One wonders if this fear of self-inoculation comes from the abject failure to appreciate air infections
If 1. you believe in droplets 2. everybody is in masks that should stop droplets, and 3. they're still getting infected
that's a problem
You touched your mask to the rescue!
This may be the report that tells us transfer efficiency. Down around 1% it seems. Conclusion is go ahead re-use, unless contaminated with blood or other secretion directly.
Can you cough the virus on the outside of the mask, off the mask?
Looks like no, from this study anyway. Makes sense given how they trap stuff (talk to air ppl - it's not just a sieve).
Just a reminder as people have us worry about theoretical transfer possibilities from mask to finger.
The 95 in N95 stands for 95 PERCENT.
These masks don't block everything anyway.
So all of this was a huge distraction, YET AGAIN.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's just an old talking point that keeps getting repeated. It comes from the PROCEDURE bringing MANY HCW into the room for intubation. Plus the idea of drops flying out of mouths when you intubate.
Once we finally solve this terminology, they're gonna have another problem, which is that all these viruses are "airborne" and we just see longer-range transmission amongst the more contagious/in odd situations.
So they're gonna have a chance to make up more words soon anyway.
Here is part of the problem. From a textbook published in 2015, the chapter on RSV. This is just an example.
Says aerosol not likely, citing author's own paper from 1981 (35 years ago).
Says fomite important (touching objects...). Cites nothing.
This similar kind of citation for fundamental principles feeds into papers.
Pic from a paper from 2019. Cites a text book chapter from 2003 and two more papers from same author as earlier, from ~1981. All for the prospect that RSV transmits by touch, only.
The 2003 text book is 5. The other two are 6 and 7.
5 cites to another 1980 paper. Probably one of the 6 and 7 papers.