SMB,
<< It is just a common logic to assume that if the mask captures very small bacteria, then it will capture bird flu bacterias as well. >>
Bird Flu, from my reading, is caused by a virus, not bacteria. Generally, viruses are an order of magnitude smaller than bacteria and any barrier, to be completely protective, needs to be able to filter out much smaller particles.
Masks, in general, are probably helpful by preventing much of the aerosolized viral particles that are part of larger droplets, from being inhaled. Whether they are completely protective depends on the size of particles they filter out. No matter what size particles they filter, masks probably decrease innoculation size from this alone(which is probably very important in the initial infection with bird flu right now).
But masks ignore other ways that the infection could possibly be passed. I am not sure about this but any open breaks in the skin could be a potential site of infection, especially if it comes in contact with a large innoculum size. Also, any other mucus membrane site not protected by the mask is a potential site for infection. The most obvious site is the eyes. Even if the mouth and nose is protected, if the eyes aren't and someone, even if they are wearing gloves, rubs their eyes, they are open to possible infection(remember that the tear ducts from the eyes empty in the back of the nose and is a potential way to bypass the mask).
So masks, depending on the areas that they cover as well as the particle size that they let through, offer various degrees of protection. Not that they aren't helpful. I think that they probably are and they may be able to significantly decrease the infection rate alone. But, it is really dependant on many variables.
Just as a matter of disclosure, I was in emfp from last year in the 30 cent range and sold my last shares in the 70 cent range earlier this year. Right now, I have no stake in the company.
Neal |
