The face mask discussion

[Chris Gilbert]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
The more people who go about their business without a mask the better.

But always remember: separately and independent from the issues of personal freedom and individual rights — the purpose of the mask isn't to protect you. It's to protect others.

Many members posting here, after all this time, still assume that wearing a mask is to protect yourself.

It's not. That's why the personal freedom and individual rights issue is so hard to resolve.

Protecting others is the main reason I wear them at my hospital job, and whenever I go out. While I would acknowledge the range of debate over the effectiveness, I would much rather do something rather than nothing, and considering that I experience no ill effects from it, I really don't mind (the purell/hand sanitizer I have to use on my poor eczema hands is another story though, haha). I know some who have more issues with it due to their respiratory capacity, but even for them it's a simple matter of washing their hands then pulling the mask down for awhile to take a break when not next to anyone.

[greybeard]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
The more people who go about their business without a mask the better.

But always remember: separately and independent from the issues of personal freedom and individual rights — the purpose of the mask isn't to protect you. It's to protect others.

Many members posting here, after all this time, still assume that wearing a mask is to protect yourself.

It's not. That's why the personal freedom and individual rights issue is so hard to resolve.

Protect people/others from what Bill?

The reason I ask is that top Professionals with a life time of experience are saying lockdown should not have happened, the immune system should have been left to deal with this.
I cross check with as many professional viewpoints as I can find -- many videos I have posted.
So if people ha been left to catch this, the herd immunity as its called would have taken care of this. Of course people would still have died -- thousands do from the flu every year.
As many have posted on this thread the masks are ineffective, thats professional opinion.
The immune system has thousands of years of memory at its disposal -- it is geared up to combat new threats as it has done for countless years.
The statistics have been that manipulated no true figure for the number of deaths is yet available. Experts are saying no worse that the seasonal flu which is deadly for some.
So wearing a mask to protect others may do that but weakens the immune system through not exposing people to this virus therefore they will not be so well-equipped to fight the next one.
I do suspect that the next one will be upped to get people to take the jab.
Fear fear fear.
Chris
Sorry for the delay in adding to the post.

[Czarek]

I'm struggling with this Bill. This leads to "mandatory" vaccination.



But always remember: separately and independent from the issues of personal freedom and individual rights — the purpose of the mask isn't to protect you. It's to protect others.

Many members posting here, after all this time, still assume that wearing a mask is to protect yourself.

It's not. That's why the personal freedom and individual rights issue is so hard to resolve.

[thepainterdoug]

just had a dispute with a friend on this. i understand that if sick etc. and even when we had simple standard colds and or flu in years pre covid, common sense would tell us to cover our mouths and sneeze into our shoulder and shirt sleeve

but driving in a car alone with a mask on windows up? walking, jogging ,working alone with no one in sight with a mask?
i go into a store, a crowded place and by store policy, i have to wear one and thats fine.

i played golf with a friend and he walked 18 holes with a mask on. I without. at the end we sat and had a beer right next to each other and he took his mask of while we spoke and relaxed. I DONT GET THIS? THE REASONING TO THIS?

to be glared at and pointed out as a cause of this virus spreading when perfectly healthy, no cough etc and out without a mask is B S.

according to the fear and direness associated to this pandemic, a hell of alot more people should have fallen and died,and way beyond the yearly influenza stats for these measures to be justified. Testing positive is not the measure. Its death rate is. But with pneumonia and influenza stats now being cooked into covid stats ,nothing adds up for me. just my observation and opinion to date. sure wish I could feel good about this topic, but I dont

[greybeard]

Maybe Im a bit testy at the moment and for that I apologise.
Here is why -- I go down town and I see all these people -- out doors or on their own in car wearing a mask
I see media articles like "Those not wearing masks are as bad as drunk drivers"
Its divide and conquer -- those good guys against those who are endangering life by not wearing a mask.

People just dont get it -- they are being conditioned to accept a rushed through vaccine by the same authority who gave the wildly over the top estimates of millions dying from this, Neil Ferguson the one who predicted the same with the swine flu -- a non event.

Look at it this way If I have the virus and I dont wear a mask but every one else is -- how can I affect them, assuming their mask does everything it is supposed to do
I think that thought was posted before. by Paula?

