Image 01 Image 03

CDC Report Shows That Of COVID Infected People, 71% Had “Always” Worn Masks

CDC Report Shows That Of COVID Infected People, 71% Had “Always” Worn Masks

The study compared 154 “case-patients” who had a positive test to 160 asymptomatic patients who tested negative.

Last week, I noted that mask mandates were not working, likely because people failed to use or maintain them properly.

Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has just published a report about a study that showed almost 71% of infected case-patients “always” wore masks:

A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from the same health care facility who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

“In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

The study indicated that some of these people might have become exposed to the virus when they removed their mask to eat or drink at “places that offer on-site eating or drinking.” However, the agency noted that it could not decide on the exact location the exposure to the pathogen occurred.

“Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities,” the report states.

In fact, the report suggests that “direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance.”

In September, Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden pressed for a national mask mandate that his VP pick had to walk-back.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said during a CNN appearance on Sunday that a Biden administration would not institute a mask mandate – a considerable change from the Democratic convention, when Biden promised one – instead saying they would set a “national standard” on mask-wearing.

Well, if the standard is based on science, there won’t be a mask mandate.

Additionally, Biden campaign events have been mask-wearing, virtue-signaling homages to severe coronavirus restrictions. It turns out contact-tracing has determined two Minnesota residents were likely infected at a Biden rally.

The state also traced two cases to attendees of Biden campaign events, including one from a Sept. 16 Duluth event. While another was initially reported from a person who attended a Sept. 22 event in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park, state officials told The Hill that the Biden campaign later said no event took place in Brooklyn Park on that day.

Paired with the “Great Barrington Declaration” and the World Health’s Organization’s revised guidelines recommended the end to lockdowns, this new report should have responsible leaders and public health officials significantly revising their approach to the virus.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Amazingly, the possibility that the warning on the side of the mask’s box that the masks contained therein, are not effective against virus, was true and accurate, wasn’t even considered as a reason for the positive status.

    Fiftycaltx in reply to mrtomsr. | October 16, 2020 at 9:01 am

    The little throwaway masks will NOT “protect” you. They are for show and to make the Karen’s “feel” better. When you breath in, the air comes from the edges of the mask. It is NOT ‘filtered”. Now the little masks MIGHT stop some aerosols if you cough or sneeze. What you need to protect YOURSELF is, at least, a properly fitted N95. IF it is sealed against your face, it will filter the air you breath. Unfortunately they seem to be unavailable to the general public. Oh and beards are verbotten. They eliminate any ability to filter. Having a beard while wearing an N95 is the same as a screen door on a submarine.

      privatepilot in reply to Fiftycaltx. | October 18, 2020 at 7:52 pm

      Even a “properly fit” N95 mask cannot protect you. If you go to an N95 manufacturer’s website they specify that it is capable of filtering anything .3 microns or larger. Then look up the size of the Covid19 virus. It is .1-.2 microns in diameter. Now I was a Metrologist during my career (the science of measurement) and people only have to do a very small amount of research to figure this out. And it doesn’t take a Metrologist to figure out that it doesn’t work. Spend about $100 to purchase and be fitted for a mask that actually CAN filter the virus out. This whole thing is nothing more than a sham. Masks have absolutely nothing to do with keeping people safe. It’s ALL about control.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to mrtomsr. | October 16, 2020 at 9:18 am

    There are surgical masks rated at 0.1 which is supposed to trap virus. They also had a plastic spring in the middle to stop the mask from sucking down to the mouth. And it has a metal bar top and bottom. The bottom bar allows for tightening the mask under the chin, and the spring means that air is drawing through a larger surface area of the mask, meaning a much lower air velocity, and better capture of virus in the filter.

    I ran out of those masks, but modified other masks with the mechanical features.

    Note that N95 masks are rated 0.3 and do not trap virus. The same is true for many surgical masks.

    HEPA filters are often capable of trapping virus, and some people are making masks incorporating HEPA filter in them.

