The mass mandate against covert made sense – at first. When the Covid virus burst on the scene, we didn’t know how contagious it was. The government and businesses mandated that employees and patrons wear masks.  Most everyone complied and yet the virus still spread – quickly.  Since its appearance, we’ve developed a lot of information on masks and Covid. Are they effective in preventing its spread?  Yes, they are – if used properly. But, different masks have different efficiency percentages and only N95 masks work very well.

The following is information on mask effectiveness. The sources are reputable and the links are provided so you can go check the information for yourself.  I could have written out the summary of information, but I figured that direct quotes would carry more weight. Please, take a look at the following information and ask yourself why are we being forced to wear masks when the evidence is now showing that the surgical and plot masks are mostly ineffective?

I have underlined relevant information you can quickly focus on the issues.

 

General Information on Covid and Masks

MASKS	EFFICIENCY
N99	HIGH Removes 99% of all particles that are 0.3 microns in diameter
N95 (General Filter Standard, not reusable, must be tight fitting)	HIGH Removes 95% of all particles that are 0.3 microns in diameter
Surgical Mask	MODERATE Does not provide much protection against small virus particles.°
Cloth Masks	LOW Does not meet the N95 Qualifications° Not much protection. Should be cleaned daily 3% efficiency1https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971  See in this article, Types of Masks/Cloth Masks
Face Shields	LOW
Sources https://leeimh.com/engineering/engineering-data/contamination/contamination-level-correlation/particle-size-comparison/ https://www.news-medical.net/health/The-Size-of-SARS-CoV-2-Compared-to-Other-Things.aspx https://www.envirosafetyproducts.com/resources/dust-masks-whats-the-difference.html ° https://curistrelief.com/blogs/curist/coronavirus-masks-n95-vs-surgical-vs-cloth-vs-homemade ° https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/UnderstandDifferenceInfographic-508.pdf https://www.grainger.com/know-how/health/airborne-contaminants-noise-hazards/respiratory-protection/kh-n95-masks-vs-surgical-masks-vs-cloth-masks https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7426537/

Types of Masks

• N95 Masks
  • N95 respirator masks fit tightly around your face. They filter out 95% or more of the smallest particles in the air. But they have to fit just right in order to work.
• Surgical Masks
  • “…surgical masks with ties provided 71.5 percent filtration, while surgical masks with ear loops only provided 38.1 percent.” (https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/epa-researchers-test-effectiveness-face-masks-disinfection-methods-against-covid-19)
  • “The wide variation in penetration levels for room air particles, which included particles in the same size range of viruses confirms that surgical masks should not be used for respiratory protection.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357397/)
• Cloth Masks
  • “a three-layer knitted cotton mask blocked an average of 26.5 percent of particles in the chamber, while a washed, two-layer woven nylon mask with a filter insert and metal nose bridge blocked 79 percent of particles on average.” (https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/epa-researchers-test-effectiveness-face-masks-disinfection-methods-against-covid-19)
  • 3% efficiency: “Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971)

 Mask Wearing effectiveness in doubt

• “The effectiveness of masks, however, is still under debate. Compared with N95 or FFP2 respirators, which have very low particle penetration rates (~5%), surgical and similar masks exhibit higher and more variable penetration rates (~30 to 70%) (2, 3). Given the large number of particles emitted upon respiration and especially upon sneezing or coughing (4), the number of respiratory particles that may penetrate masks is substantial, which is one of the main reasons for doubts about their efficacy in preventing infections. Moreover, randomized clinical trials have shown inconsistent or inconclusive results, with some studies reporting only a marginal benefit or no effect of mask use. Thus, surgical and similar masks are often considered to be ineffective.” (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439)
• Influenza related
  • Face Masks
    • “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article)
    • We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility (Figure 2). However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.” (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article)

Surgical mask efficiency of 50% does not prevent particle release via respiration

