You appear not to have noticed my point in my reply to the contributor who doubted the effectiveness of face coverings. You now seem to cast doubt, from what you say above, that the public at large have not the same expertise as hospital staff in the handling and wearing of face coverings.
.......and even then "face coverings" are a different kettle of fish to a properly fitted FFP3 mask (which is respiratory protective equipment- RPE- technically, whereas legally "face coverings" are NOT classed as RPE).
As any health and safety professional who has worked in the area of specifying RPE knows, there's a whole lot of stuff about this. It's the world of face-fit, time in mask and protection factors. It's about correct use (including maintenance) of the equipment and for anything with a face-seal, being clean shaven. I get VERY annoyed at TV programmes where someone with a beard is wearing a dusk mask to "protect" themselves when spraying paint, BBC Repair Shop I am looking at you!- but that's not untypical of how those not trained and motivated to use RPE correctly will use it (and render it totally pointless).
There's a lot of twisting and turning going on to try to "prove" that face coverings do anything, but fact is that if an asbestos removal contractor used such face coverings as protection (even for "low-risk" asbestos-containing materials) it would be a Prohibition Notice and a trip to court if the HSE caught them. Asbestos fibres are rather larger than viruses- indeed the standard testing process for identifying them in a sample uses a visual/polarising microscope (in my younger days I set up a test lab for asbestos and took it through UKAS accreditation, so I've done a bit of work on this stuff).
The "obedience to medical advice" thing also concerns me, as do phrases like "the science is settled" or calling people who raise questions "deniers." We seem to be seeing a new religion here. What is also worth saying is that the medical/pharma world has a history of ignoring evidence when it suits them (see: cholesterol theory vs clot theory for causes of heart disease). I always ask: "qui bono"? (i.e. follow the money).
I'm not convinced about a third jab. I had the first 2 (and had COVID in the early days) but I'm not convinced about the booster. Ironically, that's in part because COVID has been circulating and endemic levels of a disease tend to keep the immune response (from having a disease or vaccine) fresh, whereas if a disease ceases to be endemic is when classically boosters were required (it is suggested that might be part of a reason why the last person who died from smallpox in UK did so- even though she had been successfully vaccinated, as smallpox was not endemic in UK at the time the vaccine effects had diminished).
The big pharma are always after a drug which has a wide uptake on a regular basis (= good steady income- think statins or anti-acid drugs), so the idea of annual COVID vaccines for the next few years (as I noticed being suggested on a BBC website article) does lead me to ask: "qui bono?" As COVID is 99% survivable, it seems rather too convenient.
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I was trained (PhD level) in the physical sciences and over the years I've seen enough of the less nice side human nature to recognise that scientists and medics can be motivated by money and social factors just as much as everyone else can be!
TPO