    There is also the issue improper use of masks, such as too loose, over beards, under the nose, not conforming to the nose, etc. If you can feel cold air coming in around the perimeter, the mask filter is bypassed.

    Virus which is contained in droplets from coughing and sneezing will be trapped by most masks, but dry bare virus that falls between 0.1 and 0.3 will not.

    Which brings us to social distancing, I go to stores when they are not busy, when approaching other people I take extra breaths before 6′, hold my breath while passing them, and then resume breathing after 2-3 more steps.

    I am at high risk, ad so far I have not caught the virus. The longer I avoid it, the better treatment options will be.

    Sooner or later, we all will catch this virus.

      DaveGinOly in reply to JusticeDelivered. | October 16, 2020 at 2:29 pm

      You did not address aerosols. Droplets are 5 microns and larger, aerosols are essentially exhaled water vapor under 5 microns. Droplets, once airborne, can evaporate, becoming aerosols, and therefore capable of staying in the air longer (droplets are heavy enough that they fall out of the air column within a few feet of their sources, unless they partially evaporate/aerosolize).

      Masks that can stop droplets, but nothing smaller, can pass aerosols. A single aerosol can contain enough virus to cause an infection. Everyone exhales aerosols in addition to droplets. If a mask type can’t stop aerosols, it protects neither the wearer from others, nor others from the wearer.

      The whole idea that wearing a mask protects others, but not oneself, is BS. It’s meant to create support for mask-wearing by making people fear that others are putting them in danger. Those people then demand compliance and, if necessary, enforcement. If masks work, they must work both ways – they either stop droplets and aerosols, or they don’t (to say nothing of naked viruses, but the most likely route of transmission of naked viruses are via contact with infected surfaces). If they don’t, mask mandates are, at best, meant to give people a sense of agency and to keep them calm. At worst, they’re simply exercises in control, conditioning people to follow orders from authorities without inquiring into their efficacy, practicality, or the authority (or lack thereof) behind the orders.

      Not being critical of you, JD. Just making some points I thought should be addressed.

        “The whole idea that wearing a mask protects others, but not oneself, is BS.”


        The mask is intended to create panic and fear, and defeat Donald Trump. Nothing more.

        A mask capable of stopping a virus will not allow you to breathe, unless it is paired with pressurized air.

Jonathan Cohen | October 16, 2020 at 7:28 am

This phenomenon may be due to the fact that people tend to use masks when they are in situations where they are most likely to encounter someone who is contagious. Medical professionals wear them routinely. People are now wearing them indoors but taking them off outside. My guess would be that mask wearing is fairly prevalent on public transportation such as the New York Subway system.

What this shows is that while masks may be helpful in reducing the risk of contracting the disease, they certainly do not render immunity. The problem with overhyping the mask wearing is that it encourages people to reduce other defensive measures, particularly social distancing. And furthermore, their effectiveness is greatly affected by how they are used.

IN terms of the disease spread, if people become more careless with mask use, than their utility in slowing the pandemic is undermined.

    nordic_prince in reply to Jonathan Cohen. | October 16, 2020 at 9:22 am

    There are no RCTs that show mask wearing results in a statistically significant reduction in the transmission of viral infections.

      markymark in reply to nordic_prince. | October 16, 2020 at 9:40 am


      DaveGinOly in reply to nordic_prince. | October 16, 2020 at 2:15 pm

      “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning.”

      Respiratory etiquette (covering the mouth/nose when sneezing – DG)
      “Respiratory etiquette is often listed as a preventive measure for respiratory infections. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence to support this measure. Whether respiratory etiquette is an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in preventing influenza virus transmission remains questionable, and worthy of further research.”

      Face Masks
      “In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trial – DG) that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”
      “Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
      “Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission.”

    My guess would be that mask wearing is fairly prevalent on public transportation such as the New York Subway system.

    From my observation compliance on the NYC Subways is about 90%, if only because of the fines. Not that I’ve ever seen anyone get one of those.

