Member Info for PartyPooper

IsleworthSpy
"
Your concerns about the P2F mask will hopefully be alleviated. Let's not forget that these masks are being tested to kill the virus outward as well as inwards.
I would suggest that any enhanced protection is better than none. That is what i believe these masks bring to the table. And hopefully they become the new standard bearer for face masks."
I'm open to any data on testing that P2F do but so far there is none. In the IIRC format which is mainly for stopping outgoing droplets my concern is that if droplets can land on the outside of the mask and not enough time for the Nano particles to kill the virus before they are re-aerosolised by outgoing breath then the usefulness would be minimal.
In protecting the wearer I would like to see testing to show:
a. What percentage of inward breaths gets in around the edges (gaps)
b. Does the Nano layer get to act on that breath in any meaningful way (seems unlikely to me)
I think the undoubted benefit would be a reduction of accumulated virus in the inside of the mask but again I'd like to figures, compared to changing normal cheaper masks more frequently.
I think these are questions anybody should have about these masks if they're at all bothered about their bonafides!

Some snippets of info on the Telegram group, LSG Future World ESG fund buying into EUA.
AP revealing they left Murmansk for another contract, so finished up.
A sign of progress.

JR = JUSTIFIABLY RATTY?

IsleworthSpy I think you missed the particular argument I was having at the time, I was citing other masks that met ISO18184 because one of the Mork Nano Nano rampers was making false claims about what it takes to achieve that certification, I said it was a low bar to reach, I think those masks are rubbish, absolute gimmick. P2F masks I'm waiting on some performance tests to show that they offer anything extra at all, they've not shown that yet so quite why people are talking about them as if they're amazing and needed to save the world is truly beyond reason. They could just be an over priced IIRC mask with a layer that is rendered completely impotent by the way the way the virus can still be inhaled and can still survive on the outer layer for a length of time not yet tested or determined. It's a concept!

andy216 I hope they are able to stop using IIRC ones like the P2F because they're the ones that don't protect them, I think they all deserve FFP3 that have a 100% record of protecting staff, they deserve the best.

Richmond All mine are very boring, that's why I'm here, I wont cross-ramp them though, clear conscience must be kept up, Mork says Nano Nano for Now

Richmond, what would you call somebody that denies reality just because they rushed in and backed a butt-spud?
I feel sorry for those spiked because of the mutants on here.

Shameless ramping on here every day, worse researched BB I've seen on LSE

https://youtu.be/0_GSU5pj_Rc?t=78

I am right, ISO18184 which P2F quote in their RNS is a very low bar to pass, even non surgical masks on the market meet its requirements, 100% fact!!!

Mork from Ork wants his Nanoo back lol

Honestopinion No I didn't, ISO18184 does not require a 7 hour kill rate JRT10 pulled that out of his ass! There are other masks out there with a higher kill rate than the P2F mask!

JRT10 That's completely incorrect, which ISO?
Is it 1SO18184, that's an incredibly low bar to attain, loads of masks out there that do that

Details? Yeh a logic chip military spec would be made of ceramic instead of silicon, 5x the price. How much detail do you need? You would know what a dual inline through hole logic chip looks like? lol
OMG

TheSyrup Where is the proof it's a major difference?

No details on the Nanoo layer other than a vague mention that it could still kill some virus after 7 hours and that it killed 90% of the virus (after how long?) . It is likely no more effective than a normal anti microbial layer.

mararab Yes I do actually, used to sell military spec components, had dealings with local government too. Your experience of toilet paper purchasing for the TA is about as relevant as a Haynes manual for a 1985 Robin Reliant.

shaml89 Surgical masks available on Amazon 12p each in a box of 50, leave it you to guess what NHS gets them for with their purchasing power.

andy216 The NHS won't buy these in any great quantity, not been performance tested against normal IIRC masks which are 10p each.
I posted a link yesterday that showed 100% safety record of those using FFP3 and all deaths amongst NHS staff were wearing IIRC, Phillm is an ostrich that doesn't know how to quantify just what effect "Nano protection' offers, he thinks it's something from space that Mork from Ork used to talk about a lot and is magic zapper.
The reality is IIRC are useless apart from catching large droplets, particles are inhaled very easily due to poor fit, Nanooo layer won't kill the viral load in that air as it wooshes in through the gaps
Nanoo nanoo nanoo!

Desmond I see the masks generating a few hundred k for a few months then the machine getting shipped to Wales when the business dries up. The Oxford vaccine is going turn things around by the spring "big time"!