Our freedom that millions died for in two world wars has disappeared overnight, for what?
To scare the Sh## out of people -- to ruin businesses that have taken years to build, to ruin the economy.
Hitler would be laughing in his grave.
To make people dependent and say yes to New World Order, the Reset. -- to be obedient, to welcome a vaccine that may be deadly -- how can it be properly tested in months.?

They are so clever -- the logical reasons -- protect the NHS in UK -- do the right thing stay home, or else.
Well when we got the flu or common cold most people used their common sense and stayed home
Freedom of choice.

The fines for not wearing a mask without good reason are going to be astronomical, how can the police possibly cope with this?

So thats my rant a rare event -- but I care what happen to others particularly the young.

I have had a happy productive life -- born free and I have no intention of dying a slave to NWO.

Chris

[RunningDeer]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Look at it this way If I have the virus and I dont wear a mask but every one else is -- how can I affect them, assuming their mask does everything it is supposed to do
I think that thought was posted before. by Paula?

Yes, too many to count, as did a lot of other posters. I’ve shared the info on four threads because there’s been so much new info since 3-4 months ago. I’m winding down on it all. If people are interested in following the latest, they now have enough resources available to check.

Time for me to put focus elsewhere. Thank you All for your POVs, vids, & links.

♡

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Czarek (here)
I'm struggling with this Bill. This leads to "mandatory" vaccination.

Maybe not. The most recent research suggests that (for some unknown reason) in many if not most cases, the antibodies don't seem to last more than a couple of months. That's why more and more people (gradually, but it's definitely a thing) are getting it twice. And maybe it won't stop there.

The direct analogy is that if you get a cold, the antibodies you develop don't prevent you from getting another cold a few months later.

So that means that no vaccine would ever work (which is why there's not a common cold vaccine)‚ and neither would there ever be any kind of "herd immunity".

So all that means that the ONLY chance of making the thing extinct is to bring the R0 <1. (That's virology-speak for each infected person infecting LESS than one other person, on average.) That means that it all dies out in time.

That in turn means that the only way of doing that is to minimize the spread from one person to others. All the rest follows.

As long as the R0 > 1 (even if it's just 1.1!), it'll just spread and spread and spread till everyone gets it. (And yes, you virus-deniers... this is a real thing. )

[Ernie Nemeth]

But Bill.

The only reason to wear a mask is
to slow the spread

not stop it, because the mask is not 100% effective - you'll eventually catch it anyway

that is why they talk of asymptomatic carriers being a threat - so there's no excuse not to wear one

and that is why they tell us the hospitals are crowded when most are empty - so we'll have a reason to slow the spread

lock down and mandatory mask wearing strips us of our last fundamental rights - in case any actually thought we were free

No. This has nothing to do with health. It is the agenda of the globalists who are right now riding the communist agenda of proletariat, 'peaceful', subversion. It is the standard pincer movement in the communist playbook. Apply pressure from above and below simultaneously. All the while sending out conflicting reports about the bug's latest gains. Concurrently running a violent subversive force through, this time, the left's humanitarian movement where we see the Soros NGOs, the ADL, BLM, and SJW running incursions throughout the urban centers of America. Again, straight out of the manual. This is to demoralize the enemy, to freeze them in their tracks, to confuse, to terrify, and have the enemy cowering in their boots unable to act. Then they strike at the infrastructure and will bring the USA to its knees - all there in the playbook, all been done many times in many countries for over 70 years now.

That is what mask wearing means to me - capitulation.

[Patient]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Czarek (here)
I'm struggling with this Bill. This leads to "mandatory" vaccination.

Maybe not. The most recent research suggests that (for some unknown reason) in many if not most cases, the antibodies don't seem to last more than a couple of months. That's why more and more people (gradually, but it's definitely a thing) are getting it twice. And maybe it won't stop there.

The direct analogy is that if you get a cold, the antibodies you develop don't prevent you from getting another cold a few months later.

So that means that no vaccine would ever work (which is why there's not a common cold vaccine)‚ and neither would there ever be any kind of "herd immunity".

So all that means that the ONLY chance of making the thing extinct is to bring the R0 <1. (That's virology-speak for each infected person infecting LESS than one other person, on average.) That means that it all dies out in time.

That in turn means that the only way of doing that is to minimize the spread from one person to others. All the rest follows.