This really bothers me for what it tells me about those living in our country. I was trained as a chemist and have been an adjunct faculty teaching courses such as toxicology for almost 20 years. I also worked in the nuclear industry for over 30 years and was a HazMat trainer/responder for decades so I am very well versed on PPE, their use, limitations and so forth, as well as routes of entry into the body and such.
When all this mask silliness came out I spoke out about how it was not going to work, how it was giving a false sense of security, etc. I was shocked at how the “experts” were getting this wrong and then I realized that they were really people with the appropriate letters behind their names that were hawking the agenda those in power were demanding be heard. Everyone else was silenced. When I spoke out abut the need to use eye protection as a minimum to make the use of masks effective I was amazed at the push back by so many without any significant education or experience. Ad hominem attacks were common as were claims that I was not the right kind of doctor to have an opinion. I was constantly told to shut up for, not only was I wrong, but I was stupid as well.
This is the state of affairs we live in today where we are no longer allowed to listen to any counter opinion no matter how well verses that opinion is. People today simply accept blindly what comes from the TV or computer and it is as though God himself has spoken for intellectual curiosity is dead and no argument over the issue is allowed. Not only have the people become sheep, but they have become highly defensive, narrow minded, arrogant, and ignorant sheep. These are not the attributes necessary for those living in a democracy where the people vote on the issues. How bad is this? Just look at how the public accepted the shut downs without questioning anything despite others out there claiming it to be unnecessary. I fear for our country.

    Old Navy Doc in reply to Cleetus. | October 16, 2020 at 9:56 am

    You are correct. As a surgeon, I wore a mask to protect the patient and goggles to protect me. With patients in infectious isolation rooms, I wore full body disposable attire but the cost factor to the hospital was prohibitive to issue HazMat air rebreather hoods like you might see in the movie “Outbreak”, so we just took our chances and prayed.

    Our current mishmash of governmental edicts are primarily “lipstick on pig” to either butt cover, feel good, or project power/control. They do little to affect the COVID mortality in the community.

mask wearing was widespread in 1918 at the height of the spanish flu. they didn’t work then either.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to [email protected]. | October 16, 2020 at 8:08 am

    Times were different back then. We didn’t have all of these high-quality masks that we have today. Masks from China.

    Being serious for a moment – yes, I can be – I am reccovering from some minor surgery. I am observant, so here is what I notice. My temperature is taken with a non-contact reader in the lobby of the doc’s office. Made in China. The mask I am forced to wear: Made in China. The gauze bandaged I change out twice a day: Made in China. The tape to hold them in place: Made in China. The tape is branded Johnson & Johnson. The gauze are from Walgreens, but the “name brands” like J&J or Red Cross are all Chinese.

    Even the infernal television set in the waiting room is HiSense. Chinese.

    I guess all we make here now are guns and aircraft.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to [email protected]. | October 16, 2020 at 9:23 am

    They also did’t trap virus sized particulates, because the technology did not exist.

The point of masks is to slow the spread. If you can get the average number of people each infected person infects to less than 1.0, the virus dies out. The masks reduce that number from whatever it is to something smaller. Someday it will be less than 1.0.

    nordic_prince in reply to rhhardin. | October 16, 2020 at 9:26 am

    Even that spin doesn’t hold water.

    Edward in reply to rhhardin. | October 16, 2020 at 11:46 am

    The point of universal wearing of masks is to show compliance with the government’s orders.

    The only rational and scientific reason for mask wearing is for sick people to wear the masks. Then the mask is a “tell tale” and those who are not sick will avoid the sick people and slow the spread of the disease.

    Barry in reply to rhhardin. | October 16, 2020 at 10:51 pm

    Bullshit. The point is to instill fear and panic and eliminate Trump.

    Masks do nothing for the transmission of the chinaVirus.

I also pointed out that the surgical masks type that were available (both manufactured by medical supply companies and homemade) are designed for reducing the risk of the wearer infecting others not necessarily the other way around.

