Actually, the CDC specifically stated certain types of face masks don't work and recommended that people use the N95s or better. Yet, they realized not everybody had access to an N95 or better. They then specially stated to use anything you can find and that's exactly what people did: They used hankies, cloth from clothing, and any other cheap, not reliable material to prevent infectious disease. Simply, they then saw the result of that and have changed tune when Omicron showed up via only recommending N95s or better especially when they saw the number of states making an effort to remove face mask mandates and remove vaccination mandates. Thus, the now recommendation of N95s is really for those that are willing to follow public health guidelines to protect their friends, family, and loved ones considering there's a list of Covidiots out there seeming trying very hard to extend the Pandemic to score some political brownie points. I still have a few of my M40s and M17s with filters when I was an Army NBC Officer. Filters are expensive. Today, they're referred to as CBRN masks... https://thepreppingguide.com/gas-masks-military-grade-cbrn/ wrbtrader
From the Left Leaning Atlantic. The CDC’s Flawed Case for Wearing Masks in School The agency’s director has said, repeatedly, that schools without mask mandates have triple the risk of COVID outbreaks. That claim is based on very shaky science. By David Zweig The debate over child masking in schools boiled over again this fall, even above its ongoing high simmer. The approval in late October of COVID-19 vaccines for 5-to-11-year-olds was for many public-health experts an indication that mask mandates could finally be lifted. Yet with cases on the rise in much of the country, along with anxiety regarding the Omicron variant, other experts and some politicians have warned that plans to pull back on the policy should be put on hold. Scientists generally agree that, according to the research literature, wearing masks can help protect people from the coronavirus, but the precise extent of that protection, particularly in schools, remains unknown—and it might be very small. What data do exist have been interpreted into guidance in many different ways. The World Health Organization, for example, does not recommend masks for children under age 6. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends against the use of masks for any children in primary school. Seen in this context, the CDC has taken an especially aggressive stance, recommending that all kids 2 and older should be masked in school. The agency has argued for this policy amid an atmosphere of persistent backlash and skepticism, but on September 26, its director, Rochelle Walensky, marched out a stunning new statistic: Speaking as a guest on CBS’s Face the Nation, she cited a study published two days earlier, which looked at data from about 1,000 public schools in Arizona. The ones that didn’t have mask mandates, she said, were 3.5 times as likely to experience COVID outbreaks as the ones that did. This estimated effect of mask requirements—far bigger than others in the research literature—would become a crucial talking point in the weeks to come. On September 28, during a White House briefing, Walensky brought up the 3.5 multiplier again; then she tweeted it that afternoon. In mid-October, with the school year in full swing, Walensky brought up the same statistic one more time. But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC’s back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading. “You can’t learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study,” Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me. His view echoed the assessment of eight other experts who reviewed the research, and with whom I spoke for this article. Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate. The Arizona study’s lead authors stand by their work, and so does the CDC. But the critics were forthright in their harsh assessments. Noah Haber, an interdisciplinary scientist and a co-author of a systematic review of COVID-19 mitigation policies, called the research “so unreliable that it probably should not have been entered into the public discourse.” This is not the only study cited by Walensky in support of masking students, but it’s among the most important, having been deployed repeatedly to justify a policy affecting millions of children—and having been widely covered in the press. The agency’s decision to trumpet the study’s dubious findings, and subsequent lack of transparency, raise questions about its commitment to science-guided policy. The Arizona study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, looked at school-associated outbreaks in Maricopa and Pima Counties, comparing rates across schools with and without mask mandates for students and staff. “The school year starts very early in Arizona, in mid-July, so we had the advantage of being able to get an early look at data,” one of the lead authors, J. Mac McCullough, told The New York Times. The early look revealed that just 16 outbreaks had occurred among the 210 schools that had a mask mandate in place from the start of classes, versus 113 among the 480 schools that had no mandates at all. According to McCullough and his colleagues, this amounted to a 3.5-fold increase in incidence of outbreaks for the no-mandate schools. Yet the study’s methodology and data set appear to have significant flaws. The trouble begins with the opening lines of the paper, where the authors say they evaluated the association between school mask policies and school-associated COVID-19 outbreaks “during July 15–August 31, 2021.” After reviewing school calendars and speaking with several school administrators in Maricopa and Pima Counties, I found that only a small proportion of the schools