As long as the R0 > 1 (even if it's just 1.1!), it'll just spread and spread and spread till everyone gets it. (And yes, you virus-deniers... this is a real thing. )

Yes, I would also like to think "maybe not" but an awful lot of money and effort has been spent on creating and injecting the vaccine. I doubt that Gates would just easily walk away from all of the money that he has pushed into people's hands to make it happen.

I think that most of the people posting against wearing masks are looking at the fact that getting everyone to wear a mask is part of the fear play and separating us all from each other.

I do not recall where I read this (most likely here on Avalon) that what they are doing to us is very similar to how you would bring a person into a cult. Separate them from their original routine, friends and family and take away their old identity as much as possible.

Another point, different people have different experiences within the mask wearing topic. If you have been on the receiving end of people yelling at you to wear a mask or denying you entry to a place over it then that might affect how you feel about this as opposed to being given the option to wear one. I pulled a mask an inch from my face to take a breathe and speak to my son - we were alone in the aisle of a store - and I was yelled at to not move it from my face or I would be asked to leave. They said - this is your first warning!

Seeing the public behave in this manner is scary because you can see that they are easily being led "by fear".

Everywhere I go now I am being told to wear a mask. So, every time I go out I am facing confrontations because I do not want to be forced into wearing a mask. Consequently, I do not want to go out, but I have to at times.

...and what is it with these people wearing a mask when they are alone in their car? Perhaps they should also be wearing a condom so they don't catch a venereal disease as well. Same principal.

[greybeard]

YouTube CENSORED: DOCTORS IN BLACK / PlanDemic[


I have posted this once before but it also belongs here
Dr Judy Milkovits renowned Aids professional.
A truly leading authority on Aids and vaccines

She was put in jail, no charge, gagged for 5 years, made bankrupt, has had her life threatened.
Came out about the damage that was done by F cant spell his name. Top advisor to Trump but being downplayed.
Responsible for millions of deaths according to Dr Judy Milkovits.
Masks are a tiny part of what we possibly face.

I would say this is a must watch -- its a professional video -- she talks about masks and all else related to loss of freedom.
Literally the human race is in danger due to vaccine planed and NWO.
She talks about the damage allready done by vaccines

If you never watch a video on corona etc again I would say watch this one -- full of facts -- not opinions.
Chris


https://www.bitchute.com/video/zU4jR4nkrSy3/

[DaveToo]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Look at it this way If I have the virus and I dont wear a mask but every one else is -- how can I affect them, assuming their mask does everything it is supposed to do
I think that thought was posted before. by Paula?

Ahh.. but you don't understand greybeard.
Masks are designed to be one-way barriers!

That is, they are designed to stop the virus from exiting,
but not designed to stop the virus from entering!

Whoever designed them was either extremely clever (from a government standpoint)
or extremely stupid (from a practical standpoint).

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
Look at it this way If I have the virus and I dont wear a mask but every one else is -- how can I affect them, assuming their mask does everything it is supposed to do
I think that thought was posted before. by Paula?

Ahh.. but you don't understand greybeard.
Masks are designed to be one-way barriers!

That is, they are designed to stop the virus from exiting,
but not designed to stop the virus from entering!

Whoever designed them was either extremely clever (from a government standpoint)
or extremely stupid (from a practical standpoint).

Nope, it's not a symmetrical situation.

If you're shedding the virus (and maybe simply don't know it, which if you're asymptomatic is entirely possible), and you're talking, singing, shouting, coughing or sneezing — that prevents the airborne microdroplets reaching others. It's not a perfect barrier, for sure, but it's much more effective than nothing at all.

(That's why your dentist will wear a mask when working on your teeth.... it's to protect YOU from THEM when you're potentially vulnerable.)

If the OTHER (uninfected) person has a mask, that helps as well, of course. But most of the preventative barrier-forming work is done by the filter that's closest to the source. Think about the physics, and you'll see it.

Here's the 7 minute video that explains it all. (But I bet most of the people reading this thread won't watch it... ideology beats science and logic every time! )

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NkN8yCWSGus

And I'll say this one more time. I'm not MIXING UP the ideology and the science. They're separate, independent, and arguably kind of opposed to one another. I'm just saying: understand the science before you make your personal value-based decisions. That's all.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

If the OTHER (uninfected) person has a mask, that helps as well, of course. But most of the preventative barrier-forming work is done by the filter that's closest to the source. Think about the physics, and you'll see it.