And that if we wanted the masks to reduce the risk of the wearer becoming infected, it would need to be the N95 with face shield to protect the eyes also from becoming the infection point of entry.

The science only works when it is actually applied.

“ The study indicated that some of these people might have become exposed to the virus when they removed their mask to eat or drink at ‘places that offer on-site eating or drinking.’”

Like practically everything else about the Wuflu, this is wish-casting by the totalitarian control freaks at the CDC. “The lack of hard data will not stop us from extravagant speculation. Nor will it prevent us from making draconian policy recommendations. We are the High Priests of Holy Science. To disagree is blasphemy.”

Contemplate these:

How are there are “experts” on something that has never happened before?

The “experts” don’t know what they are talking about.

Politicians know even less but issue dictates and rules.

Here in Ohio, Mealy mouth Mike DeWine, RINO-Ohio, says ChiCom flu rates are and blames funerals and gatherings. Is this in spite of or because of his restrictions?

2smartforlibs | October 16, 2020 at 8:37 am

Again taking a knee serves no one but the overlord class.

    henrybowman in reply to 2smartforlibs. | October 16, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    “He can’t even run his own life / I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine…”
    If American freedom means anything at all, it means freedom to ignore bad advice from people precisely like these. Surrender this, and we’ve got nothing.

You can reduce your risk but you can’t reduce it to zero. Masks may only reduce it a tiny amount. They help but there is no way to guarantee that you won’t catch it.

JackinSilverSpring | October 16, 2020 at 8:59 am

It is incorrect to look at the percent infected who wore masks. Suppose, 100% of the people wore masks, but some of them got infected anyway. Then 100% of those infected would be reported as wearing masks. The corrrct way to look at this is, what percent of people wearing masks get infected versus the percent infected of those infected not wearing masks. The CDC study does not provide that information. We can get a rough idea, though, by comparing mask wearing in the CDC study with mask wearing in the general population, a number known from May IPSOS poll. According to the same CDC study, about 85% of those infected wear masks all or some of the time. That percentage just about matches the IPSOS poll which found that 87% of those polled wore masks all or some of the time. We would expect that if masks made a difference, the infection rate of mask wearers versus non-mask wearers to be much lower than the mask wearing of the general population. That the rate is not different suggests that mask wearing has little to no effect on who gets the Wu flu.

    Before recent times the masks were sold as protecting the wearer from contracting the disease. Given that, data about how many people in a sample of people who developed the disease wore masks is definitely worth knowing.

    As for polling about wearing masks, how many people will tell a pollster they don’t believe in wearing masks? Hell, how many people bother to answer a call from an unknown caller in an election year? Unless they consider such calls their best entertainment of the day, most people don’t bother to answer such calls.

      Barry in reply to Edward. | October 16, 2020 at 10:55 pm

      “Before recent times the masks were sold as protecting the wearer from contracting the disease.”

      Provide an example of mask makers selling masks to protect the wearer from a virus.

There is a typo, either in this article headline or in the paper. The 160 person control group referred to in the paper are sick people, SYMPTOMATIC but negative test.

The paper out of CDC seems designed to not answer questions about masks. The mantra is masks protect other people. So whether a person wears a mask has no bearing on whether this mantra is true.

The main observation from the data is that sick people with positive COVID test tend to have family members with COVID, and next in line, other close contacts (friend, coworker) with COVID. Subjects are probably not wearing mask around family. So of course mask wearing behavior in general would not be a distinguisher.

The population studies that look at disease outcomes (testing, hospitalization, deaths) compared with a measurable thing – date of mask mandate – fail to show causality for mask mandates. That was subject of a previous LI post, the thrust of GB declaration, and well reviewed by, for example, Ivor Cummins September 8 video.

Maybe over some indefinite timeframe we will learn about actual mask wearing behavior. For our current disaster (the bad societal outcomes from shutdown), we have to go with the measurables we got.

The takeaway from the study is that it confirms what many us have been stating since the beginning.