in the study were open at any point during July. Some didn’t begin class until August 10; others were open from July 19 or July 21. That means students in the latter group of schools had twice as much time—six weeks instead of three weeks—in which to develop a COVID outbreak. When I brought this issue to Megan Jehn, the study’s corresponding author and an epidemiologist at Arizona State University, she acknowledged that exposure times varied across schools. The ones without mask mandates were open longer overall, she told me—but the difference was too small to matter. Their median start date was August 3, versus August 5 for the schools that did have mask mandates. In a follow-up correspondence, Jehn and McCullough wrote, “It is highly improbable that this difference alone could explain the strong association observed between mask policies and school outbreaks.” Yet Ketcham said that a comparison of median start dates is insufficient. “If schools with mask mandates had fewer school days during the study,” he told me, “that alone could explain the difference in outbreaks.” Ketcham and others also criticized the Arizona study’s use of school-related outbreaks, rather than cases per student per week, as the relevant outcome. The authors defined an outbreak as being two or more COVID-19 cases among students or staff members at a school within a 14-day period that are epidemiologically linked. “The measure of two cases in a school is problematic,” Louise-Anne McNutt, a former Epidemic Intelligence Service officer for the CDC and an epidemiologist at the State University of New York at Albany, told me. “It doesn’t tell us that transmission occurred in school.” She pointed to the fact that, according to Maricopa County guidelines, students are considered “close contacts” of an infected student—and thus subject to potential testing and quarantine—only if they (or that infected student) were unmasked. As a result, students in Maricopa schools with mask mandates may have been less likely than students in schools without mandates to get tested following an initial exposure. This creates what’s known as a detection bias, she said, which could grossly affect the study’s findings. (Jehn and McCullough called it “highly speculative to make the assumption that identified close contacts are more likely to be tested than other students.”) McNutt believes that masks are an important prevention tool in the pandemic, but she maintained that the Arizona study doesn’t answer the specific question it purports to answer: whether mask mandates for students reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. There are other issues, too. Jason Abaluck, an economics professor at Yale and the lead investigator on a 340,000-person randomized trial of masking in Bangladesh, called the Arizona study “ridiculous” for failing to control for the vaccination status of staff or students. If more people had been immunized at the schools with mask mandates—or if those schools were more likely to have other mitigation measures in place, such as improved ventilation—then they likely would have seen fewer outbreaks regardless. According to the paper, data on vaccination coverage were unavailable on a per-school basis. Even basic elements of the data set inspire some concerns. According to the paper, 782 of the 999 public, non-charter schools included in the study were in Maricopa County. In response to a public-records request, the Arizona Department of Education sent me what it said was the same list of schools that had been provided to the researchers, with 891 relevant entries for Maricopa. But closer inspection revealed that about 40 of them were virtual learning academies, about 20 were preschools, and about 90 were vocational programs associated with otherwise-listed schools. That left at most roughly 740 schools for inclusion in the study, not 782. If dozens of entries were inappropriately included in the final data set, were “outbreaks” counted for them too? Starting at the end of October, I reached out to Jehn and MMWR about the number of schools, and repeatedly asked for the list of those included in the study. I also asked about the fact that schools with mask mandates and those without mandates opened at different times. Neither the journal nor the study’s authors agreed to share the list of schools, or any other data from the study. The journal replied: “MMWR is committed to quickly correcting errors when they are identified. We reviewed the specific items that you describe below and found no errors.” This week the authors finally shared their narrowed-down list of Maricopa schools as used for the study. Yet it still included at least three schools in Pima County, along with at least one virtual academy, one preschool, and more than 80 entries for vocational programs that are not actual schools. In response to a follow-up inquiry, they acknowledged having included the online school by mistake, while attributing any other potential misclassifications to the Arizona Department of Education. A media-relations manager from the lead authors’ university told me that “the data used for this study were entirely appropriate for the study’s objectives,” and that “Drs. Jehn and McCullough stand by the methodology and results from the data analyses of the 999 schools included in the study.” The extent of the benefits of wearing masks for preventing COVID remains uncertain, but it’s wrong to say we don’t know anything at all. “One thing you can extrapolate well is that masks have some effect,” Haber told me. “But the level of effectiveness depends on an enormous array of very important factors, and high-quality direct evidence is difficult to come by, particularly for schools.” Given its apparent flaws, the Arizona study would seem to bear out Haber’s point, offering little evidence, one