, packaging, storage/maintenance, and documented instructions. PPE is not PPE by the wave of some b'crat's politically driven hand. We do NOT introduce unnecessary risks. We do NOT require the individual sacrifice his well-being in a false effort to protect the other person. All of health and safety builds on facts and on evidence-based-risk assessments. Not on hopes and not on sayso, even if the saysoer is an 'expert' or rulemaker. OSHA has upturned its own legitimate authority and has submitted itself to arbitrariness and, frankly, exposed employees and others to risks and hazards unnecessarily. They are in open transfession of the law and their own rigorous standards. More. ...

Expand full comment

Right, so the airlines make their policy and do so by invoking health and safety. That invokes facts claims that are subject to fact-finding. They MUST document the hazard and have that documentation available to anyone entering the supposedly hazardous circumstances under THEIR DUTY OF CARE. The airline, and each employee following the directions of their supervisors and the cited policy, must distinguish between devices that are permitted and devices that are required and fulfill the duty and obligations that come with these distinctions. That means they MUST produce the user insert to show how the device matches the hazard, which these devices do not, and provide the facts that describe the upside and the downside of using the device under the defined circumstances. Failing this, the airline, as a workpace has transgressed health and safety standards. The individuals and the airline are liable and you can inform them of this verbally and in written documented form. They are obliged to provided the facts when demanding any compliance to their policy. If they do not make the effort, or if they fail to do so, then, THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE and you are entitled to seek damages if you are denied a seat on the flight. One must push back with the facts. Enough of us do this and the policy will change or they will lose business. The government can subsidize lawbreaking but there is only so much newly printed money to go around.

Expand full comment

If someone claims there is a hazard, demand that they describe that hazard. If they can not do so verbally, demand the documentation. If they can not produce that documentation, then, you can explain that if C19 is the hazard, how did they detect it on the flight? They do not have the equivalent of gas detectors; they do not detect an actual hazard but imagine one. Now, to some extent, that is how unusual hazards are sometimes characterized as undetected by likely. This means the risk of exposure to the hazard is estimated - likelihood is calculated. Ask for that work. If it is not provided, then, proceed on the basis of an imagined hazard. Since there is screening for symptoms and for infection (whether these are accurate or useful is a different discussion but they insist on active screening and hold them to it) and this is meant to ensure that if someone 'might' be infectious they are screen off the flight, you can ask why the employees who are enforcing the policy have on their face covering devices. If they do so to protect other people you can make the point, you came through screening even though you think you might be infectious? Either they trust their screening or they trust their face coverings; the problem with the latter is lack of effectiveness and that these can be permitted but not lawfully required. But the contradiction is very obvious when you drop the two questions on them and in front of other passengers. What is the hazard, then, if not ordinary human breathing and ordinary human interaction? Yes, if the passengers, by their very existence and continued need for the most valuable nutrient, oxygen, are the source of the hazard, indeed are the hazard, then, one might ask why the airline has brought together so much danger with so little effective protection. If the answer is that we must travel and we must make a buck, then, okay, but we also must breath freely, as human beings, and that is the point of your previous demand for facts on the hazard and facts on the supposed reasonable precaution in the policy. When it boils down to the rules the rules the rules and the sayso and the sayso and the sayso, you can sit down in your seat and ask for when the flight will arrive at its destination.

Don't be intimidated by rules. Institutions tend to be flexible on the rules when it suits them. Call out the facts that they assert. THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION is on THEM not on the passengers. They can not introduce unnecessary risks, which is a basic health and safety principle, and they can not require non-PPE much less toy devices that are misleading and not protective. They do it all the time, yes, but it is unlawful and each time you are confronted by this, and then comply to get moving, you can document the transgressions and put that in motion too. It will all catch up with the individuals, the supervisors, and their policy-making saysoers.

Expand full comment

A key takeaway point to add -- Candian regulators or dependent regulators; they are not independent but rely on the sayso of US counterparts. When you see many different sources make similair fact claims, you might be misled into thinking that many sources led to the same conclusions. But that would be wrong; all of the Canadian regulators, all of the provincial authorities and their subsidiaries at the local levels, just like in the US states, are dependent on ONE saysoer. Even OSHA acknowledges that it copy-pastes the guidance of the CDC.

To illustrate this consider the fact claim of asymptomatic spread, which Steve has discussed a few times in different posts. This is the excuse given for face coverings on airlines, for example, but it is not backed with policy-grade evidence. Far, far, far from it. It can best be described as negligble to non-existent according to the very best scientific evidence. The OSHA guidance, copy-pated as it is, relies on two footnotes that came from the CDC and its guidance. Both go to computer modelling. These included assumptions which are not evidence; opion, even from experts, and speculation, even from sayso authorities, is amongst the lowest level of scientific evidence available. Anyway, the assumptions were quite significant and two will demonstrate the low value of the computer modelling. First, it was assumed that 15 to 40 percent of viral spread was due to asymptomatic spread; and second that the asymptomatic spreaders were 75 percent as infectious as symptomatic spreaders. Pretty generous and biased assumptions to plug into a computer model, sure, but that is what OSHA relied on with its guidance on face coverings in the workplace.

So very weak is the case for mass face coverings that we must remind the authorities that such a 'mandate' is experimental; that the masking and the PCR nonsense are under emergency use authorizations under false pretences and should be challenged on the facts. If they are fact-driven, science-driven, then, the guidance must be set aside in favor of policy-grade evidence. Their refusal to do so stands against their use of whatever authority they lay claim to when enforcing compliance.

Employers need this sort of information to stand against the unlawful pressures and orders being foistedon THEM. It is unlawful for employers to impose unlawful orders, knowingly, and when you educate them and put the wheels in motion to hold THEM accountable, be sure that THEIR lawyers will have to pony up to defend their clients backsides.

