We may have a different understanding of what "works" means. Here's what the study says - I'm sure you read it The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) Although the difference observed was not statistically significant.... >>>>> So where do you conclude that "it works" - that difference is smaller than the typical testing deviation on PCR tests. I'm not against masks - there's reasons why they should be used but it's wrong to claim that masks protect uninfected wearers based on the results of the study
You don't need to apply BS mathematical formula with statistical studies to understand logic. ------------ You're in a store, with a mask. You sneeze. All your droplets are caught in the mask. The person near you in the store with no mask? Chance of infection low. ------ You're in a store, with no mask. You sneeze. All the droplets are flying around your area at 100 MPH for a short distance. The person near you in the store with a mask? Chance of infection medium low, because while they are on the receiving end have on a mask, the bug can also get into their eyeball. ---------------- You're in a store, with no mask. You sneeze. All your droplets are flying around your area at 100 MPH for a short distance. The person near you in the store with no mask? Chance of infection 1,000 percent, and you are both dead. It's evolved into a prion. -------------------- You're in a store, with a mask. You sneeze. All your droplets are caught in the mask. The person near you in the store with a mask? Chance of infection so low, mark it zero. ------------ End of line.
Who needs to look at actual studies when your logic could have saved time and money - did you stay at a holiday inn express to become an infectious disease expert?
Yep. And the Gideon bible in the nightstand drawer under the phone said the same thing... Pretty please, with sugar on top. Wear the fucking mask. If everyone had been doing it since the start, we would not have "needed the lockdowns".
Well, the conclusion is that it's not statistically significant as a PPE device in this particular setting. However, I recall that the study was flawed somehow but I am too lazy to re-read it. Newer studies do show some benefit to the wearer but much less than a proper respirator. If you are not wearing goggles or a shield, the value of the cloth mask as PPE is further reduced. I don't see the point of this argument. Masks, social distancing, washing hands is all community-based spread prevention. The whole idea is that no single measure is perfect, but in combination they reduce the spread enough to be effective.
And that is the point I was making to sysdev. To claim that studies show that masks do not protect the wearer from an infection is so out-of-skull illogical, it would make computers explode. I don't care what BS flawed mathematical models those studies show. It's Occam's razor. A fibrous mask cannot work one-way only. It is physically impossible. Oh, and if the mask DID work one-way only? It would have to have an air-tight check valve in it, which would suffocate the wearer of it.
Very few things out there that offer perfect protection. A condom is usually combined with spermicidal lubricant, an air bad with a seat belt etc. However, the fact that protection devices fail (or are designed to protect others, not the user) does not mean that we should not use them.
Well, yeah. Chemical molecules like mercaptan are wayyy smaller than virus particles, so they will get through the mask. Like O2 and Co2 molecules. Otherwise we could not breathe through masks. Virii are much bigger than air molecules, and masks protect from those larger bits.
Gas molecules are much smaller than droplets. Unless, of course, you are shitting yourself in the process and thus creating droplets.