way or another, on whether mask mandates “work” in schools, or to what degree. Even taken at face value, though, its findings don’t appear to fit with those from other research. Abaluck’s huge, randomized trial of mask use in rural Bangladeshi villages, for example, estimated just an 11 percent reduction in confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among adults wearing surgical masks (and relatively little evidence of any effect for cloth masks). Another, more similar study, published in MMWR in May, looked at case rates among more than 90,000 students in Georgia, comparing those at schools with and without mask mandates. It found that the incidence of COVID was 37 percent lower in schools where staff were required to wear masks, and 21 percent lower in schools where that rule applied to kids. (The latter difference was not statistically significant, and the authors noted that the data “cannot be used to infer causal relationships.”) Now compare those numbers with the headline finding from the Arizona study, touted repeatedly by Walensky: that a lack of school masking mandates more than tripled the risk of outbreaks. A number of the experts interviewed for this article said the size of the effect should have caused everyone involved in preparing, publishing, and publicizing the paper to tap the brakes. Instead, they hit the gas. Given that data were collected through August 31, the authors had just a few weeks to complete their analysis and finalize their manuscript before MMWR put it out on September 24. Walensky tweeted out the research four days later. As the CDC’s outlet for scientific reports, MMWR has long been crucial for assessing and documenting outbreaks of disease, up to and including this pandemic. Yet it’s also been a source of steady controversy. As Politico reported in September 2020, officials in the Trump administration tried to influence MMWR releases so that its messaging on COVID would align with the president’s. Career staffers expended “great effort” to resist this influence and uphold MMWR’s scientific integrity, a former official later told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Yet under the Biden administration, the agency has not always been apolitical. In May, it was revealed that the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers’ union, had private exchanges with CDC officials prior to new school guidance being issued under Walensky’s tenure, and some of the union’s suggestions were added nearly verbatim. In September, on the same day as the Arizona study’s publication, Walensky overruled her agency’s advisory committee by endorsing the use of COVID-vaccine booster shots for teachers and other workers deemed at high risk of exposure, thereby aligning the CDC more closely with President Joe Biden’s position. Still, the publication and agency endorsement of the Arizona study is especially demoralizing. How did research with so many obvious flaws make its way through all the layers of internal technical review? And why was it promoted so aggressively by the agency’s director? I reached out to Walensky’s office to ask about the study, noting its evident limitations and outlier result. How, if at all, does this research figure into the agency’s continuing guidance for schools around the country? The CDC did not respond to my inquiries. With Biden in the White House, the CDC has promised to “follow the science” in its COVID policies. Yet the circumstances around the Arizona study seem to show the opposite. Dubious research has been cited after the fact, without transparency, in support of existing agency guidance. “Research requires trust and the ability to verify work,” Ketcham, the ASU public-health economist, told me. “That’s the heart of science. The saddest part of this is the erosion of trust.”
Let's see the latest study from January 22, 2022. Yep... it shows the obvious -- pre-schools and child care facilities with mask requirements stay open -- while those not requiring masks get overrun with Covid more easily & are more likely to shut down. Child masking associated with reduced COVID-19 related child care closures https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220127114321.htm
The science of masks, explained by a mechanical engineer after 2 years of testing in his lab As the CDC changes its guidelines to recommend more heavy-duty masks, this scientist explains what’s behind the difference in quality of cloth masks, surgical masks, and N95s—and how to make them the most effective. https://www.fastcompany.com/9071668...-engineer-after-2-years-of-testing-in-his-lab
79 of the 115 school districts in North Carolina require masks based on the database maintained by the North Carolina School Boards Association. Two more school districts, Cumberland and Johnson, shortly being making masks optional. In North Carolina school districts are free to make their own decisions about mask requirements. School boards are required to re-vote each month to either require masks or not. The state provides Covid data to help enable school districts to make their decisions. The state legislature also passed a law this fall stating that school systems could not shut down entire school systems to go remote; they could only shut down individual schools to go remote. What are the results for the 2021/2022 school year so far? Only school systems with no mask requirements in our state have shut down schools due to Covid issues. Some of them shut down so many schools that they effectively closed down the system for periods of time. School systems with mask mandates have been able to stay open for in-person learning without closing a single school. Since in-person learning is more effective than remote learning, mask requirements have effectively enabled superior education in the Covid era.
