Strong case for wearing masks

EVEN in January, science demanded that we must identify the highest concentration of the coronavirus, at its only source on this planet, namely the tiny droplets in the breath expelled from infected lungs, and extract as much as possible, before they went on to infect other lungs.

Every droplet we can catch on the mask of an infected person reduces the transmission rate of the disease by just that percentage.

The UK Government told us of viruses on hard surfaces, with not a word about where they came from.

While face masks are useful to prevent breathing some droplets into your body, they are essential to trap a proportion of infected droplets being breathed out, by changing the mask regularly, washing or disinfecting it.

To wear any of the wide range of masks, and goggles, outdoors, protects almost all the face from infected fingers, but, much more important, restricts the spread of the disease from those who do not know they are infected, directly into the lungs of s strangers.

Because it takes four or five days for the infected body to create a fever, as its defence against the v virus, corona is spread most widely during that period. Wearing a mask and goggles outside, especially on public transport, has no d disadvantages for anyone.

In March, the British Government began to talk about “social distancing”, with still not a word about an airborne infection, exhaled from my infected air passages, inhaled straight into your air p passages, to infect them.

For four months the Government discouraged face masks because some people might think it a complete answer.

Even if there were such people, how could that ever be a logical reason? Neville Westerman Brynna