Dose dependent means the AMOUNT of viral load exposure affects the risks and degrees of impact on people proportionally.
So the Greater the rate of filtration of mask material, the lower the viral load and the lower the risk of severe reactions and hospitalizations.
The longer the distance, the shorter the length of time, the smaller the crowd, or the bigger the space in which exposure takes place, this also proportionally reduces the amount of viral load exposure and lowers the risk of more serious symptoms and treatment.
This was also the case with HIV and AIDS:
If people repeatedly exposed themselves to HIV in greater doses, the chances of escalating to full blown AIDS increased. But if they limited their exposure, even if they still got HIV, the chances of it becoming AIDS was greatly reduced.
So it isn't "all or nothing."
That once a mask fails, it doesn't matter because once you get infected, you're infected. No.
It still makes a difference to limit and reduce the AMOUNT of exposure to the minimal.
So even though masks are not 100%,
80% is better than 20%.
The nurse who sewed masks for her staff out of Merv 13 AC filters tested these at 97 to 99% which is better than N95 at 95%.
You are citing studies looking at what works 100% and calling any exposure a failure to prevent infection from spreading.
But this doesn't account for the better recovery and lower hospitalization rates for lower exposure versus high exposure cases.
When the Wuhan strain first hit China, Italy and Iran head on, the medical staff were exposed to concentrated viral loads in highly saturated environments. So doctors and nurses reported higher death rates early on.
This stopped when proper PPE were used for medical staff instead of reusing masks.
NY and some other places in the US lost lots more hospital staff early on because of high viral load exposure that put them at greater risk.
After the initial outbreaks were contained, this didn't happen.
If masks didn't work at all, why do medics wear full hazmat gear.
Because of their constant exposure to high levels of viral loads, during the nonstop 24/7 surges in demand, the medical staff would segregate from their families and just board up with fellow medical staff who are following the same hazmat sanitary procedures.
Once the viral load wasn't highly concentrated, as in the NY outbreak that overwhelmed hospitals and caused the debacle of sending sick patients into elderly homes to infect thousands more, then we didn't have as bad risks as early on.
But when low income families and communities didn't have luxury to separate sick family members in close quarters, the exposure to viral loads was inescapable.
The doctor in Boston who held a Zoom meeting to share updates from the field said they had to go into the community neighborhoods where the outbreaks were spreading, and help separate and treat the families. They organized the teaching hospital system to save the most experienced ICU doctors for the most severe cases and the less experienced interns to supervise the less at risk patients.
The patients had to be isolated for weeks to prevent the spread.
So the doctors and nurses I heard from ALL urged people to reduce risks of "higher exposure" by masks and distancing.
This reduced the hospitalization rates so they could handle the patient load.
It makes a difference if you are only exposed a little bit, or you are constantly exposed to higher doses.
