REC's comment about Gmail Spam forced me to look at my Spam folder, where I found this gem! Thanks Frank!
On 2/24/21 10:43 PM, Frank Chambers wrote: > Re: Jeremy Howard > Howard is first author of a paper “An evidence review of face masks against > COVID-19,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 26, 2021 > 118 (4) e2014564118; > https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 > <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118> > > It is a paper with a medical article-long list of co-authors. Masks are > filters and none of the co-authors are filter experts. The closest they get > is an aerosol researcher. I have read the paper. I have performed research on > automotive air filters, served on the SAE Air Cleaner Test Code Committee, > and been an expert witness on filter testing. I have been reading articles > and attending seminars on COVID transmission via aerosols and on masks. I > have been disappointed by the number of reports on masks presented by those > who know little of filtration or fluid mechanics and who have performed tests > which do not follow recognized standards. The Duke study reported in the > Washington Post August 11 in a story titled “Wearing a neck gaiter may be > worse than no mask at all, researchers find,” is one of those. > https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/mask-test-duke-covid/2020/08/10/4f2bb888-db18-11ea-b205-ff838e15a9a6_story.html > > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/mask-test-duke-covid/2020/08/10/4f2bb888-db18-11ea-b205-ff838e15a9a6_story.html> > > Howard, an AI expert, has no expertise in the area and his co-authors do not > appear to be capable of performing meaningful assessments of the literature > on mask testing. Howard presented (and promoted) his paper on Twitter in a > string of Tweets on January 11. > https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1348771993949151232?s=20 > <https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1348771993949151232?s=20> > > In one of the Tweets, Howard said, “Personally, the studies I found most > compelling are those that simply physically showed that masks literally block > the ejection of respiratory particles.” He cites some visualizations > referenced in the paper. His statement that he found visualizations (largely > qualitative and of low accuracy when quantified) most compelling is > disturbing and reveals his ignorance of the subject. I am not impressed with > his technical prudence. > > Frank Chambers -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
