EL ABOGADO CONTRA LA DEMAGOGIA SE LÍA CON EL DOCUMENTO DE EXENCIÓN DE USO DE BOZAL.-ÚNETE A TROTA POKER EN TELEGRAM

allseeyingeye

Será en Octubre
Registrado
3 Dic 2007
Mensajes
68.779
Puntuación de reacción
37.877




HILO PARA REPORTAR Y HACER GRANDE BURLA > DE LOS COVID- IDIOTAS QUE COMPRAREN O VENDIEREN MASCARILLAS FF2 Y FFP3 EN GRANDE CUANTIA. DANDO GRANDE SIDA


LA ASOCIACION AMERICANA DE CIRUJANOS

DESMONTA CIENTIFICAMENTE LA MENTIRA
USADA POR LA FACCION
GOLPISTA
TRAIDORA
Y LA GENTUZA QUE ALINEA CON EL GOLPE







AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons



Featured, Public Health
June 1, 2020
Mask Facts
Share:



curated by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Note: A COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers (μm); influenza virus size is 0.08 – 0.12 μm; a human hair is about 150 μm.
*1 nm = 0.001 micron; 1000 nm = 1 micron; Micrometer (μm) is the preferred name for micron (an older term)
1 meter is = 1,000,000,000 nm or 1,000,000 microns
Droplets
Air currents
  • In air conditioned environment these large droplets may travel farther.​
  • However, ventilation — even the opening of an entrance door and a small window can dilute the number of small droplets to one half after 30 seconds. (This study looked at droplets from uninfected persons). This is clinically relevant because poorly ventilated and populated spaces, like public transport and nursing homes, have high SARS-CoV-2 disease transmission despite physical distancing. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext






Objects and surfaces
  • Person to person touching​
  • The CDC’s most recent statement regarding contracting COVID-19 from touching surfaces: “Based on data from lab studies on Covid-19 and what we know about similar respiratory diseases, it may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose or possibly their eyes,” the agency wrote. “But this isn’t thought to be the main way the virus spreads. Coronavirus Disease 2019.​
  • Chinese study with data taken from swabs on surfaces around the hospital
    Aerosol and Surface Distribution of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Hospital Wards, Wuhan, China, 2020
    • The surfaces where tested with the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, which greatly amplifies the viral genetic material if it is present. That material is detectable when a person is actively infected. This is thought to be the most reliable test.
      • Computer mouse (ICU 6/8, 75%; General ward (GW) 1/5, 20%)​
      • Trash cans (ICU 3/5, 60%; GW 0/8)​
      • Sickbed handrails (ICU 6/14, 42.9%; GW 0/12)​
      • Doorknobs (GW 1/12, 8.3%)​
      • 81.3% of the miscellaneous personal items were positive:
        • Exercise equipment​
        • Medical equipment (spirometer, pulse oximeter, nasal cannula)​
        • PC and iPads​
        • Reading glasses​
        • Cellular phones (83.3% positive for viral RNA)​
        • Remote controls for in-room TVs (64.7% percent positive)​
        • Toilets (81.0% positive)​
        • Room surfaces (80.4% of all sampled)​
        • Bedside tables and bed rails (75.0%)​
        • Window ledges (81.8%)​
        • Plastic: up to 2-3 days​
        • Stainless Steel: up to 2-3 days​
        • Cardboard: up to 1 day​
        • Copper: up to 4 hours​
        • Floor – gravity causes droplets to fall to the floor. Half of ICU workers all had virus on the bottoms of their shoes​
Filter Efficiency and Fit
*Data from a University of Illinois at Chicago review
COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
  • HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters – 99.97 – 100% efficient. HEPA filters are tested with particles that are 0.125 μm.​
  • Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles)​
  • N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret (a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge. An electret generates internal and external electric fields so the filter material has electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes. As flow increases, particles will be collected less efficiently.​
  • N95 – A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face. N95 Masks Explained | Honeywell.
    • But even these have problems: many have exhalation valve for easier breathing and less moisture inside the mask.​
    • Surgical masks are designed to protect patients from a surgeon’s respiratory droplets, aren’t effective at blocking particles smaller than 100 μm. Respirators and Surgical Masks: A Comparison
    • Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min.
      • N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected).​
      • T-shirts had 10% efficiency,​
      • Scarves 10% to 20%,​
      • Cloth masks 10% to 30%,​
      • Sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and​
      • Towels 40%.​
      • All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.​
      • Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm).
        • N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%.​
        • Medical masks – 55% efficiency​
        • General masks – 38% and​
        • Handkerchiefs – 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.​
      • Conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.
        • N95 masks protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control transmission.​
        • Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients.​
        • Cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as personal protective equipment (PPE).​
“Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn’t they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”
*The first randomized controlled trial of cloth masks. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers | BMJ Open
  • Penetration of cloth masks by particles was 97% and medical masks 44%, 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%), 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%).
    • Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.​
    • The virus may survive on the surface of the face- masks​
    • Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. A contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.​
    • Cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.​