1. Masks are not a panacea.
2. Masks are useful in mitigating transmission FROM the wearer 3. Masks are less useful in protecting the wearer.

The unfortunate truth is that most people lack the discipline to properly and safely:
1. Remove the mask
2. Secure the mask for storage
3. Store the mask in between uses

Most folks wear it properly from my observations. However, I am willing to give odds that the same folks howling about masks do the following:
1. Remove their improperly stored and secured mask from the center console of their vehicle
2. Don’t use hand sanitizer before touching the mask
3. Don’t make a conscious effort to refrain from touching the interior of the mask
4. Place the mask on prior to entry to the store
5. Place their hands on the surface of the counter where the card reader is
6. Insert their card into the reader
7. Touch the screen of the reader to accept the transaction
8. Exit the store by touching the door to push open
9. Use their now potentially contaminated hands to remove the mask
10. Make a half hearted attempt to fold the mask but still use their contaminated hands to touch the interior of the mask
11. Put the receipt the clerk handed them into the console with the mask

Use of any PPE is difficult because of the discipline required to preserve the integrity of the system. Even a system as simple as a mask. The sad fact is that most people are not disciplined enough to do it correctly every time.

    DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | October 16, 2020 at 2:50 pm

    “Store the mask in between uses”

    In any proper PPE protocol, masks are for single-use only. Once used, they should be disposed. They should certainly NOT be re-used.

    I understand that you’re speaking about the practicalities of the public’s use of masks. I’m just pointing out that because there is no “safe way” to store a mask for subsequent use, the public’s use of masks is inherently unsafe for that single-point failure. If mask use isn’t followed by disposal (which includes safe post-use handling), it becomes unsafe, in contravention of the the purpose of wearing a mask.

      CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 16, 2020 at 6:24 pm

      Exactly Dave.

      The cloth mask could be put into a zip lock, sealed taken home and washed. Maybe.

      The main point is that what I described is likely what most folks wearing a mask actually do. Keep one in their vehicle. The same one, used over and over.

      All the claptrap about ‘wear a mask’ isn’t useful. How you wear it, dispose of it, replace it, are IMO, more important precisely because the claptrap of ‘just wear it’ leads to a false sense of security.

    I have a single one dollar mask that gets worn every day when it is required. I never change it or wash it. I throw it on the dashboard of my car between uses.

    It protects me and others as well as any mask or mask protocol you care to use.

    dmi60ex in reply to CommoChief. | October 16, 2020 at 11:02 pm

    The Who has data suggesting Flu incidences are down 98 % from April on ,in relation to last year.
    Some say this proves that Flu and Covid are not running concurrently.
    I call BS ,the PCR tests set to 25 plus CT’s are picking up Flu and counting as covid .
    Flu just did not disappear.

      DaveGinOly in reply to dmi60ex. | October 17, 2020 at 1:43 am

      Do you know for a fact that the current seasonal flu is a corona virus, or if it displays similar proteins? Unless it is or does, then tests for the novel corona virus are not detecting seasonal flu.

First of all, people who are symptomatic for COVID and test negative for the virus, almost assuredly are not infected with that particular virus. Remember, the symptoms established for COVID are identical to several other infectious diseases.

Second the case-patients were “symptomatic” for COVID and had one test for the presence of COVID virus. The study did not state if these people had a second, corroborative, test for the virus, or, if so, its result. It is likely that these patients may have been infected with the virus, not merely exposed.

Third, all the members of the study groups were treated on an out-patient basis. So, the infections involved were mild to extremely mild.

The rate of reported mask wearing was essentially the same in both groups of people studied and it was very high, >70%.

