Emily Burns 😊 #SmilesMatter DM’s OK

2/ This is because we know that these aerosols are nearly identical in size to cigarette smoke (see last tweet). Cigarette smoke, and by extension, the respiratory aerosols carrying COVID are NOT STOPPED by masks, or caught. They are redirected—see video.pic.twitter.com/Q70SGGAqCi

3/ And yet, we have this kind of dishonesty from people like Bill Nye. He talks about “stopping the flow of air.” Yet he, just as everyone else who has worn a mask, must have felt the air escaping out the top of the mask--fluttering his eye lashes--during this demonstration.pic.twitter.com/gwX6xtJ07i

4/ Almost everything you have seen published, by the CDC and elsewhere, exploits two facts to claim “masks work.” They either: -Look at particles much larger than the known range for respiratory aerosols - Ignore the importance of gaps - Or measure volume "caught"pic.twitter.com/xBlXoG1QBi

5/ Now to examples. The MIT study pointing out that the “6-foot rule” was useless, b/c the virus is carried in aerosols ~0.5 microns, ALSO said masks work. How? They capture filtration efficiency via a “Penetration Factor” —BUT COMPLETELY IGNORE GAPS. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118 …pic.twitter.com/Fhnwu4BJhe

6/ Now, there is a lot of very complex math in this paper. Why would they eliminate such an important, KNOWN, variable? B/c it would show masks DON’T work. W/just a 3.2% gap (appx what we see in normal wear), masks are rendered virtually useless. https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-why-masks-dont-work-in-the-real-world …pic.twitter.com/S5ayQeIYtr

7/ This is why N-95’s are fit-tested, b/c they offer virtually NO protection with even a 1% gap—as noted in this paper from the American Chemistry Society. But recall, N-95’s are not intended to stop transmission. Hence the leakage in the videos above. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252 …pic.twitter.com/46bHDBJUIM

8/ This is why modeling studies such as this do not even make it only the evidence hierarchy. They are hugely impacted by the inputs the authors choose to put in the model. Ignoring gaps shows an incredible bias on the part of the authors.pic.twitter.com/N3lnpE2Q7I

9/ Now let’s take a look at the famous duke visualizations of the “Stay Healthy People” videos. Watching the no-mask trial, it's clear the camera is not picking up ANY of the breath aerosols—only spit. The screen is completely black till talking starts https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 …pic.twitter.com/RLnRDbFz4t

10/ Indeed, the article notes the camera’s sensitivity is 120 microns—so those are quite large droplets indeed (note that there are some of this size that appear, shockingly, that escape the N-95).pic.twitter.com/X0lYdyufxl

11/ The article notes that it ought to be able to count—but not identify—all particles above 0.5 microns. However, as seen below, this means that even this theoretical resolution misses 70%+ of all particles, and particularly the most infectious. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 …pic.twitter.com/IRyBwRJXsl

14/ Then, they use the mass that is caught by each mask to measure. Now, remember, a 7 micron particle has a volume/mass 12,000 times that of a 0.3 micron particle—the most common size. 1 would be ~= in volume to all expected aerosols.pic.twitter.com/TVPFOsiwy2

15/ It is possible that the CDC is just mis-informed, in fact, in the article they note that most virus is carried in particles under 10 microns.pic.twitter.com/jyWFoKKKao

16/ This again though, while technically true, masks the truth. In fact, 87% of virus (at least) is known to be carried in particles <1 micron (and the study that found that didn’t even LOOK at those <0.3 microns). <0.1% are 5 micron+. (never mind 10) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002691 …pic.twitter.com/20smhsMybK

17/ Even after acknowledging that COVID & other respiratory viruses are spread via respiratory aerosols, they pretend those aerosols are MUCH larger than they have known to be since the 80’s. Here is an "AEROSOL scientist" claiming most are ~2 microns. Willfully uninformed?pic.twitter.com/xcnX7xfY2c

18/ Just a quick reminder. Even coughing and talking generate practically nothing over 1 micron. (note, the figure on the right did not look at aerosols <0.3 micron, which are known to be the most numerous, per graph on left).pic.twitter.com/3nQihiZHqE

19/ Once again, this is not “new science.” As early as 2017 if was known that sneezing was not associated with aerosolization, and coughing was not necessary for them—that breathing was enough. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/5/1081.full.pdf …pic.twitter.com/lpz3jq6wz7

20/ Scientists desperately WANT the particles to be bigger—b/c masks WORK for them This excerpt is incredible. He notes the majority of virus is in aerosols NOT captured by masks. But says we should STILL use them, b/c they stop the other particles' <0.1%.https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205 …pic.twitter.com/ApokPSO3yi

21/ Please note, Dr. Milton was one of the researchers who DISCOVERED THIS IN 2008: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002691 …pic.twitter.com/aEUaZWIdOd

24/ Masking—far more than other restrictions—is TIGHTLY linked to low-levels of access to in-person education, and high levels of unemployment. It is not linked to a decrease in deaths or cases. https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/masks-what-s-the-harm …pic.twitter.com/CE2IXIdfD1

27/ But high unemployment and low access to in-person education are NOT the only harms. They are tightly linked to Fear of getting illness, isolating yourself from others, and feelings of isolation. https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/masks-what-s-the-harm …pic.twitter.com/oGy7H2eXNT

28/ Certainly Public Health Officials will be thrilled that places with high masking, are also not seeing each other. But sadly, it has ZERO impact on deaths or cases a few weeks down the line. https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/masks-what-s-the-harm …pic.twitter.com/7eImWvzIry

29/ But are masks REALLY political? Yes, they are. If the strong Blue/Red divide weren’t enough to convince you, the very tight alignment with support for BLM ought to convince you. https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/masks-what-s-the-harm …pic.twitter.com/OBTkv6L2bX

30/ But what about the fact that masks are linked to high rates of low in-person education, and high unemployment? Might that this politicization is harming the people people whom BLM supporters claim to care about? https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/masks-what-s-the-harm …pic.twitter.com/H0MK5d20qD

31/ The answer is absolutely. Not only do “Biden states” have far lower levels of in-person and far higher levels of virtual learning—those differences skew negatively towards minorities—where there is no pattern for “Trump states.” @ProfEmilyOster https://www.thesmileproject.global/post/masks-what-s-the-harm …pic.twitter.com/eZ3UP6ioPq