maybe you should read more instead of flailing about.
these two links are a thing called a source.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252
if you open them you can read all sorts of cool information like
"
we have measured the filtration efficiencies of various commonly available fabrics for use as cloth masks in filtering particles in the significant (for aerosol-based virus transmission) size range of ∼10 nm to ∼6 μm and have presented filtration efficiency data as a function of aerosol particle size.
We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10 nm to 6.0 μm range, provided they have a tight weave.
you even get cool pictures like
Figure 3. Filtration efficiency of individual fabrics at a flow rate of 1.2 CFM (without gap). (a) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of a cotton quilt consisting of two 120 threads per inch (TPI) cotton sheets enclosing a ∼0.5 cm thick cotton batting, 80 TPI quilters cotton (Q Cotton 80 TPI), and a 600 TPI cotton (cotton 600 TPI). (b) Plot showing the filtration efficiencies of one layer of natural silk (Silk-1L), four layers of natural silk (Silk-4L), one layer of flannel, and one layer of chiffon. The error bars on the <300 nm measurements are higher, particularly for samples with high filtration efficiencies because of the small number of particles generated in this size range, the relatively poorer counting efficiency of the detector at <300 nm particle size, and the very small counts downstream of the sample. The sizes of the error bars for some of the data points (>300 nm) are smaller than the symbol size and hence not clearly visible.
heck even the information in that image is explained!
what a wondrous thing.
but I'm pretty sure you never bothered to click the links.
please educate yourself on:
1. gathering and citing sources
2. reading sources cited to you
3. argument formation and presentation
for the sake of clarity, Eastwald stated cloth masks were only 10% effective which i took the time to prove wrong.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm a militant atheist which is sort of correct. I don't actively hate religious people, but i have a ton of contempt for them after my childhood friend hanged himself in his closet with a sweater because of the abuse of his born-again christian step-father, as well as the childhood abuse.of my wife by the Jehovah's witnesses and their subsequent cover-up of it (see recent news about a bunch of this shit coming to light).
one doesn't need a religious doctrine to have a moral framework.