Let's take a look at what the QAnon clowns are up to in my state of North Carolina... QAnon-linked group files insurance claims against schools that won't drop mask mandates: report https://www.rawstory.com/qanon-2656638278/ On Friday, The News & Observer reported that a group with ties to the QAnon conspiracy theory movement has come up with a novel way to try to force schools to drop mask mandates: file insurance claims against them. "The Bonds For the Win website tells parents they can threaten to file 'surety bond claims' against school board members and superintendents accusing them of violating multiple laws unless they make changes such as drop mask requirements," reported T. Keung Hui. "This approach has been used in multiple states, including in North Carolina in Catawba, Iredell, Johnston and Wake counties. 'We have people all over the world obtaining these bonds, all over the world,' Miki Klann, who helped create Bonds For the Win, said in a January YouTube video highlighting efforts in North Carolina. 'These school districts need to be put on notice, and I really do want them to be listening to us right now.'" According to the report, the surety bond claims, which are made to the liability insurance companies securing the schools, are facilitated by Bonds For the Win's "sample intent letters for parents that charge that requiring masks violates multiple state, federal and international laws. For instance, the group contends that requiring face masks violates The Nuremberg Code that came out of the prosecution of Nazis after World War 2." This is a common conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked. Liberty Mutual has already received claims for $1 million from the group — although it rejected them, telling the activists the claims were improper. "Bonds For the Win links its videos to a YouTube channel for Our Great Awakening, a website that Klann helps run," said the report. "Both the YouTube channel and the website include QAnon slogans such as 'Where we go one we go all.' QAnon is an online, often pro-Donald Trump, conspiracy theory based on the fringe belief that the government is run by a group of Satan-worshiping pedophiles including top Democratic lawmakers and a number of celebrities. The website has articles promoting QAnon theories that John F. Kennedy Jr. is still alive and about mass arrests and indictments of child traffickers. Bonds For The Win is being promoted by several QAnon influencers and leaders, according to an article in VICE News." You can read more here.
California voters strongly support mask and vaccine mandates in K-12 schools https://www.latimes.com/california/...ort-mask-and-vaccine-mandates-in-k-12-schools Nearly two-thirds of California voters, including a majority of parents, support mask and vaccine mandates in K-12 schools, according to a poll conducted this month by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley and co-sponsored by the L.A. Times. The results of the early February poll of nearly 9,000 California voters suggest continued broad public support for policies aimed at reducing the spread of the coronavirus in schools, even as protests against mask and vaccine mandates garner public attention in school districts across the state. “People really want the schools to get back to where they were,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. “But the desire to open schools is tempered with these feelings that these precautions should still be in place.” Statewide, the poll showed that a significant number of Latino and Black parents — populations that have been disproportionately hit by the pandemic — did not feel their children were safe from COVID-19 at schools. The numbers also point to deeply entrenched political divides — about 70% of Republicans were opposed to mask and vaccine mandates for schools while about 85% of Democrats supported them. A majority of nearly all other demographic groups broken out in the poll — including parents, low income, wealthy, white, Black, Latino and Asian voters — supported the school mandates. Among parents of school-age children, 61% approved when asked whether they supported California’s requirement that “students, teachers, and staff in K-12 public schools wear masks while in school this year.” Thirty-seven percent disapproved. A smaller majority of parents, 55%, approved of California’s plan to add COVID-19 to the list of vaccines required for schoolchildren once the COVID-19 inoculations are fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration; 42% disapproved. Nonparents showed even stronger support, with two-thirds in favor of mask and vaccine mandates for schools. State officials are reassessing rules requiring students and staff in K-12 schools to wear masks indoors, with an announcement on their future on Monday. Los Angeles County lifted its outdoor school mask requirement last week, with L.A. Unified joining this week. Overall, state and L.A. County officials are relaxing mask policies. Last week, California lifted its universal mask mandate for vaccinated residents in indoor public places. On Wednesday, L.A. County public health officials said those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be able to shed their masks in certain indoor settings later this week. The