Was that from actual experts, or bad faith strawman coverage (plenty of that about).
At least in my country, there was sober objective coverage from experts about their purpose and percentage effectiveness at reducing the range and spread of potentially infected droplets. Masks were somewhat effective for filtering incoming droplets, but most effective at containing outgoing droplets. The smaller the viral load you were exposed to the lower your chances of getting infected. Experts never claimed them to be 100% though, it was about reducing transmission rates not absolute protection.
Which is the main reason they're used in surgery too coincidentally (they aren't primarily for the surgeon's protection). Or is that an even longer running conspiracy?
At least in my country, there was sober objective coverage from experts about their purpose and percentage effectiveness at reducing the range and spread of potentially infected droplets. Masks were somewhat effective for filtering incoming droplets, but most effective at containing outgoing droplets. The smaller the viral load you were exposed to the lower your chances of getting infected. Experts never claimed them to be 100% though, it was about reducing transmission rates not absolute protection.
Which is the main reason they're used in surgery too coincidentally (they aren't primarily for the surgeon's protection). Or is that an even longer running conspiracy?