If the logic from my previous post doesn't make any sense,
that they are claiming in essence we are using (one-way facemasks) how about this one?

This one should end all of the debate about facemasks ONCE AND FOR ALL.


We are being asked to believe that facemasks are STRONG enough
to stop the forceful expulsion of aerosols due to coughing and sneezing,
YET the facemasks are at the same time SO WEAK that they can't stop airborne particles drifting in the air from entering a mask!

Is that logical?

Put on your thinking caps.

That is what they are trying to make us believe.

If you believe that I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

If the OTHER (uninfected) person has a mask, that helps as well, of course. But most of the preventative barrier-forming work is done by the filter that's closest to the source. Think about the physics, and you'll see it.

If the logic from my previous post doesn't make any sense,
that they are claiming in essence we are using (one-way facemasks) how about this one?

This one should end all of the debate about facemasks ONCE AND FOR ALL.


We are being asked to believe that facemasks are STRONG enough
to stop the forceful expulsion of aerosols due to coughing and sneezing,
YET the facemasks are at the same time SO WEAK that they can't stop airborne particles drifting in the air from entering a mask!

Is that logical?

Yes, it is. The force of the airborne droplets leaving a person's mouth is all massively reduced by the person's mask (if they have one). Then, in many cases, those droplets don't REACH any others nearby. (That's how come there's a social distancing recommendation.)

Without a mask, those droplets would all reach the other person's personal space. Do you see?

That's the logic behind the mask recommendations. And if everyone wears a mask, then that's the best one can do.

And I'll say this one FURTHER time. I absolutely totally 100% understand the ideological arguments against being compelled to wear a mask by some governmental authority. I get that. I'm a libertarian, too.

But for reasons that I've never fully understood, there's still a frequently held belief that masks are designed to protect you. They're not. They're to protect the other person from you, in case you might be shedding the virus — maybe without having any idea that's happening at all.

Maybe watch the video... it's only 7 minutes. It shows this all pretty clearly, with a video of the motion of the airborne droplets, etc etc etc.

The logical fallacy is to use an attempted scientific argument to support an ideological, value-based position. Those two don't fit together well. THAT's the problem we have here.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

But for reasons that I've never fully understood, there's still a frequently held belief that masks are designed to protect you. They're not. They're to protect the other person from you, in case you might be shedding the virus — maybe without having any idea that's happening at all.

Bill this is the crux of the argument.

This is where I am asking you and others to think LOGICALLY.

You are saying emphatically that masks are not designed to protect you.

So let's examine their function carefully and logically.

Assumption 1: Masks do not protect the wearer.
Assumption 2: Masks protect 'the other person'.

Let's really simplify this and look at just two people.

Both Subject A and Subject B are wearing masks.

Subject A has COVID-19 (either symptomatic or asymptomatic), Subject B does NOT have COVID-19 (not symptomatic nor asymptomatic).


Subject A coughs or sneezes. Their mask allegedly holds back their potential aerosols, thereby protecting Subject B from getting sick.
So in this case, the mask was STRONG enough to stop the virus from getting out of the mask, even with a forceful cough or sneeze.
So far so good right?


Now let's take a case where virus particles are in the air, due to someone coughing or sneezing nearby.

Subject B, who is wearing their mask strangely is NOT protected from the virus !!!
That's what officials say (and Bill Ryan).

So the same facemask that is strong enough to stop virus particles from escaping the mask,
all of a sudden becomes weak and won't protect Subject B from catching the virus!!!

Is that logical?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by DaveToo (here)
Is that logical?

Watch the video. It doesn't seem you've done that yet. You can see how the aerosol process operates.

I'm not trying to persuade (or compel!) you, or anyone, to wear a mask. I'm not Big Brother. You have to make your own responsible personal decision.

And I'm not going to get into any fights with anyone about this. That's not my intention: no purpose is served, nothing is usually achieved (in fact, it's almost always the opposite), and there's no ego in this for me that has to be proved right before an audience.

So I doubt if I'll say much more here. I actually have some other issues to deal with right now, unconnected with any of this. (Really.)

But do please understand — you're still trying to deploy logic and science, as best you can, to convince yourself and others that your ideological position is sound.

Your ideological position CAN or MIGHT be sound, irrespective of whether masks do anything or not. That's a totally different discussion. You can't force the two together.

