.@tom_cardoso, @globeandmail why are you interviewing ID MDs about Respiratory PPE? Lynora Saxinger has muddied the science of Airborne Transmission and obstructed access to Respiratory PPE for 2 years. She and the other obstructionists are liable. They are not honest brokers. 1/
What training do these MDs have in Respiratory PPE and the physics of masks?
This would be like doing an investigative report on the Boeing 737MAX crashes, and only interviewing the Boeing and FDA executives that rubber stamped the negligent certification documents. 2/
Right off the bat... does this quote not strike you as odd? Have you seen a respirator? They are not individually fit/molded to a person's face. They are DESIGNED to fit, UNLIKE A SURGICAL MASK.
You know what mask forces air out the sides 100% of the time? A SURGICAL MASK. 3/
A respirator that fails a fit test, just means it's not achieving optimal protection for an Occupational Hazard.. it's still orders of magnitude better than a surgical mask, WHICH HAS VISIBLE GAPS ALL AROUND IT!
This statement is pure negligence. They have been running this unethical trial for 2 years. This is human experimentation - there is no equipoise for this study. A Respirator, designed to protect against an INHALED HAZARD, will BY DEFINITION, work better than a droplet mask. 5/
They are using nurses like guinea pigs, waiting to see how many fall ill, rather than following the advice of Occupational Hygienists and other Aerosol experts, who have been loudly calling for Respiratory PPE.
Lynora/Conly's AHS SAG also launders this misinformation via their erroneous Rapid Reviews, which reference Conly’s own problematic Systematic Review, like an ouroboros of BS.
Read this thread and do some investigative journalism please.
It has a weakness: it needs to travel on an air bridge.
We have the technology to break that air bridge, through filtering, cleaning and changing the air.
🧵 on some Omicron avoidance SUCCESS stories!
1/
1️⃣ Last Monday, my family was briefly exposed to a symptomatic person who had tested negative on a RAT. When I realized they were symptomatic, I asked them to leave as a precaution, and immediately refreshed the air via doors and windows open. They tested + the next day.
2/
For the next week, we wore respirators in the house to protect our 2 year old son, just in case we had become infected.
9 days later, nobody has tested positive.
Lesson: Isolate symptomatic people, regardless of RAT result. If exposed, purge the air as soon as possible.
3/
Many people are waking up with the gift of Omicron this Christmas, thanks to our incompetent government and PH establishment, that decided to let this Airborne virus rip.
Stop the cycle - if you have ANY symptoms, DO NOT GATHER regardless of Rapid Test OR PCR Test result.
Early symptoms that I've heard from friends and family:
If you have ANY of these, DO NOT VISIT FAMILY INDOORS.
DON'T TRUST A NEGATIVE TEST (PCR or RAT)
I've heard more anecdotes than I can count of RATs and PCRs missing early symptomatic cases. Some people are testing positive on the throat but not nose - so do BOTH!
One friend transmitted it during a 10 minute maskless encounter, while still presymptomatic and unaware.
Getting warmer... but still insufficient for an Airborne virus.
There are some easter eggs in this document, which tell us the @WHO IPAC Group is STILL drunk on #DropletDogma, and that they DO NOT support this minor change in RPE guidance.
First, Omicron is measles-level Airborne (maybe worse). 2 weeks ago I had no close friends or family that had caught COVID. As of today, 3 people close to me are positive after long-range Airborne transmission in restaurants or at work.
How do I know it's long range? They did not get within 20ft of an index case. They inhaled it from the air.
One friend wore a CAN99 everywhere, EXCEPT in his closed door office space, in a large work trailer. The index case was in the same trailer, on the opposite side.
3/
This victimhood narrative from IPAC really defies belief.
It's incredibly petty and disingenuous to use tone policing and "rude twitter streamers" as an excuse for inaction and a shield against accountability.
It is doubly inappropriate, when 1000's of lives are at stake.
These folks are hospital directors, who set the infection control guidance for their hospitals and the province. They rule with an iron fist.
When subordinates and other disciplines spoke up about aerosol, they were chided, mocked, threatened, and retaliated against.
2/9
These IPAC Directors are the ones deciding that your elderly relative has to remove their N95 and replace it with a baggy blue when they go for surgery.
They are the ones propping up the school boards' bans on teacher respirator use.
MacIntyre 2013 found that continuous N95 use resulted in a statistically significant reduction in Clinical Respiratory Illness (CRI), whereas targeted/intermittent N95 use was not superior to medical masks.
This is not surprising given the nature of aerosol transmission.
🚨 ATTENTION: Alberta Healthcare Workers, Patients:
Despite the catastrophic situation unfolding in your hospitals, and the uncontrolled spread of Delta in your communities, do not expect @AHS_media to provide HCWs with Respiratory PPE (N95s) anytime soon.
🧵1/
The @AHS_media SAG has just released a 73 page, biased, diatribe against the efficacy of Respiratory Protective Equipment - which can best be described as Decision-Based Evidence Making. I'm sure the AHS lawyers were pleased with this report.
It's no secret that Alberta IPAC requires HCWs to use surgical masks when treating COVID patients, despite overwhelming evidence that SARS2 transmits via *INHALED* aerosols.
Not a shock that the usual #DropletDogma suspects concluded this was A-OK.