>>11602013>>11602015It's an impractical understanding of reality, like
>>11602032. the answer assumes situations of being infected under circumstances that are not generally the case. Conflating possibility with probability in spite of all the other natural defenses and immune responses as well as the faulty understanding of this particular virus, to begin with.
1. You all accept there is no 100% protection against a virus, right?
2. You all accept that the virus primarily enters through the nose and mouth, right?
3. You all accept the purpose of mask is to protect others, right?
But what none of you have accepted is the realities that make the possibility of infection into a probability.
You all forget that the mask was invented because the situations they are called, the circumstances that are given, already make for a higher probability of being infected in the first place.
Look at any study on wearing masks in public and across the board, you'll notice it is generally proved helpful if it was paired with traditional hygienic behavior AND it's used in environments where most if not all are highly contagious and could not avoid most vectors. Rarely if ever will you find a mask proved useful in ONLY ONE of those situations.
A nurse is more likely to get another person sick than a random stranger simply because she's been dealing with people who are most likely to be sick with something. It's more probable she's carrying a larger population of active viruses. Ergo she's required to wear a mask and/or go through a hygiene protocol. (Can you guess why the and/or?)
To just suggest that a mask sold to a normalfag is beneficial when you already know that mask are useful in some cases is generally stupid. It presumes its useful in unknown situations, with persons of unknown understanding, when it's already shown to work in only some cases but not all.