• “Respiratory particles, including aerosol particles and larger droplets, can carry viruses and are often used to visualize the transmission of airborne viruses. Taking a representative average of respiratory activity, we find that a person typically emits a total number of ~3 × 10⁶ particles during a 30-min period (supplementary text, section S1.1). This very large number implies that indoor environments are usually in a respiratory particle–rich regime. Surgical masks with particle collection efficiencies of ~50% cannot prevent the release of millions of particles per person and their inhalation by others.” (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439)

 Positive effects of masks: reduce infection

• “The data is in—wearing a mask saves lives. According to the CDC, if everyone wears a mask, over the next 4-8 weeks we could drastically reduce cases of COVID-19. So even if you feel fine, #MaskUp to protect yourself and those around you.” (https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/coronavirus/mask-stop-spread-covid-19)
• “An increasing number of ecological studies have also provided persuasive evidence that universal mandatory mask-wearing policies have been associated with reductions in the number or rate of infections and deaths. These studies did not distinguish the types of masks (cloth, surgical, or N95) used in the community. This association is strengthened because, in many cases, other mitigation strategies (eg, school and workplace closures, recommendations for social distancing, hand hygiene) had already been deployed before enactment of mask-wearing policies, after which the reductions were observed. ” (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536)
• “Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.”  (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449)

Negative effects of masks

•  Breeding ground for germs if not used properly
  • “At the outset of the pandemic, WHO experts advised that use of facemasks is not recommended as potential benefits are rather limited and there is a potential risk of self-contamination if used improperly. Moreover, the WHO stated in their report of June 5 [of 2020] “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on Covid19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid19. Contamination of the upper respiratory tract by viruses and bacteria on the outside of medical face masks has been detected in several hospitals. Another research shows that a moist mask is a breeding ground for (antibiotic resistant) bacteria and fungi, which can undermine mucosal viral immunity. This research advocates the use of medical/surgical masks (instead of homemade cotton masks) that are used once and replaced after a few hours.” (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3021/rr-6, underline added)
• Claustrophobia, oxygen deprivation, nausea, and more
  • “Aside from the highly variable protective effects, WHO mentions several negative aspects of frequent/long-term use of facemasks, fueling the debate as to whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Many people report claustrophobic experiences and difficulty getting sufficient oxygen due to the increased resistance to inhaling and exhaling. This can lead to an increased heart rate, nausea, dizziness and headaches, and several other symptoms…In an inquiry among Belgian students wearing mouth masks for one week, 16 % reported skin problems and 7 % sinusitis, Also problems with eyes and headaches, and fatigue were frequently mentioned. Furthermore, face masking can provoke an increase in stress hormones with a negative impact on immune resilience in the long term. Facemasks prevent the mirroring of facial expressions, a process that facilitates empathetic connections and trust between pupils and teachers. This potentially leads to a significant increase in socio-psychological stress…Several studies show that long-term exposure to socio-psychological stress leaves neuro-epigenetic scars that are difficult to cure in young people and often escalate into mental behavioural problems and a weakened immune system. A recent study by the CDC concludes that in young adults (18-24 years), the level of anxiety and depression has increased by 63% (!) since the corona crisis. A quarter of them think about suicide. As a result, the use of antidepressants has increased by 25%. Several researchers have shown a relationship between the increase in stress experiences and the risk of upper respiratory tract infections and mortality.” (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3021/rr-6, underline added)
• Parents’ report of their children wearing masks
  • This quote is from parents’ input about their children. There was no control group. “By 26.10.2020 the registry had been used by 20,353 people. In this publication, we report the results from the parents, who entered data on a total of 25,930 children. The average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).” (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-124394/v2

Other Information

• “When scientists talk about “droplets,” they mean any exhaled particle more than 5 microns, 1/5000th of an inch, far too small for anyone to see unaided. Aerosols are even smaller – less than 5 microns. The coronavirus itself is smaller still. For it, scientists use still another measure of length, the nanometer. 1 nanometer is 1/1000th of a micron. In other words, 1 meter equals one billion nanometers. An average-sized man is about 1,700,000,000 nanometers tall. But a single virion of Sars-Cov-2 is about 60 to 140 nanometers or 0.1 microns.” (Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks . Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition, location 176.)

 

(Please read the CARM disclaimer regarding Covid related issues.)