poll numbers come as protests against mask mandates by parents and students have grown across the state, with some parents demanding that local school boards stop enforcing the rules. Chino Valley Unified is one of many local school districts recently roiled by vocal protests — with dozens of parents and students earlier this month packing a school board meeting to demand that schools stop enforcing mask mandates. The meeting turned raucous with parents shouting “recall” at board members as they worked through the meeting’s agenda. School Board President Christina Gagnier said the protesters don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of broad swaths of the community. “The reality is we’re not hearing from thousands of parents or students saying they are against the mask mandate. That’s just not what’s happening,” she said. “People are either OK with the mandates or they want them to go away but they understand that it’s out of our control,” she added. “That small vocal group that is showing up to our meetings or having these very small protests, that’s not a reflection of what the community is feeling on these issues.” Groups that oppose mask mandates, meanwhile, feel strongly that it’s past time for California to lift rules that other states have already eliminated. “Last year, California was the last state to reopen schools and we are once again now in the last states to either allow for mask optional in schools or set a date in the next couple of weeks for that to happen. I think parents are feeling really frustrated,” said Megan Bacigalupi, executive director of the group CA Parent Power. The group is urging parents to contact state lawmakers, county health officers, school board members and superintendents to push for optional masking in schools. “Right now, most of our focus is on returning a sense of normalcy to schools and the No. 1 way we think that can be achieved is to allow for masks to be optional in schools,” Bacigalupi said. Statewide support for adding COVID-19 to the list of mandated student vaccines — including measles, mumps, diphtheria and other diseases — was strong. The poll results were mixed when Los Angeles voters were asked about their support for a vaccine mandate adopted by L.A. Unified that goes beyond existing state rules. L.A. Unified’s policy requires students 12 and older, starting in the fall, to be vaccinated unless they receive a rare medical exemption. Those who do not comply will be required to attend online school starting. About 90% of students 12 and older are in compliance with the policy, district officials said. When asked about their support for the district’s policy, about 38% of L.A. voters said unvaccinated students should be required to take classes online; 27% said unvaccinated students should be allowed to attend some in-person classes if special precautions are taken, but should be excluded from group activities that pose a greater risk of exposing others to the virus. And 26% said unvaccinated students should be allowed to attend in-person classes with no special restrictions. The current state rule takes effect for grades seven through 12, starting with the school term following full FDA approval of a vaccine for children ages 12 and older. The only authorized COVID-19 vaccine for children at this time is Pfizer-BioNTech, which is fully approved for individuals 16 and older and is authorized for emergency use for those 5 and older. Students in kindergarten through sixth grade would be phased in after the vaccine has been approved for their age group. Parents would be able to opt their children out of inoculation based on personal beliefs. However, state lawmakers are considering legislation that would tighten the current rule. It would mandate all public and private school students to be immunized for COVID-19, allowing for only rare medical exemptions. Personal belief exemptions would not be allowed under the proposed law. Ross Novie, who founded the group Los Angeles Uprising and is the parent of two L.A. Unified students, is organizing a march on Sunday dubbed the “March to Free LA,” which is aimed at ending vaccine and mask mandates. Novie said he supports strongly recommending vaccines but feels mandating them in schools “is a bridge too far.” “Ordering people and coercing people can cause massive damage down the road,” he said. Evelyn Aleman, who founded the group Our Voice: Communities for Quality Education, is an L.A. Unified parent who strongly supports the vaccine mandate. Like many Latino families in Los Angeles, she has lost family members to COVID-19, she said. “I think it’s important to ensure that everybody is safe, that the community is safe,” Aleman said. “And that means that everyone who is eligible needs to be vaccinated.” Several members, who are largely Latino immigrant parents of L.A. Unified students, said they also strongly support vaccine and mask mandates. Statewide, half of Latino parents and 43% of Black parents polled said they were not confident their children were safe from COVID-19 while in school. About a quarter of white parents felt the same. “It’s true that one day we have to get back to normal,” said Juanita Garcia, the grandmother and guardian of an L.A. Unified student. “But the situation still looks worrisome.”
