For the past two years, people have been wearing muzzles to protect themselves from the new corona virus, but the emergence of a new mutant with the rapid ability to spread has rekindled the debate about the ability of the currently familiar muzzles to achieve adequate protection from omicron.

The American University of George Washington Emergency Medicine researcher, Lena Wynn, warned that the cloth muzzles worn by many were nothing but facial decoration and "therefore, in fact, no place for the Omicron mutant."

Preliminary indicators in South Africa showed that the omicron mutant caused less hospitalization of corona sufferers compared to Delta, but a dramatic increase in the number of infected people would inevitably result in a rise in health care needs, due to complications of Cofid 19.

Researchers are still studying the characteristics of the new mutant, which was first observed in South Africa, but have so far found that it is faster to spread than previous mutants.

According to the American Academy, what is needed for "Omicron" is to wear a muzzle of at least three layers, explaining that it recommends wearing the so - called blue surgery muzzle, which is most common and widespread.

When present in crowded places, the scientific recommendation, according to the researcher, is to wear KN95 and N95, known as white, which doctors often wear because they provide high protection.

The health expert explains that these muzzles are better protected, as they contain polypropylene fibers that stand as a barrier to small molecules and prevent them from reaching the nose.

But the use of the muzzle is also related to the way it is worn, as it should be done properly, while many take the muzzle of the blue surgery under the nose, and it becomes completely unhelpful.

Many States in the world impose the wearing of muzzles, especially in indoor areas, and those who violate this preventive decision face irregularities that vary from region to region.

But some conspiracy theorists seem skeptical of the muzzle's effectiveness, and they question the existence of the epidemic, in general, or accuse the media of inflection and trivialization.