 

allseeyingeye

Será en Octubre
Registrado
3 Dic 2007
Mensajes
68.779
Puntuación de reacción
37.877
PARA SER EXACTOS. SI. ALGO HACEN
PERO NO JUSTIFICAN LAS MEDIDAS POLITICAS ACTUALES
ES DECIR

REVISON DE DIVERSOS ESTUDIOS POR LA ASOCIACION AMERICANA DE CIRUJANOS
(GUERRA DE ASOCIACIONES)

SUGIERE QUE ES ABSURDO LA MASCARILLA COMO "METODO DE CONTENCION" EN EL CASO DE EXISTIR AUN EL PRESUNTO PATOGENO / ( ARMA BIOLOGICA) REAL DE LAS CARACTERISTICAS DESCRITAS




Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min.
  • N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected).
  • T-shirts had 10% efficiency,
  • Scarves 10% to 20%,
  • Cloth masks 10% to 30%,
  • Sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and
  • Towels 40%.
  • All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.
  • Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm).
    • N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%.
    • Medical masks – 55% efficiency
    • General masks – 38% and
    • Handkerchiefs – 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.
  • Conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.
    • N95 masks protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control transmission.
    • Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients.
    • Cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as personal protective equipment (PPE).




Los respiradores N95 tuvieron eficiencias superiores al 95% (como se esperaba).
>>> Las camisetas tenían una eficiencia del 10%,
>>> Bufandas del 10% al 20%,
>>>Máscaras de tela del 10% al 30%,
>>>Sudaderas 20% a 40%, y
>>>Toallas 40%.
>>>Todas las máscaras y materiales de tela tenían una eficiencia casi nula a 0,3 µm, un tamaño de partícula que penetra fácilmente en los pulmones.




Otro estudio evaluó 44 máscaras, respiradores y otros materiales con métodos similares y pequeños aerosoles (0,08 y 0,22 µm).
La eficiencia del filtro N95 FFR fue superior al 95%.



>>> Máscaras médicas - 55% de eficiencia
>>>Máscaras generales - 38% y
>>>Pañuelos - 2% (una capa) a 13% (cuatro capas) de eficiencia.


Conclusión: El uso de máscaras no reducirá el SARS-CoV-2.


Las máscaras N95 protegen a los trabajadores de la salud, pero no se recomiendan para la transmisión del control de la fuente.
Las mascarillas quirúrgicas son mejores que las de tela, pero no son muy eficientes para prevenir las emisiones de los pacientes infectados.
Las máscaras de tela serán ineficaces para prevenir la transmisión del SARS-CoV-2, ya sea que se usen como control de la fuente o como equipo de protección personal (PPE).
 

avioneti

Madmaxista
Registrado
6 Jun 2009
Mensajes
6.911
Puntuación de reacción
7.505
Ubicación
España siempre
me parece a mi que el abogado tiene tanta formacion juridica como el que tengo yo aqui colgado
 

hijodepantera

Madmaxista
Registrado
18 Oct 2013
Mensajes
13.063
Puntuación de reacción
28.766
Ubicación
Pineda de mar
UN


que malos sois xD

su hijo espero xD
Claro que es su hijo, son iguales y ademas la foto es muy bonita, no hay nada como amar y sentir orgullo de tu hijo y viceversa.
Lo que pasa es que esa rata roja asquerosa aprovecha para meter mierda y la verdad es que ya ni me molesto en contestarle directamente a el.
 

chusto

Madmaxista
Registrado
10 Jul 2013
Mensajes
16.280
Puntuación de reacción
30.389
Ubicación
Villarejo del Chusto
Enterrarte vivo en una cuneta era poco. Independientemente de lo que piense del abogado o no, poner la foto de su hijo aquí es rastrero hasta para un fascista comunista de mierda como tú.
Por google la he encontrado, asi que la habra subido el mismo. Te lo comento como informacion para tu retraso.
 
  Es duro pedir pero más duro es robar
Por favor, permite que se muestren anuncios en burbuja.info y contribuirás a su supervivencia.