The aim is simple: Perrottet wants to kill more people for the good of the economy. The more of the vulnerable you kill, the more it stimulates the economy by offloading the social ballast holding us back. The “Ballastexistenzen” aren't newsworthy #NegativePopulationEconomics
The translation of these next political weasel words: “healthy economy depends on healthy people”? That we must liquidate the unhealthy social ballast holding back the economy so that the healthy who sustain the economy can soldier on unburdened.
It is all part of the same ableist cult of the healthy body. One that needs to maintain its status through a ruthless Social Darwinist cleansing of Ballastexistenzen. Only by being ruthless, can healthy people enjoy a healthy economy. Competition is the inescapable law of Nature
The same market principle of competition underlies the principles of economics and the marketplace. Economically unviable entities that function only as social ballast, simply need to be allowed to be competitively weeded out according to the law of both Nature and Economics
@Dom_Perrottet has rationalised this saying: “Yes, it's going to be difficult” killing so many to save the economy. To serve the nation, you must: “Close your hearts to pity. Act brutally. The stronger has the greater right.” But it needs to be done. The end justifies the means
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For those who have followed the immunomodulation/immunothrombosis in sepsis literature for over two decades before 2019, the anti-cytokine strategy had looked like a dead end. This study shows it was too premature to just blame a toxic “cytokine soup” for poor sepsis outcomes🧵
All the 90s/00s anti-cytokine trials ended in failure, with one landmark NEJM trial of Etanercept showing signs of a trend toward worsening outcomes. This led to almost everyone abandoning research on anti-cytokine therapy for sepsis
Most in the field moved on to looking at immunomodulation that did not result in immunosuppression eg NETosis inhibition or clearing cellular organelles released during sepsis. Avoidance of harming the host became tantamount
@VicGovDH are giving away dodgy masks. They comply with a Chinese surgical mask standard, GB19083-2010. Level 1 may mean >95% particle filtration efficacy. But it is not a KN95, NIOSH/N95, or compliant with Australian Standard 1716:2012 so can't legally be called a P2 respirator
Information on the Chinese surgical mask standard GB19083-2010 can be found here. It differs from the Chinese KN95 standards “GB 2626-2006” or “GB 2626-2019”. chinesestandard.net/PDF.aspx/GB190…
There is a reason NIOSH do not approve earloop respirators, and that is that they have a poor fit test pass rate. HSE UK has issued an urgent warning cautioning against earloop respirators even when used with the provided “snugger”
Do elastomerics necessarily have a such a high fit test pass rate than disposables that fit testing can be dispensed with? The answer to this is a resounding “NO”. In this thread, we will explore why. 🧵
Like everyone else, I have been citing this one Australian study claiming that elastomerics have a 98% pass rate, whereas disposable have a dismal 57% pass rate. Who needs to get fit tested when you can get any elastomeric instead? …ccess.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/AustralianAnae…
If you don't believe that I've been quoting this study to support the claim that elastomerics have a spectacular fit test pass rate versus disposables, here's me doing just that (though I didn't start this trend I've contributed to it)
1. This bombshell of a paper in @Nature seems to have slipped under the radar. Their shocking conclusion: N95 respirators may be suboptimal for pandemic mitigation and underperform again viral bioaerosols
2. Respirators get their designation, not from their VFE/BFE, but from their PFE (particle filtration efficacy) eg N95≈95% PFE, N99≈99% PFE, P100≈100% PFE. We assume +95% protection against airborne viral bioaerosols from wearing an N95 mask. #COVIDisAirborne
3. This quote accompanying figure 3 summarises the study findings. They further state elsewhere in the paper: “The PFE [particle filtration efficacy] values obtained ranged from 94.0 to 98.8% whilst BFE [bacterial filtration efficacy] values ranged from 92.67 to 95.73%.”
1. Elastomerics create as many problems as they solve. One of these issues is reduced speech comprehensibility. Some have resorted to placing a cabled microphone into the elastomeric. But is this safe to do? I set about testing it with qualitative fit testing
2. In the above photo, you see a cable that protrudes out of the bottom of the elastomeric mask. It is the width of a phone recharger cable and very thin. You would connect this to a rechargeable portable speaker
3. Qualitative fit testing was done with a 3M FT-10 test kit (saccharine) with a 3M 6200 elastomeric, on which I had previously passed a 7-minute OSHA test protocol. Only 2 minutes of the OSHA protocol was used—normal breathing and moving head up-down (one minute each)
1. As stated by HSE, UK: avoid earloop respirators (unless you pass a fit test). “Masks with earloops do NOT adequately protect you… Good seal…cannot be achieved”. A review of several earloop respirators that fail qualitative fit testing
2. All respirators in this thread were tested with the 7-minute OSHA protocol, using the 3M Qualitative Fit Test Apparatus FT-10 (saccharine) 3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v…
3. First up was a Korean KF94 mask (filtration efficacy comparable to an N95/FFP2). This one came with official Korean MFDS certificates plus European CE FFP2 markings. Made in South Korea. Each one is individually packaged. Not cheap