This analogy has always bothered me. The fact is, anyone who understands how these masks are constructed will argue this with you. It isn't actually very accurate, and it is a bad reason to get caught out for lack of knowledge.
Ask yourself why are N95 masks rated at .3 microns and not .03 microns for example? Shouldn't smaller particles be even more transmissive?
Turns out, the answer is not that simple. N95 masks have multiple layers of fabric. Think of it as multiple, slightly moving in the wind, chain link fences made out of sticky fiber, all placed one behind the other, and all offset slightly. So a small particle still has some probability of getting stopped, even if it smaller than the opening, because it has to traverse around and through multiple loose fibers in its path.
This sets up a turbulent airflow pattern, and it turns out that very small particles are much more likely to get caught up in swirling air currents, making them spend longer in the fiber mesh, and actually have a higher chance of getting caught in one of the fibers of the mask. N95 masks are rated at .3 microns because these particles are generally the most transmissve. They are heavy enough to avoid most of the traps from brownian motion and air currents, and yet still small enough to slip through.
An N95 mask is called such because it blocks 95% of these .3 micron particles. Any particle, whether larger or smaller than .3 microns, has a better probability of being blocked. The minimum is actually a pretty flat range between .1 and .3 micron. Obviously the curve goes up rapidly to 100% for bigger molecules, and only very, very slightly for smaller ones. Covid19 is generally agreed to be around .12 microns.
Also note that this macro, statistical analysis only works down to a certain size (analyzing air as a continuous flow when the particles are the size of molecules makes no sense for example), and an N95 mask can only affect particles that actually have some probability of getting stuck in the fibers of mask.
To really understand what percentage of virus particles will be blocked, you have to understand the specifics of the mask construction, and the above description leaves out an industry's worth of details, but usually you find operator error in wearing and sealing the mask to make such worries unnecessary. They are often so leaky around the edges that it doesn't matter.
The TL;DR:
Properly worn, an N95 mask will block around 95% of the virus. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of practice to learn how to seal and properly wear these masks, they are expensive and single use only, and they are very uncomfortable when properly worn.
That was a lot of keystrokes to say masks don't work, even the magical N95.
First, 5% of a virus getting through means viruses are still getting through, people are going to catch it.
Your paean to the N95 also failed to note the most glaring "hole" in the theory that they block viruses: the vent. They were designed for use in contaminated environments, to protect the wearer only, from dust and other large particles.
They vent UNFILTERED AIR that you exhale into the environment.
They make it harder for the wearer to inhale. They increase CO2 concentration in the blood while decreasing O2. They vent unfiltered, germ-laden vapor to the outside. They also concentrate microbes near the wearer's nose and mouth for constant rebreathing, causing pneumonia.
And the N95 box proudly states that THEY DO NOT BLOCK TRANSMISSION OF ANY VIRUS.
Only the incorrect model of "chainlink fence in sandstorm" was the basis of my explanation. This is an incorrect model and if you ever find yourself in a discussion about masks, you do not want to use this as a basis for discussion.
Ummmm none of that matters. Masks only could stop anything with a negative pressure such as inhaling. On yhe positive pressure side, exhaling, they are 100% usless. Everytime, all the time.
This analogy has always bothered me. The fact is, anyone who understands how these masks are constructed will argue this with you. It isn't actually very accurate, and it is a bad reason to get caught out for lack of knowledge.
Ask yourself why are N95 masks rated at .3 microns and not .03 microns for example? Shouldn't smaller particles be even more transmissive?
Turns out, the answer is not that simple. N95 masks have multiple layers of fabric. Think of it as multiple, slightly moving in the wind, chain link fences made out of sticky fiber, all placed one behind the other, and all offset slightly. So a small particle still has some probability of getting stopped, even if it smaller than the opening, because it has to traverse around and through multiple loose fibers in its path.
This sets up a turbulent airflow pattern, and it turns out that very small particles are much more likely to get caught up in swirling air currents, making them spend longer in the fiber mesh, and actually have a higher chance of getting caught in one of the fibers of the mask. N95 masks are rated at .3 microns because these particles are generally the most transmissve. They are heavy enough to avoid most of the traps from brownian motion and air currents, and yet still small enough to slip through.
An N95 mask is called such because it blocks 95% of these .3 micron particles. Any particle, whether larger or smaller than .3 microns, has a better probability of being blocked. The minimum is actually a pretty flat range between .1 and .3 micron. Obviously the curve goes up rapidly to 100% for bigger molecules, and only very, very slightly for smaller ones. Covid19 is generally agreed to be around .12 microns.
Also note that this macro, statistical analysis only works down to a certain size (analyzing air as a continuous flow when the particles are the size of molecules makes no sense for example), and an N95 mask can only affect particles that actually have some probability of getting stuck in the fibers of mask.
To really understand what percentage of virus particles will be blocked, you have to understand the specifics of the mask construction, and the above description leaves out an industry's worth of details, but usually you find operator error in wearing and sealing the mask to make such worries unnecessary. They are often so leaky around the edges that it doesn't matter.
The TL;DR:
Properly worn, an N95 mask will block around 95% of the virus. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of practice to learn how to seal and properly wear these masks, they are expensive and single use only, and they are very uncomfortable when properly worn.
That was a lot of keystrokes to say masks don't work, even the magical N95.
First, 5% of a virus getting through means viruses are still getting through, people are going to catch it.
Your paean to the N95 also failed to note the most glaring "hole" in the theory that they block viruses: the vent. They were designed for use in contaminated environments, to protect the wearer only, from dust and other large particles.
They vent UNFILTERED AIR that you exhale into the environment.
They make it harder for the wearer to inhale. They increase CO2 concentration in the blood while decreasing O2. They vent unfiltered, germ-laden vapor to the outside. They also concentrate microbes near the wearer's nose and mouth for constant rebreathing, causing pneumonia.
And the N95 box proudly states that THEY DO NOT BLOCK TRANSMISSION OF ANY VIRUS.
Completely agree with everything you said.
Only the incorrect model of "chainlink fence in sandstorm" was the basis of my explanation. This is an incorrect model and if you ever find yourself in a discussion about masks, you do not want to use this as a basis for discussion.
Also restricted breathing causes stress.
Ummmm none of that matters. Masks only could stop anything with a negative pressure such as inhaling. On yhe positive pressure side, exhaling, they are 100% usless. Everytime, all the time.
P.s. they dont even stop drywall dust.
Your entire post revolves around the 95% claim. Prove it.