Legitimate question. Any chemists care to weigh in?
Printable View
Chemical engineer here (close enough).
Most real multiphase systems are rarely in complete equilibrium so you end up with a mixture of dissolved vapor and droplets that are coalescing. In theory though if the air is in perfect equilibrium and only contains water vapor, then no it cannot be filtered. A vapor is just a gas, with individual, far spread apart molecules (the difference is that a gas cannot be condensed by being compressed). So you cannot filter “humidity” out of air anymore than you can filter oxygen from nitrogen.
And a gas cannot transmit a virus.
There was a relatively profound misunderstanding of how this virus transmitted at the beginning of this pandemic, and that was rooted in misunderstandings in the medical community that go back decades.
I'm not aware of a respiratory virus that transmits primarily by contact with surfaces. For most viruses, we do not know the relative contributions of aerosols, respiratory drops, and surfaces. These are actually very difficult and expensive studies to do. Because most folks believe that we've already sorted this stuff out it's also very difficult to get these studies funded.
Correct.
Now I do think John Watson is on to something that what we’re seeing in that video may just be condensation effects. You’d have to do the same experiment with the glasses closer to human body temperature to eliminate the possibility of condensation.
Apparently a virus needs to be on an aerosol droplet.
So, the video demonstrates a very poor understanding science, at best.
He has merely demonstrated that a gas can pass through filters.
A demonstration of what percentage of aerosol droplets (capable of carrying a virus) that pass through the filter might be more telling.
Certainly contaminated droplets seem likely to be able to pass around face masks as typically worn, moreso with multiple masks.
Does the amount of aerosol droplets, if any, reduced, blocked, or deflected by the mask reduce transmission of the virus?
Does a reduced viral load, presuming a mask could even do that, result in less severe cases, or non-infection?
I've not yet seen proper science answering any of this.
There was also a profound misunderstanding of the death rate from this virus too, something that has proven too valuable to abandon when the actual data became available.
I don't know, and it's just not interesting since the disease in question doesn't actually kill anybody who is not already dying. It's all over now, except for the power handed to the government by people made afraid by Virologists.
The Pandemic Is Over; Shots are Worthless in [Market-Ticker-Nad]
Doctor, note the following:And the only problem with this is that hundreds of thousands did not die of COVID-19 in the US.Quote:
Of course the "new drugs" being investigated will be on-patent and expensive. Existing drugs proved to work such as Ivermectin, HCQ, some SSRIs and others are still being ignored despite clinical trial evidence. There are over seven hundred trials of these drugs but you cannot mention any of those trials on said media. That's right -- you will be banned and censored if you reference formal medical studies on social media, you cannot talk about them on any of the mainstream media TV or radio shows nor on Youtube. I personally had a study taken down and this area of my blog exists because Google forbids advertising on any page that mentions formal medical studies they disagree with!
No, these drugs don't work 100% of the time -- nothing does. But they do work by the science, and that should have been what we did; had we done so hundreds of thousands of people in the US would not have died.