CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

But entirely typical of your standard blustering response - no supporting reference, just I'm a scientist, I know better than you - end of story..

Do you actually read what you link, the studies completely support what I posted. You've posted a link and only picked out the bits and pieces you like from the introduction, while the whole article goes on to explain why your general anti-mask argument is completely and unequivocally wrong!

A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face.

Most N95 rated masks (not respirators) even disposable ones filter down to sub-micron level, but they are only effective if you change them regularly which is the problem the public has. People wear the same disposable mask day in day out and once they are damp and contaminated from the moisture in exhalations they aren't as effective.

Evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm)
N95 FFR filter — >95% efficiency
Medical masks — 55% efficiency
General (cloth) masks — 38% efficiency
Handkerchiefs — 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.

N95 masks are the best, but not necessarily N95 respirators because they might have pressure relief valves that open during exhalation. General medical masks are almost as effective as an open window. The commercial cloth masks and other types are partially effective for droplets, the homemade single layer types of bandana or gaiter are almost useless.

That scatter gun approach you employ has shot your own argument in the foot, ................ again! ;D