Colin Parkinson
First up I would like to acknowledge that you appear to be standing out as a voice of reason in parliament. While there are issues that I strongly disagree with you on, I would like to give you credit for asking some very excellent questions and raising some concern about the behaviour of others in parliament – especially regarding the treatment of those who have had their lives destroyed by Labour’s policies. I am of course referring to the following speech that you made in parliament:
“The Prime Minister wants us to believe what Michael Wood said, that there’s a “River of filth running through the protest.” I know Michael Wood, he’s enough of a political tragic to understand the allusion to Enoch Powell’s sinister speech when he said that.
Then the Prime Minister – or at least her party – Mr Speaker, seemed to support you calling people “ferals“. Coming to you, Mr Speaker, what were you thinking? I hope, one day, you’ll explain what you thought you achieved by turning sprinklers and bad music on the protesters. Even if you wail that you didn’t make it worse, where were you, as the leader and custodian of this fine institution, seeking a mature de-escalation? That’s what we should have seen.
But back to that complex situation. It’s not good enough to dismiss all of the events of the last three weeks as driven by conspiracy theorists and extremists, as the Prime Minister has. We need to be able to accept that there were unacceptable behaviours in the protests but also behaviours by people who simply felt that they’d been driven to distraction and ostracised from society…”
parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb
(I would encourage others to read the full speech in Hansard).
It appears that you acknowledge that there have been decisions made in parliament that have driven some people to anger and that some of these decisions may not be based on scientific evidence as you seem to suggest in a recent press release, yet in that same article I found the following statement:
“Mask requirements: Well-worn and high-quality masks can help prevent spread. Mask wearing likely has significant benefits for reducing the spread of Omicron, although this is sensitive to mask quality. While extremely irritating, it is one of the few current policies where it is reasonable to believe that the benefits outweigh the costs.”
I have previously sent you information on correct mask usage (I have had training in this, so know what I am talking about) and it seems that you have not given much regard to the science behind this issue. You mention “well-worn and high-quality” masks; this highlights part of the problem. I think we can agree that suitable high quality, well-worn masks may be of some benefit in some situations.
One of the major problems is trying to get the general public to wear masks correctly.
N95 masks would be the very minimum required to be of any benefit in reducing the transmission of a virus and even then these should only be worn for about 15 minutes at the most and they would not be 100% efficient. These masks are typically 95% efficient at filtering particles 0.3 microns or larger; however, coronavirus particles are generally around 0.1 microns, which would render the masks much less efficient. That is when using a properly fitted N95 mask and most people do not wear these properly.
If an N95 mask is properly fitted, it should be difficult for the wearer to breathe, and CO2 levels rise quite quickly. The following study shows the increased concentrations of CO2 from wearing a mask reach the 15 minute safety limit and are significantly higher than the 8-hour limit.
To put it simply: N95 masks offer limited protection and can possibly reduce the chances of infection, but it is dangerous and unhealthy to wear a properly fitted N95 mask for longer than 15 minutes due to the build-up of carbon dioxide.
Wearing a “medical grade” mask or even an N95 mask that is not properly fitted is completely pointless; it will not filter out a virus as air gets in through the sides of a mask. Even a gap the width of a human hair (not length, but width) is huge compared to the size of a virus and would render the mask almost useless. The width of a human hair does vary from about 20-180 microns. I will use about 70 microns for my example:
A typical coronavirus is about 0.1 microns. In the above (scaled) image, virus particles are represented by the small green specs and I have also included a blue sphere that represents 2.5 microns for comparison. The brown strand of hair represents a width of 70 microns. This should highlight how many virus particles could easily fit through a gap even the width of a single human hair. How many people have gaps of at least 1 cm at the sides of their masks?
1cm =10,000 microns – about 100,000 times the size of a typical coronavirus!
So while properly fitted N95 masks may reduce the possibility of infection, they do not eliminate it. If masks were able to eliminate the risk of infection, scientists wouldn’t bother with expensive respirators and other protections in labs. They would just slap on an N95 mask as it would be much cheaper and more convenient but there is a reason you see scientists wearing those inflatable suits in P4 labs.
Masks just aren’t sufficient! Don’t believe me? Try walking into one of those labs with nothing but a mask to protect you and see how much panic you cause.
Again, you make some very good points at times and I would like to thank you for asking some tough questions in parliament.
I am disappointed that you have indicated support for mask mandates. I would prefer to see you challenge the government in this area, as masks may offer little more than a false sense of security to those who rely on them for protection. This could actually put vulnerable people at greater risk.
I know that we have differences on many issues and I intend to continue challenging you to make good decisions, especially regarding healthcare, which should involve protecting the weak and vulnerable. We need to look at how to protect those at risk, but I do not believe that masking the healthy is the solution, especially when the masks are not fit for purpose.
Please do a bit more research on masks, this study on carbon dioxide levels may be a good place to start. See the issues raised in section 3 (Points 3.1 – 3.14)
Sincerely,
Colin Parkinson