Literally no proof included here that masks increase CO2 levels in this. You just assume this and orientate everything else around that, which is obviously fallacious. One would assume that Asia would have covered this already, and yet I haven't heard of this phenomenon happening there.
And this study literally says: "Long-term use of respiratory protection did not result in any clinically relevant physiologic burden for health care personnel, although many subjective symptoms were reported. N95 compliance was fairly high."
"CO2 levels increased from a baseline average of 32.4 at the beginning of the shift to 41.0 at the end of each shift. There were no changes in nurses’ blood pressure, O2 levels, perceived comfort, perceived thermal comfort, or complaints of visual difficulties compared with baseline levels."
"An interesting finding from this study is that, although the nurses did not experience any clinically significant negative physiologic effects from wearing respiratory protection, they reported many subjective symptoms. For example, perceived shortness of breath increased over time when nurses wore any type of respiratory protection. Although physiologic measures of heart rate, O2, and CO2 did not reflect a difficulty with gas exchange, nurses reported feeling more short of breath the longer they wore respiratory protection. Other subjective symptoms also increased over time, including complaints of headache, lightheadedness, perceived exertion, and impeded communication. When wearing an N95 with mask overlay, nurses reported feeling more nausea and had more visual challenges than when they wore only an N95. Although these symptoms do not represent life-threatening conditions, they are unpleasant and may affect health care personnel’s willingness or ability to tolerate long-term N95 usage that would be necessary during a disaster."
That second one is specifically an N95 mask plus a surgical mask. The one I linked did just the N95 alone and then also the N95 + surgical mask on top of that.
The evidence suggests that placement of an SM on one type of FFR improved inhaled breathing gas concentrations over the FFR without SM; the placement of an SM over an FFR+EV probably will prevent the EV from opening, regardless of activity intensity; and, at lower levels of energy expenditure, EVs in FFR do not open either with or without an SM.
They even specially mention this in the results section. And in the conclusions saying
"The differences in inhaled gas concentrations in FFR+Surgical Mask and FFR-only were significant. The orientation of the SM on the FFR may have a significant effect on the inhaled breathing quality and breathing resistance, although the measurable inhalation and exhalation pressures caused by SM over FFR for healthcare users probably will be imperceptible at lower activity levels."
You're fucking removed, holy shit. Get off this site. You literally didn't read it and I'm sure you think "statistically significant" means "obviously bad."
They wear masks all the time, you fucking dip. You're literally blinding yourself to fit your narrative.
what they're saying is that in other countries it is normal to wear masks even before this pandemic, and therefore if it were a significant health concern it is likely this would have been found out by those countries
if it were a significant health concern it is likely this would have been found out by those countries
There are tons of ordinary industrial/commercial practices that are harmful, but the harm is not obvious enough to be immediately noticed, or there's some other interest (classically, the interests of capital) that acts to prevent an honest investigation.
Not saying that's necessarily the case here; only that we definitely don't live in a world where significant health concerns are noticed promptly.
Well, it's both. But I'm not really talking about how to characterize mask wearing -- I'm saying that we have tons of examples of harmful practices (many of which happen to be industrial/commercial practices) that are not immediately recognized as such.
Revealing your hand pretty hard here. It's literally about aesthetics to you. Stop calling yourself an ML if you abandon scientific thought as soon as it becomes inconvenient for your un-scientific feelings.
Literally no proof included here that masks increase CO2 levels in this. You just assume this and orientate everything else around that, which is obviously fallacious. One would assume that Asia would have covered this already, and yet I haven't heard of this phenomenon happening there.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7132714/
And this study literally says: "Long-term use of respiratory protection did not result in any clinically relevant physiologic burden for health care personnel, although many subjective symptoms were reported. N95 compliance was fairly high."
"CO2 levels increased from a baseline average of 32.4 at the beginning of the shift to 41.0 at the end of each shift. There were no changes in nurses’ blood pressure, O2 levels, perceived comfort, perceived thermal comfort, or complaints of visual difficulties compared with baseline levels."
"An interesting finding from this study is that, although the nurses did not experience any clinically significant negative physiologic effects from wearing respiratory protection, they reported many subjective symptoms. For example, perceived shortness of breath increased over time when nurses wore any type of respiratory protection. Although physiologic measures of heart rate, O2, and CO2 did not reflect a difficulty with gas exchange, nurses reported feeling more short of breath the longer they wore respiratory protection. Other subjective symptoms also increased over time, including complaints of headache, lightheadedness, perceived exertion, and impeded communication. When wearing an N95 with mask overlay, nurses reported feeling more nausea and had more visual challenges than when they wore only an N95. Although these symptoms do not represent life-threatening conditions, they are unpleasant and may affect health care personnel’s willingness or ability to tolerate long-term N95 usage that would be necessary during a disaster."
deleted by creator
That second one is specifically an N95 mask plus a surgical mask. The one I linked did just the N95 alone and then also the N95 + surgical mask on top of that.
They even specially mention this in the results section. And in the conclusions saying
"The differences in inhaled gas concentrations in FFR+Surgical Mask and FFR-only were significant. The orientation of the SM on the FFR may have a significant effect on the inhaled breathing quality and breathing resistance, although the measurable inhalation and exhalation pressures caused by SM over FFR for healthcare users probably will be imperceptible at lower activity levels."
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You're fucking removed, holy shit. Get off this site. You literally didn't read it and I'm sure you think "statistically significant" means "obviously bad."
They wear masks all the time, you fucking dip. You're literally blinding yourself to fit your narrative.
deleted by creator
what they're saying is that in other countries it is normal to wear masks even before this pandemic, and therefore if it were a significant health concern it is likely this would have been found out by those countries
There are tons of ordinary industrial/commercial practices that are harmful, but the harm is not obvious enough to be immediately noticed, or there's some other interest (classically, the interests of capital) that acts to prevent an honest investigation.
Not saying that's necessarily the case here; only that we definitely don't live in a world where significant health concerns are noticed promptly.
This isn't an industrial/commercial practice, though, but a widespread social one.
Well, it's both. But I'm not really talking about how to characterize mask wearing -- I'm saying that we have tons of examples of harmful practices (many of which happen to be industrial/commercial practices) that are not immediately recognized as such.
deleted by creator
Revealing your hand pretty hard here. It's literally about aesthetics to you. Stop calling yourself an ML if you abandon scientific thought as soon as it becomes inconvenient for your un-scientific feelings.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator