Re: [Philweb] verschwoerung !

Mensch Waldemar!? Ein Link voll mit Werbung vom SPIEGEL, das ist doch bloß propagandistische Pseudowissenschaft. Wie ich das hasse! Das RKI hatte eine Pandemie bereits 2012 prognostiziert, aber wer hatte sie ernst genommen? Politiker sind fehlbar wie alle Menschen und meine Oma pflegte zu sagen: „Es recht zu machen jedermann, ist eine Kunst die keiner kann.“ Insgesamt sind wir bisher vergleichsweise gut durch die Krise gekommen. Mit weniger Datenschutz, wie z.B. in Taiwan oder Südkorea, hätte es noch wesentlich besser geklappt. Aber Freiheit und Sicherheit sind gegeneinander abzuwiegen. Dabei gilt meine Hochachtung den Entwicklern der mRNA-Impfstoffe Ingmar Hoerr, Ugur Sahin u.a. Die haben auf jeden Fall den Nobelpreis verdient. Zu den Pandemiemaßnahmen sollte man keinen Werbelinks folgen, sondern Rat bei den Experten suchen; z.B.: Peric et al., Analytical and Numerical Investigation of the Airflow in Face Masks used for Protection against COVID-19 Virus-Implications for Mask Design and Usage: Abstract: The use of face masks for the general public has been suggested in literature as a means to decrease virus transmission during the global COVID-19 pandemic. However, literature findings indicate that most mask designs do not provide reliable protection. This paper investigates the hypothesis that the impaired protection is mainly due to imperfect fitting of the masks, so that airflow, which contains virus-transporting droplets, can leak through gaps into or out of the mask. The fluid dynamics of face masks are investigated via analytical and numerical computations. The results demonstrate that the flow can be satisfactorily predicted by simplified analytical 1D-flow models, by efficient 2D-flow simulations and by 3D-flow simulations. The present results show that already gap heights larger than 0.1mm can result in the mask not fulfilling FFP2 or FFP3 standards, and for gap heights of ca. 1mm most of the airflow and droplets may pass through the gap. The implications of these findings are discussed and improvements to existing mask designs are suggested. Was unter Laborbedingungen oder bei Profis funktioniert, muss es nicht auch im Alltag. Aber glücklicherweise wirken sich auch Durchschnittsmasken positiv aus, wenn sie denn richtig getragen werden: Ashish Goyal et al., Slight reduction in SARS-CoV-2 exposure viral load due to masking results in a significant reduction in transmission with widespread implementation: Abstract: Masks are a vital tool for limiting SARS-CoV-2 spread in the population. Here we utilize a mathematical model to assess the impact of masking on transmission within individual transmission pairs and at the population level. Our model quantitatively links mask efficacy to reductions in viral load and subsequent transmission risk. Our results reinforce that the use of masks by both a potential transmitter and exposed person substantially reduces the probability of successful transmission, even if masks only lower exposure viral load by ~50%. Slight increases in masking relative to current levels would reduce the reproductive number substantially below 1, particularly if implemented comprehensively in potential super-spreader environments. Our model predicts that moderately efficacious masks that reduce transmission risk by 50% will lower exposure viral load 10-fold among people who do get infected, potentially limiting infection severity. Because peak viral load tends to occur pre-symptomatically, we also identify that antiviral therapy targeting symptomatic individuals is unlikely to impact transmission risk. Instead, antiviral therapy is only effective for this indication as post-exposure prophylaxis, specifically if given to ~50% of newly infected people within 3 days of an exposure. These results highlight the primacy of masking relative to other biomedical interventions under consideration for limiting the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic prior to widespread implementation of a vaccine. Also, Waldemar, bleib entspannt und freu Dich auf die Impfung im Sommer! Ingo