This evening, I decided to put all of my masks to a proper qualitative fit test using a nebulizer, bitrex solution, and improvised hood. From the upper left, counterclockwise:
(Bitrex (denatonium) is the most bitter compound known and is not hazardous to health)
While you can fit test without a hood just by nebulizing near the mask, a hood can increase the...
... concentration and make detection of aerosols easier. This need not be complex - I used a loose transparent garbage bag, placed over my torso and left open enough at the waste so as to not pose a suffocation risk.
Masks were tested individually, each going through initial...
basic breathing tests, speaking tests, tests with angling the head in each direction, and deep/rapid breathing tests. The airstream was directed across my tongue to aid in tasting. At the conclusion of each test I removed the mask while still in the hood to make sure that I...
could taste the aerosols easily. Between tests, I ate a small piece of banana to cleanse my palate to avoid getting used to the Bitrex.
Results:
1) Surgical mask: you already know how this is going to go. I actually tasted the bitrex before I even started up the nebulizer,...
just from putting on the hood that had been used in the last attempt. Barely better than no mask. Rating: 1/10.
2) Demetech: the masks feel like they have a reasonable fit - certainly better than the Wisent cup mask - though the material feels light. But the bitrex taste came..
... disappointingly quickly, with no difficulty tasting at all. Rating: 3/10.
3) Wisent: a hardware store FFP2 mask clearly intended for industrial rather than medical uses, its fit felt poor and expectations weren't high. But it still outperformed the Demetech. Rating: 4/10.
4) 3M Aura 9330+ FFP3, used: the Aura series is the gold standard in disposable medical FFP2/FFP3 masks, although there are some doubts whether the ones you find on Amazon are legit. This mask had been used by me for maybe 20 hours. I was quickly disappointed - while better...
than the aforementioned masks, I was still very clearly getting Bitrex through it. Rating: 5/10.
5) 3M Aura 9320+ FFP2, new and... 6) 3M Aura 9330+ FFP3, new: I group these together because, honestly, I couldn't tell a difference between them. New, they performed much better...
... than the used Aura. I could still taste a little bit of Bitrex through them at high concentrations in normal positions, and a moderate amount of Bitrex when looking foward while directing Bitrex around the nosepiece. Rating: 8/10.
7) GVS Elipse SPR 644: What can I say? It aced the test. I might have imagined tasting Bitrex, but I think it was just my imagination. That said, it's certainly not the most comfortable of mask, though you do get used to it - and under prolongued wearing I find I sweat in it,
... and then who knows how well the seal works. Rating: 10/10
8) 3M 6800: I'd put this in the same "may have imagined tasting something, but probably didn't" category as the GVS Elipse. This is a IMHO much more comfortable mask, but is vented. Rating: 10/10.
Yet to test: I have a 3M half-facepiece with official vent filter attachment for source control on order; will try it when it gets here, but I expect it to also ace the test.
These are qualitative tests, and are not as good as quantitative ones (particle count measurements),...
... but were still good enough to make some points quite clear:
Followup: I was in the Elipse for nearly two hours today, enough time to start sweating along the seals and really "shake it loose" if it were to get loose, so I decided to leave it on and do a new fit test at home, to see whether sweat and wear affected the fit.
Answer: no. And I really tried, but I couldn't get a single taste of bitrex no matter what I did. Its fit appears to hold up well to wear.
(As usual, for confirnation I took the mask off in the hood and immediately got a strong bitrex taste)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Summary: In SARS-CoV-2 patients, there's dramatic alteration of gene expression in the olfactory bulb of the brain, yet this doesn't correlate with the virus's presence or absence...
... in the olfactory bulb. Seeking to explain this, they checked for a marker of connectivity of sensory nerve fibres (afferants) called OMP-1, and as controls looked at a marker for olfactory lesions (TH) and general. neural activity (SNAP-25)
Results?
OMP-1 - the connectivity marker - was highly depleted in COVID patients (A) with anosmia, in comparison to non-COVID patients. No difference was seen in the marker for lesions (TH) or neural activity (SNAP-25). It thus appears that the pathology is upstream of the olfactory bulb.
Hey @elonmusk, any way to rollback this horrid UI update? It's destroyed the usability of common controls on the bottom bar. Literally imposdible to have things like defrost and seat heaters as one-click. Is hiding "defrost" even legal? Shouldn't be.
Who designed this thing, and who approved it? All logic is gone. Like, if I swipe my music down off the screen, them swipe back up, it's not the music that comesup, but the giant climate control screen! Is that "intuitive" or "helpful"?
With all the things that vanished from the bottom bar, it's now mostly blank unused space, on the most important part of the screen - even if I fill the custom bar from the limited subset of choices.
What were designers thinking with moving wiper controls so far from the wheel?
* 35% as severe as Delta (which was in turn ~200x that of Wuhan-Hu-1) - in contrast with 95% as severe in the Imperial College report.
* 10x greater risk of reinfection than with Delta
* Boosters give 57%...
... protection against symptomatic infection.
The nuance:
* Age *is* controlled for. This is important, as 49% of Omicron cases were age 20-39.
* Vaccination status is controlled for, but past infection is not.
* Small sample size (15 hospitalized patients)
* They *do* appear to control for time bias with a Cox proportional hazards regression model.
* "Only individuals reporting symptoms at the time of test were included in this study" - Not sure why they're doing this, sounds like a good way to introduce bias.
Beyond the mentioned:
* +30% transmission
* boosted=90% protection v. infection (was 95%)
It's:
* boosted=93% protection vs. severe (same)
* 2,4x more severe strain than Delta
The 2,4x more severe ("those not inoculated have a 2.4 times greater chance of developing serious symptoms") runs contrary to the narrative being spun in some African nations that it's a "mild strain" - statements often made right before insisting on lifting the travel bans.
Statements that - I should add - were just repeated by an anonymous WHO official, along with claims that vaccine efficacy isn't reduced, and also demanding the lifting of travel bans:
A reminder when viewing exponential growth charts: a wave with faster case growth, plotted against waves with slower growth, will *inherently* seem to take longer for hospitalizations, ICU admissions and deaths to "catch up". Simulated scenario with varying doubling times below.
In the above graphs, the slower waves were seeded with more initial cases, so that the faster growing waves past the slower ones on day 27. But hospitalizations don't pass until day 34, ICU admissions until day 38, and deaths on Day 41.
This is an inherent result in the delay between cases and more severe outcomes. If case growth reaches a given height corresponding to an earlier wave, but at a faster growth rate, it hasn't had as much time for cases to become more severe - thus they plot lower vs. cases.
Since comments were shut down on this thread... a reply thread.
1) The existence of a finite number of things that professionals have been wrong about in their field does not in any way imply the likelihood that a random person is likely to be more correct than professionals.
E.g., if climatologists get some specific detail of climatology wrong in regards to *rapidly evolving news*, that doesn't mean that one should listen to John Doe over the IPCC.
2) When one posits "theoretical harms" of COVID restrictions up against the actual measured harms...
.... the real, demonstrable harms win. I used excess death figures to avoid the "died with COVID vs. died of COVID" red herring. And to be clear: yes, these excess deaths are mainly due to respiratory disease, & to a lesser extent cardiac - the way COVID kills people.