Oh boy, here we go.
Let’s look at this oh-so-sloppy CDC publication.

“CDC recommends community use of masks, specifically non-valved multi-layer cloth masks”
Really? Cloth masks have no production control variables to measure or assert efficacy. 1/n https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html

“Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets.”

That’s nice, but Covid is airborne contagion. Masks with KNOWN control variables in production filter exhale at 4 microns or greater. Covid is .06-1.4 microns.
Mask make it more airborne. How? 2/N

Forced filtration. During a plosive force generating event (cough, sneeze, scream) within a mask, only particles larger than 4 microns are withheld. What you’re causing with masks is an increase in atmospheric viral load - the masks most wear DO NOT filter Covid on inhale.

When you cause forced filtration, these tiny Covid particles do not respond predictably to gravity once aloft. Proper PPE must account for Brownian Motion in order to filter these fine particulates. 4/N

“Masks help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer.”
Sure, which is why similarly porous masks are used in surgery - for large particles. NOT airborne. The baseline minimum PPE for Covid size particulates is N95 or higher grade respirators plus eyecover. 6/N

Touting lesser grade PPE as protective against Covid is killing people, and requiring the use of inappropriate PPE for known contagion or a particulate filtration designation is a massive OSHA violation.

“...can block 50-70% of fine particulates,” should be:
“When trying to assert % efficacy on unknown variables, we obviously can’t, but we know 20-50% of fine particles get through cloth masks, and minimal viral load is required - especially aerosolized - to transmit Covid.”
8/N

“Upwards of 80% blockage of droplets...” hey great, good for you. But not .06-1.4 micron radically behaving particulates. Because that requires baseline PPE of N95 or higher grade respirators +eyecover, to account for Brownian Motion. But they want you to obey, not question!
9/N

The entire section titled Filtration for Personal Protection is a laugh (if you’re me).
It’s saying there are no control variables with cloth masks but they’re still trying to use “limited to observation and epidemiological studies” to pass utter hooey off as science. 10/N

It further cites a Thailand-based case study claiming 70% reduced risk if mass masking, but in the US, we have 71% of new cases reporting as always masking and 14% of cases report masking most of the time.
You do the math - no wait, I’ll do it for you.
11/N

4-.06= 3.94
4-1.4=2.6
The difference is the space left over in mask exhale openings around the smallest-largest range of Covid particle on exhale, pressurized aloft during a plosive event.
Cloth masks have no production control variables and shout NOT be touted as safe.

12/12