LISTEN as highly influential Prof John Conly (upper left) of UCalgary, AHS CV19 sci advisory grp, Public Health Agency Canada, Chair WHO Infection Prevention & Control R&D Expert Grp. opposes N95 wearing citing acne harm vs @DFisman & @kprather88 precautionary principle. /1
"there's been decreased O2 concentrations in pregnant women" yeah, well here's the reference from one of his publications, dissected in fine form by @caruzycki /2
Because of Prof. Conly's influence, public health agencies around the world continue to double down on contact and droplet. Public Health Ontario: /5
February 19, 2021 Directive 5 FAQ from Ontario Ministry of Health & LTC:
Droplet & Contact precautions, and conserve PPE.
Conserve PPE, despite ample supplies. One year into the pandemic. It's egregious. /6
Here's what the CDC and NIOSH have to say about the differences between Surgical Masks and N95 Respirators. /7
(image adapted from ) cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pd…
The presentations by Prather and Fisman make an excellent summary of how the wide variance in respiratory aerosols produced by people can explain the high dispersion factor of COVID-19. Highly recommended to view the 60 minute session in its entirety /8 ucalgary.yuja.com/V/Video?v=3323…
Dr. Conly is the primary & corresponding author of WHO commentary article stating "SARS-CoV-2 not airborne to any significant extent, respirators offer no advantage & may result in unintended harms" same as he said in the video above /9 aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
Regarding the poor experimental design leading Conly to claim N95 leads to "decreased O2 concentrations in pregnant women", thread is archived here:
OF COURSE you can't get much air when you're breathing through such a restricted contraption. /10
Vancouver Coastal Health has released an updated Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality resource for Schools and Childcare Facilities () but their CO2 page needs some edits. vch.ca/en/document-li…
Vancouver Coastal Health "CO2 concentrations do not indicate a risk of infectious disease transmission in a space". No.
ASHRAE's position document on indoor CO2 says "higher CO2 conc correspond to lower ventilation and potentially increased risk of airborne transmission"
Vancouver Coastal Health "Note that health effects from CO2 occur at levels above 5000 ppm". Did WorkSafeBC interfere? Because that's contradicted by your Health Canada reference in the sentence immediately before it.
This document has been a long time coming. As described by @jljcolorado, Lidia Morawska, co-chair of the group that published the new WHO airborne model, was previously cut off by John Conly when making the case that #COVIDisAirborne to WHO. /3
Air purifier manufacturers say HEPA should always be the filter of choice, and their product's proprietary filter delivers. Which HEPA? ISO 35H at 99.95% or ISO 40H at 99.99%? Why not ISO 50U? That's 10x better at 99.999%. Why stop there? Go for ISO 70U at 99.99999%! /1
The answer is, single-pass filtration efficiency DOESN'T MATTER except in specific cases like Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR), clean rooms, operating theaters, or nuclear laboratory exhaust—HEPA's original purpose. /2
For portable/in-room air cleaners, all that matters is the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) for a target particle size and type, within acceptable for sound power and frequency characteristics for the people in the room. /3
Four years into this and we can't keep duct-taping in-room filter solutions for clean air. It's just filter(s) and a fan. We need open-source, optimized design, certifiable product, efficient, repairable using commodity filters and commodity components. /1
We need air cleaners assembled and distributed by not-for-profit community-based social enterprise. No more lock-in to proprietary filters. Verified replacement commodity filtration performance for safety. /2
Low income with donated CR boxes will pay over time in electrical costs for the duct-taped solution for clean air.
Power utilization for Smoke CADR, same filters:
Conventional CR Box: 4 CADR/W. (77 W)
PC fan array air cleaner: 24 CADR/W. (8 W)
/3
1/ Levoit Core 400S versus Austin Air HM400 in a challenge to see which portable air cleaner removes submicron salt particle aerosols the fastest! Which do you think will win, and by how much? Poll in next tweet below...
2/ Which has a higher CADR (Clean Air Delivery Rate):
Levoit Core 400S, or Austin Air HM400?
See if you can find the manufacturer's claims for both, and then come back and vote:
[sarcasm] Not only is the Austin Air bigger and far heavier, it also draws way more power, is much louder, and more expensive. It couldn't possibly be *worse* than the Levoit, right? Right?