>>14372163>>14372167Where are the studies indicating that
1. Aerosols cause more infection than droplets
2. Aerosols aren't projected at a lower rate when wearing a mask
>>14372166First link does not show any actual observation of the filtration effect of particles that get stuck on the masks instead of just showing off visual smoke.
Second link makes ludicrous claims such as
>Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, becausethe minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of
pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to
take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant
difference.
>On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosolparticle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case
Which again misses the entire point about masks and holds them to a stupid standard of "either they stop infection completely or they don't work", while completely bypassing that they do have a filtration effect and do, in fact, stop particles carrying viruses from spreading into the air. They may not stop ALL particles (nobody claims they do that mind you) but the mere fact that there are less viral particles in the air already means that the chance of somebody inhaling enough of a viral load to become infected is now lower.
Third link manages to refute itself by first saying "N95 masks didn't offer enough protection in this study" and then also admits that
>624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. 