And as I said before, that's what the real problem is. (And others on this thread are confusing this, as well, over and over again.)

There are actually four positions one can take. All of them can be argued.

1. Masks are ineffective, but I'm willing to wear one.
2. Masks are ineffective, and I'm not willing to wear one.
3. Masks are effective, and I'm willing to wear one.
4. Masks are effective, but I'm not willing to wear one.

That should really be the topic of this thread... and a poll might be interesting. My position is #3, but it's a moot point as masks are mandatory in Ecuador, enforced with fines. You can't walk down the street without one, let alone go into any store of any kind. So for me, in purely practical terms, there's really no personal decision to make.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

There are actually four positions one can take. All of them can be argued.

1. Masks are ineffective, but I'm willing to wear one.
2. Masks are ineffective, and I'm not willing to wear one.
3. Masks are effective, and I'm willing to wear one.
4. Masks are effective, but I'm not willing to wear one.

That should really be the topic of this thread... and a poll might be interesting. My position is #3, but it's a moot point as masks are mandatory in Ecuador, enforced with fines. You can't walk down the street without one, let alone go into any store of any kind. So for me, in purely practical terms, there's really no personal decision to make.

First of all Bill, I would request that you respond to the logic of my last post.
Do you find it logical or illogical?

If you find it illogical, please tell me and others here, where exactly you find it to be illogical?

As far as videos are concerned...
You can throw dozens of videos my way and I can in return throw dozens of videos your way. That won't be productive.

What will be productive, is to engage in a logical discussion about the matter. I can't help that, because my brain is wired like that.

As for your four positions are concerned. Of course I agree, there are four possible positions to take.
But you are trying to deflect away from what I wrote in my last post.

If you could please answer if you find my last post to be logical or illogical, I'd appreciate it.

It would tie into the thread I made recently titled: "What's wrong with me..."

Because if you can find something wrong with the logic of my last post, I will know for sure
that there is something wrong with me.

[chrifri]

I tried to watch some videos of Martenson some years ago and I never was able to finish any of those videos.

Because of these past videos, which to me gave me the feeling that this person is not genuine, I did not feel the need to watch any of the Martenson videos Bill has recommend for months.
Another reason why I did not feel like listening to Martenson is the reason that I was of the opinion that he uses the official numbers and that did not make sense to me, as in my opinion, the data out of China most probably was not correct and further, when Italy started to report it was proven early that these numbers were not correct neither (the same goes for Spain and many other countries).
Although I did not like Martenson in the past and I did not feel like listening to his recent videos, I took now the time to listen to the last video of him, as Bill clearly stated the this video is science and does prove that it makes sense to wear masks.

For the record: I am not a trained medical expert and I am clearly against wearing masks. Not only from a ideological point of view but as well from a scientifically point of view at least based on information from specialist I came across.

To the video and to the science Martenson mentions.
To point 1. Agreed. However, what I have learned over the past months and I believe what I have learned is correct, I'd like to mention the following. As known, not all viruses are the same and therefore to not have the same characteristics such as weight or how they do float in the air the etc. If the virus would be a virus with a relative heavy weight and therefore would drop within a short distance (for example in a distance that is less than the recommended one) than wearing a mask would not be necessary in the case that the minimum distance would be kept at all times. One of the videos of a doctor I watched was precisely arguing that the Virus known back in March, was a heavy virus and therefore would fall within a very short distance. I do not know if that information was correct or not but the doctor from Argentina claimed to be a specialist. Although I am aware that the virus must have changed and the new viruses or the mutated viruses might be lighter and float longer distances, and although from a scientifically point of view Martenson argument no 1 might be correct, I still only can agree to a certain extend.
To point 2: from a scientific point of view, I can agree. However, this argument only works if the masks are used the same way as medical staff uses them (or should use them). Medical staff that has to use masks were trained to use them properly, change mask frequently, destroy the masks etc. . They were trained not to touch the mask while the public is not trained. My guess is, that a very high percentage of those that use masks either do touch the masks several times and/or do not change masks frequently etc..Those that touch the mask several times most probably do not or cannot wash their hands immediately once they take off their mask and most probably will touch their mouth, eyes and nose before washing the hands. As viruses stick to the masks and accumulate, touching the mask with bare hands and touching mouth, eyes and/or nose with these hands before washing them will probably add more viruses to your body than it would have without a mask. Of course this has nothing to do with protecting others but nevertheless it is an increase of the probability to get the virus.
Point 3: This point is the point that confirmed to me that the opinion I had about Martesen was not wrong. This point is not scientific at all, but in fact totally superficial. Why? Well Dr. Martensen claims that an opinion in the New York Journal is valid science while what nurses and doctors say is not science at all (interesting that he mentions nurses before he mentions doctors. Is it because he is such a Gentlemen?). In other words, an opinion in a newspaper (of whom?, with what credentials?) that suits his argument, is valid science but all others (even specialist that might have proven otherwise) are not. That's not scientific argumentation it is simple sales speech and nothing else.
As a last point, I would like to mention, that I believe that the specialists that claim that due to the use of masks, pulmonary health problems will increase considerably over the coming months, are correct.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
But Bill.