It will all catch-up with them. Transfessions = transconfessions, heh, even if transfessions is a made-up word on my keyboarding transgressions.

Expand full comment

Open transgression (not transfession altho that sounds like a cool word).

Expand full comment

For a few different reasons, I've spent a lot of time wearing half-mask respirators. It's been a long time since I bought a respirator, so maybe the 3M respirators are better now --- but I found them very uncomfortable. I much prefer the North 7700 respirators for comfort (and BTW, I have "multiple chemical sensitivity" and found the North 7700's to be MCS-safe).

I recommend buying a respirator at an industrial safety supply store where a knowledgeable salesperson can advise you on size, type of filter cartridges to buy, etc. Carefully read and follow the instructions for fitting the straps. Learn how to perform positive pressure fit tests because you will need to do a fit test every time you put on or adjust the respirator. Think in detail, in advance, about how you will change filter cartridges when required; you may want to buy a second respirator instead of trying to switch filter cartridges rapidly (while holding or your breath or whatever other method you go for).

On the positive side, a properly used half mask respirator with the right kind of filter cartridge is good protection against a bunch of ugly stuff. Just keep in mind that you can catch viruses through your ear canals and your eyes, too. (Maybe the Chinese who wore plastic jugs over their heads in the early days of the pandemic had a good idea...and it was cheap, too.)

Expand full comment

Also, imo: we could de-false-dichotomy these mask issues if we turned the volume up/put mega written & vocal focus on successful use of tweeked Ventilation systems & Safe Ceiling-Level UV-2 lights (kill viruses (& measles, I think). I read about DR Yuguo Li's success in Wired article https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/ If we put as much focus on this as vacs/masks students safer❤️ He's an engineer who had a lot of experience/gained knowledge from 1st SARS 2 infection years ago. He got Hong Kong U to put Covid$ into up-grading Ventilation & adding Safe Ceiling Height UV-2 lights to classrooms & buses (!)--as of last May "[@~ May,2021] Li’s {Hong Kong]University, a school of 30,000 students, has recorded a total of 23 Covid-19 cases." This article is interesting also b/c it shows how dogma can originate & dominate for a long time. Dr Li's work is part of uncovering that story/correcting the dogma--so it's not the focus of article, but I think it should've been amplified & should've "gone viral" to help stop the spread AND ALSO b/c it a means that will continue to work AFTER this is over...

Here is AZ engineer who lost his restaurant business to Covid, but helped save many others by taking this info & installing such equipment in businesses (& homes) https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/entrepreneurs/2021/05/27/tempe-based-purification-llc-co-founder-nick-knudsen-sells-uvc-lights/7167396002/

Expand full comment

Another caveat is CHEMICALS you are breathing in/have skin contact with in the masks(have chem. intolerance so can not wear masks for more than few minutes & therefore have not been able to work as RN since Flu shots were coerced in hospitals by mandating masks would have to be worn by anyone declining the Flu Vac the FULL work day (regardless if giving pt care or not--priming pump for Covid genetic modification product-vax-mandates--have some articles on this if anyone's interested in looking at Vac industry/Fauci Cartel's leveraging grant$ for 90% compliance.I wasn't born w/Chem. Intolerance--it truly constricts my life & has killed many people, so I want to alert others so they don't wind up exposing themselves repeatedly to some of the chems that can help cause it, Asthma,etc +/or help cancers proliferate. Google seems to be hiding info even more these days,but here is a ECOTEXTILE NEWS APRIL 1,2021 article: Exclusive: Chemical Cocktail Found In Face Masks https://www.eco textile.com/2021040127603/dyes-chemicals-news/exclusive-chemical-cocktail-found-in-face-masks.html

Expand full comment

"When all else fails, read the instructions" Seriously, read the god damn box. As I have stated to so many people, "a mask only serves the purpose of protecting the wearer and only works on the inhale". I'm not a Dr, I sell masks and recommend to customers what is required for their need/use. I also use them myself in dusty conditions in my workshop, while spray painting or spraying chemical for weed control.

No one needs a Dr's advise to use the appropriate mask for the appropriate reason. The purpose of the mis guided hysteria and fearporn is to cause mass hysteria through fear for the purpose of control, and people ARE falling for it. People so fearful of someone NOT wearing a mask is as pathetic as anything I will ever see. All that mask wearing and mandating of a mask does it pit people against each other for the creation of adversity and a segregated society. A mask only works on the inhale. You may as well go live on the moon if you do not want to share the air here on planet earth because no one could uphold the cost or cumbersome restriction of a purifier to eliminate any and all nasties.

Open the windows and get some fresh air, for god sake. The best thing anyone could do.

It is just so amazing to watch people walking down the street on their own wearing a mask, or driving a car by themselves, and then to see at the end of the day 100 unmasked people sitting in a restaurant and not a mask to be seen. Seriously, who is the fool? The one without a Mask??

Expand full comment

I'm really tiring of people I know who are immuno-compromised stating that I should be masking and vaxxing to protect them. I keep thinking, "what did you do before the wuflu hit? Were you demanding everyone protect you then?" I have the utmost compassion for anyone who is dealing with a depressed immune system. But, that doesn't give them the excuse to lay the burden of that on the rest of us.

Expand full comment

I am looking at the lowest picture in your post. Are you implying that with proper masking our children would be 43 before finishing school?

Expand full comment

LOL...the way we're going, they'll be lucky to catch up by the time they're 43.

Expand full comment

The masks you think work - do they actually prevent people from ever getting a cold? I have never worn a mask and never get colds.

I have this weird idea now that there might be more truth to terrain theory than to germ theory.

Expand full comment