Your post clearly states that any breach of a wall is equivalent to "if it saves one life." Ipso facto only 100% would suffice... and your supporting sentences reinforce.
I've not posted on masks... but since you raise the question, wearing a 50 cent mask that might prevent me from being infected, and more importantly, prevent me from spreading a virus that could be deadly to my elderly loved ones, or strangers, seems like a small act of individual citizenship versus a multi-billion dollar national policy. Apples and oranges in costs, benefits and the ability for me as a individual to implement.
But since you raise it, the number in the highly touted N95 masks stands for 95%. The wall was designed for similar effectiveness and the results (apprehension decreases) seem to prove the design.
As to trusting a *.gov website...nah. Not unless cdc.gov also suddenly became a valid source to prove an argument or is it exactly the same? So hard to tell these days.
Hmmm... I would call that a failure to observe the times we live in. While they are both .GOV, if one were to misstate the facts, the effectiveness of the wall, the national media would descend like a swarm of locusts... while if the other were to misstate the facts, whether masks have any utility at all, the national media parrots the obvious lie incessantly for months.
