Both things are true here, so this is a complex picture with many variables and it would require quite a bit of detective work and probing with a case-by-case examination to get a true picture of the validity of a given publication and the study it represents. There are many potential sources of bias and error in such studies, some of which are well‑known and others beyond human awareness as yet, but it is likely that any precautions that are of benefit in protecting people to outside harm will be compromised or discouraged, or awareness undermined in their value as a manipulation by the Extraterrestrial Alliance wanting to cause trouble and maximize the damage to humanity by their perverse aims. So this is an example of where any potential benefit is better than none, but they cannot resist trying to even take that away from you.
It is quite true that only the respirator-grade masks, like the KN95, have any chance of filtering out viral particles to a meaningful degree, but even those masks are usually an imperfect fit to the face, and there is much escape of air and intake around the edges of the mask so they are not fully functioning as respirators in most cases. That leakage contributes to contamination of the environment and exposure to aerosolized virus by mask wearers so, at a minimum, masks are imperfect but do have some benefit. There is some active filtration, particularly of larger droplets from the upper respiratory tract, especially attendant to talking. So proper masks have protected individuals many times from acquiring an infection but, given the heavy environmental exposure being arranged deliberately to happen, it is mostly only a question of time before people eventually receive sufficient exposure to live virus that they will contract the illness despite mask‑wearing, so they are only a slight benefit and not highly effective under ideal circumstances.
Please login or Register to submit your answer