Yet another study showing masks stop the spread of Covid at schools... Duke University researchers confirm masks slow COVID spread in schools https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/ch...rs-confirm-masks-slow-covid-spread-in-schools A study of 61 school districts with more than 1.1 million students between them found requiring masks works to cut down coronavirus transmission. Researchers with Duke University’s ABC Collaborative studied COVID-19 infection rates in the first half of the 2021-2022 school year and compared districts with different classroom mask rules. “The results of this study clearly show that universal masking reduces school transmission of COVID-19 when compared to optional masking,” said Dr. Danny Benjamin, co-chair of the research group. The new peer-reviewed research was published Wednesday in the journal "Pediatrics." The study included data from school districts in nine states from late-July until mid-December, through the delta wave and the first weeks of the omicron surge. The findings line up with the results of earlier studies, Benjamin said. “As more students have returned to school, masking and vaccination of children 5 years and older have remained the most practical and effective mitigation strategies to keeping students healthy and learning in-person,” he said. Requiring masks inside school buildings reduced coronavirus transmission by 72% when compared with school districts that did not have mask mandates, the research found. “After taking into account the size of the school districts and how many weeks the districts contributed data, masked schools saw up to 87% less transmission,” the researchers said in a statement Wednesday. The districts that participated in the research study included 1,112,899 students and 157,069 staff in K-12 schools, according to researchers. “The districts reported 40,601 primary and 3,085 secondary infections,” the study states. That means more than 90% of the COVID cases in the study came from community transmission outside schools. Of the 61 school districts in the study, 46 had universal mask rules, nine had partial mask rules and six did not require masks. The secondary transmission rates in schools with optional masks was 3.6 times higher than in schools that required everyone to wear face masks, the study found. “For every 100 community-acquired cases, universally masked districts had 7.3 predicted secondary infections, while optionally masked districts had 26.4,” the study states. The study included 29 districts from North Carolina, 23 from Wisconsin, three from Missouri, and one each from California, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas and Texas. The researchers worked with school districts to help monitor COVID-19 transmissions and evaluate their policies. “Maintaining in-person instruction is critical for children,” said Duke’s Dr. Kanecia Zimmerman, co-chair of the ABC Science Collaborative. “Providing districts with the ability to monitor transmission data in real time and in response to changing policies allows them to shape their mitigation efforts during an evolving pandemic.” School mask policies have become a political question, with school board debates and parent protests around the country since this school year began. But coronavirus numbers are dropping around the United States since the omicron surge spiked in January. Many of the largest school districts in the country, including New York City and Los Angeles, have moved to make masks optional. “The findings in this study are important,” Zimmerman said. “Especially in times with higher community infection rates and more transmissible variants, masking is a critical safety effort to support continued, in-person education.”
Following proper health practices, some school systems are re-instituting mask mandates as Covid prevalence rises in the local communities. U.S. schools bring back mask mandates amid rising COVID-19 cases https://globalnews.ca/news/8828664/u-s-schools-covid-mask-mandates-return/
A friend of mine in Colorado has been laughing about the recent Covid outbreaks in their K-12 schools and daycares. He said on their local news channel they were showing angry parents at a school board meeting saying face masks don't work... Yet, most of those parents either had their face masks around their necks, under their noses, or no mask at all...indoors at a meeting with the school board in an outbreak zone. Now here is the disconnect between the media and the CDC that will explain a recent post in another thread about why the media in Colorado is confusing Coloradians about the current Covid hotspots. Media in Colorado showing everything is OK as shown in the first graph below... CDC shows a different story that everything is not OK in Colorado and shows the same in a growing list of states. April 1st to April 9th May 1st to May 9th Let's all now pull down our face masks, wear our face masks underneath our noses or wear face masks around our necks, and then argue that face masks do not work. wrbtrader