The only reason to wear a mask is
to slow the spread

not stop it, because the mask is not 100% effective - you'll eventually catch it anyway

that is why they talk of asymptomatic carriers being a threat - so there's no excuse not to wear one

and that is why they tell us the hospitals are crowded when most are empty - so we'll have a reason to slow the spread
...

A reasonable point ... if this is like the common cold, or will end up like the common cold and cannot be stopped at all, as purported, then trying to slow the spread is a blatant exercise in futility --- who benefits from a slow spread, vs a spread that will quickly leave those with a strong immune system, and those asymptomatic? Cui bono?

If this is like the common cold and we'll never get rid of it, then it being relegated to cold-like status in those it doesn't end up killing or who are fully asymptomatic, then wouldn't the world be better off getting to that point? I mean ... if it is an inevitability, should we aid the elite in the destruction of everything to fight it?

Who benefits from dragging this out as slowly and as long as possible, and who will suffer? Last I heard 100's of millions of humans will die as a direct result of our actions to COVID19 (not from the virus), but they're all from Africa so who cares ... right? Covid19 has hardly taken any toll in Africa, yet, while they starve ... The entire continent of Africa has a fraction of COVID deaths vs the USA (might change but this is where its at).

That's a valid question ... How long will those countries be able to survive a lack of food distribution, and hoarding, that the west has shown to be top priorities, causing the imbalance?

I am aware though that the response in a person is almost directly linked to the subjective vs globally objective perspective ...

My ego says : "wear a mask! be safe! be safe for others! you might be a dangerous thing! Wear it! you might hurt people! You're killing old people you ****ing loser!!" -- yet another part of me whispers "Let go of your programs and your fears for they do not serve you, now is the time and it's more important than ever ..."

I am not trying to discourage anyone -- if you feel safer with a mask, then the alleviation of that fear is worth it ... but understand that my perspective is that I don't have that fear to begin with ... to alleviate.

[TomKat]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

But for reasons that I've never fully understood, there's still a frequently held belief that masks are designed to protect you. They're not. They're to protect the other person from you, in case you might be shedding the virus — maybe without having any idea that's happening at all.

Bill this is the crux of the argument.

This is where I am asking you and others to think LOGICALLY.

You are saying emphatically that masks are not designed to protect you.

So let's examine their function carefully and logically.

Assumption 1: Masks do not protect the wearer.
Assumption 2: Masks protect 'the other person'.

Let's really simplify this and look at just two people.

Both Subject A and Subject B are wearing masks.

Subject A has COVID-19 (either symptomatic or asymptomatic), Subject B does NOT have COVID-19 (not symptomatic nor asymptomatic).


Subject A coughs or sneezes. Their mask allegedly holds back their potential aerosols, thereby protecting Subject B from getting sick.
So in this case, the mask was STRONG enough to stop the virus from getting out of the mask, even with a forceful cough or sneeze.
So far so good right?


Now let's take a case where virus particles are in the air, due to someone coughing or sneezing nearby.

Subject B, who is wearing their mask strangely is NOT protected from the virus !!!
That's what officials say (and Bill Ryan).

So the same facemask that is strong enough to stop virus particles from escaping the mask,
all of a sudden becomes weak and won't protect Subject B from catching the virus!!!

Is that logical?

Seems logical to me. Mask can stop virus-containing moisture from escaping the mask. But mask cannot block viruses not within moisture droplets.