On July 2, 2020, FOXLA Los Angeles published an article (avail. here: https://www.foxla.com/news/santa-monica-allowing-citations-for-failing-to-wear-mask-in-public-100-for-first-violation ) threatening Santa Monicans with fines for failing to wear masks in public after California was reopened for business. The headline was threatening, used scare tactics and leveraged reader’s fatigue in order to have people comply. The first sentence of the article stated that Santa Monica had strengthened face covering requirements. Generally speaking we no longer read, and most assumed there were new rules that if they did not obey, they would be fined. If one read the article, the bottom line of face coverings, save some explicit exceptions and exemptions, is that one must observe social distancing of 6 ft. OR cover their face, which was in no way different then the ‘rules’ that were first employed upon the shuttering of the economy. The entire Covid-19 “supplement” can be found here:
https://www.santamonica.gov/press/2020/07/02/santa-monica-strengthens-face-covering-requirement-and-allows-for-citations-and-refusal-of-service One MORE TIME, 6 feet OR a mask. So why are we doing both?
We are more than 4 months into the Covid narrative with no apparent end in site. Real-life stats are now becoming widely available though these have been mostly on a mainstream media blackout since lockdowns started. This article is simply a tour through data that is available, but not necessarily easy to find due to censorship and a proliferation of media that gravitates to fear tactics as well as propaganda. Interesting note: the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law in 2013, legalized the use of propaganda on the US public and essentially neutralized the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorizations Act of 1987, which protected the US public from propaganda. The result: the media can broadcast confirmed non-truths legally. (article: https://commonsenseevaluation.com/2016/11/21/propaganda-on-the-us-public/ )
My opinion doesn’t matter; I don’t even think politics/political views should be considered in this arena. What is important is doing the very best for our communities, our businesses, our living, breathing people and their mental health based upon real life data and experience regardless of where that data leads. I do think it’s important to understand what many, many experts are saying about statistics, face covering, lockdowns, returning children to school, statistical data, vaccines, etc.
Every item listed here is not my opinion (save one) – this writing is backed by credible sources with links to the material. Please also note, this is only a small sampling of the data that is available. In other words, I could beat you over the head with a mountain of data corroborating what is here.
And what is sorely needed when the stakes are high is good data irrespective of political view; some of the data comes from non-partisan sources, some is put forward by outlets with political leanings. So, you will encounter political views that may not be in line with yours. The main aim here is presenting a sampling of non-fear-based information that hopefully sheds some light on best practices so that we can move forward.
I would estimate the reading time for this info to be about 15 minutes – not to worry, I’ve included some graphics to give your eyes a break! If you choose to watch the videos and read the articles, the investment of time will most likely be about 2 hours.
Present Fatalities
About the only fact we are hearing in mainstream media repetitively, loudly and many times per day is the number of new cases. What is getting little or no exposure is the fatalities. In fact, fatalities since the third week of April have been dropping very quickly, which is clearly visible in the graphics below. The first shows national death stats by numbers to the week ending July 15, 2020. Please note, at the height of deaths in April, the number of deaths was 16,909 for that week. The number of deaths for the week ending July 11, 2020, was only 272. Also, many cases of misreporting are beginning to hit the news. I’ll let you find those stories.
The second graphic is national stats in graph ending on July 4, 2020. The third graphic shows New York’s stats (which suffered the highest number of deaths) in graph form and reflects a similar curve in terms of declining deaths over the same time frame. The fourth graphic is from Florida. I’ve included a number of graphs from differing sources for a broader spectrum of results which do seem to collide in terms of general numbers.
Tony Robbins recently made a short series on YouTube called “Covid-19 Facts From The Frontline; Unmasking the Science You Aren’t Hearing On TV” which consulted veteran experts on several matters related to Covid. The first video in the series is an overview of all the segments. Videos after the first focus on each expert he spoke with and are as follows: #2 falling mortality rates, #3 ineffective nature of masks, #4 CDC guidelines. The playlist can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgP_Au5RZVw&list=PLYTXvUDQT5pUaoPTzi71UIqilqgBOKkQe&index=1v=YgP_Au5RZVw&list=PLYTXvUDQT5pUaoPTzi71UIqilqgBOKkQe&index=1 There are additional videos in the playlist, but the first four are most germane to this discussion
Are Masks Effective for Stopping the Spread of Covid?
Businesses are being shuttered because of the spread of the disease, which we are told may be controlled by wearing face coverings. So let’s dig into what experts are saying about masks.
On June 1, 2020 The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons published a Mask Facts page containing fantastic data on what masks do, what particle sizes they are effective for, what they do not do and how they are supposed to be used. It is very interesting to discover that the very masks and face coverings that are recommended are ineffectual for stopping Covid sized particles from reaching our faces. Countless studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of mask, and these studies are proving masks are ineffectual. This is just an example.
I’ve copied a bit of the text in this report here. The report dissects several pieces of valuable mask information and is cited with studies. Make sure to read the ‘final thoughts’ section copied below. Complete face masks report avail. here: https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
Note: A Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers (μm); influenza virus size is
*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
• N95 – A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm (COVID PARTICLE IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THIS; see above;*emphasis added by me) from reaching the wearer’s face. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained.
◦ 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. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VLXWeZBll7YJ:https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/957730O/respirators-and-surgical-masks-contrast-technical-bulletin.pdf+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
◦ 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.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
• 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.
Final Thoughts
• Surgical masks – loose fitting. They are designed to protect the patient from the doctors’ respiratory droplets. The wearer is not protected from others airborne particles
• People do not wear masks properly. Most people have the mask under the nose. The wearer does not have glasses on and the eyes are a portal of entry.
• The designer masks and scarves offer minimal protection – they give a false sense of security to both the wearer and those around the wearer. **Not to mention they add a perverse lightheartedness to the situation.
• If you are walking alone, no mask – avoid folks – that is common sense.
• Remember – children under 2 should not wear masks – accidental suffocation and difficulty breathing in some
• If wearing a mask makes people go out and get Vitamin D – go for it. In the 1918 flu pandemic people who went outside did better. Early reports are showing people with Covid-19 with low Vitamin D do worse than those with normal levels. Perhaps that is why shut-ins do so poorly. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v4
• If you are sick, stay home!
On March 31, 2020, WHO was cited to ‘stand by recommendation to NOT wear masks unless sick or caring for sick’. Article avail here: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html
Here’s a social post from the US Surgeon General on Feb 29, 2020 stating that masks are NOT effective in preventing the general spread of Covid. Archive of Twitter post here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200229123317/https:/twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160
Lastly on the mask topic, here’s an article about the Spanish Flu in 1918, published on April 2, 2020. People were compelled to wear masks to stave off the spread. In 1918 they discovered that masks were ineffectual for stopping transmission. The article is here: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/everyone-wore-masks-during-the-1918-flu-pandemic-they-were-useless/
1918 Flu Pandemic: People wore masks that were ineffectual.