The obvious take away here is that the medical authorities were correct, back in March and April, that masks are not effective as a defense against this virus. So, why are the same authorities now stressing the universal wearing of masks? The science would seem to be against that. The science also seems to be against the effectiveness of economy crippling shutdowns in containing the virus. So, why are authorities still pushing those as well? And, an increasing mountain of evidence suggests that the actual mortality rate and infection rate may be far less than reported. What does this suggest? It strongly suggests that either the entire public health community and community of experts on infectious diseases are incompetent boobs, OR false and misleading information was being deliberately spread to make COVID seem to be far worse that it actually is and that this was done for a nefarious purpose not related to public health.

All of these politicians and political pundits are yelling “follow the science”. But, it the accuracy of the scientific information is suspect, at best, which “science” do you follow? I guess you follow the “science” which justifies whatever action you wish to take. So along with fake news we now have to contend with fake science [as if we had not been contending with that for two decades of Global Warming BS].

CenterRightMargin | October 16, 2020 at 12:13 pm

SHOCKING NEWS FROM THE WORLD OF SCIENCE – if you spend time with a family member who has COVID, you are more likely to get COVID (as opposed to another respiratory disease).

Oh, and masks don’t have a better protective effect against COVID than they do against other respiratory diseases. THIS ENDS OUR SHOCKING NEWS!

Seriously, though, as people have noted above – this is another garbage retrospective data analysis – at least when it comes to masks. Even the notion of a “control group” in this study is not appropriate – it’s a retrospective analysis of two different populations (sick from COVID vs. sick from something another respiratory virus); there was never a designed “control.” The differences in mask wearing between the two populations is statistical noise.

The only thing that you could really take away is that the COVID group had much more contact with a known COVID positive people before hand (42.2% to 14.5%) and the COVID positive people’s contacts where “closer” (51% family vs. 22% for non-COVID sick people, and COVID sick people also had 10% multiple contacts and much smaller percentage from either work or “other”).

You arrogant Trumpbillies are about to die on the stupidest hill ever built.

Masks. In a pandemic. MUH TYRANNY!!!!!?

    And Biden supporters do in fact openly wish or us all to die.

      Milwaukee in reply to McGehee. | October 17, 2020 at 2:16 am

      …Biden supporters…
      those are the ones driving around, by themselves, in a car with the windows rolled up, wearing masks.

      Or walking around, outside on a windy day, with a mask on.

      In South Texas the county is still requiring masks for businesses, so I wear a mask to spare the business owner the trouble.

    henrybowman in reply to cgray451. | October 16, 2020 at 4:07 pm

    So enjoy all our deaths that you’re so positive will happen. Meanwhile, STFU.

    CommoChief in reply to cgray451. | October 16, 2020 at 6:29 pm


    You might want to tell your nearly 78 year old candidate to stop pulling down his mask in public. Unless that’s part of the plan to elevate K Harris?

    Maybe you guys could speed things up by asking HRC for advice about removing/solving problems?

    Barry in reply to cgray451. | October 16, 2020 at 11:03 pm

    “Masks. In a pandemic.”

    They don’t effect in any meaningful way the transmission of a virus.

    You stupid Bidenbillies are as corrupt as Biden.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Barry. | October 17, 2020 at 1:56 am

      Most areas that imposed mask requirements AFTER the initial spike are still experiencing the “second wave.” Their mask mandates did nothing to stop the second wave, and their second wave infection rates are nearly identical to areas w/o current mask mandates.

      There are reasons why some medicines are controlled, despite the fact they can be life-saving when administered appropriately. It should not be surprising that masking, even if potentially effective, is nearly useless under real-world conditions in which untrained non-professionals are using and handling unsuitable masks inconsistently and/or improperly.

If you feel that the figure in the heading vindicates not wearing a mask, you are not thinking it through.

Scott Adams put’s it much more clearly than I wou;d:

This is not earth-shattering. Masks are used for source control, not protection (unless N95 or KN95).

Any mask will reduce the spread FROM the infected, but only properly fitted high filtration masks will reduce the spread to the uninfected.

    “Any mask will reduce the spread FROM the infected…”

    And what percentage reduction do you *imagine* that is?

    0.001%? More? Less? Data? Do you have the data to support your statement?