| How does an R0 greater than 1 in every country and population the virus is present in square with "this virus is not that easy to transmit"? I can't do it. > read the article Okay, maybe they can square it: > Luckily, methods were found that protected all the new health-care workers: none—zero—were infected. > But those methods were Draconian. As the city was locked down and cut off from outside visitors, health-care workers seeing at-risk patients were housed away from their families. They wore full-body protective gear, including goggles, complete head coverings, N95 particle-filtering masks, and hazmat-style suits. They failed, it was probably the use of "Draconian" that let them down. I also read the paper you provided, not just the abstract, and it spends a lot of its time talking about N95 masks. Here is from a part it spends on facemasks: > whereas for the facemasks the efficiency can vary from 10% to 90% (Guha et al., 2017) Have you read Guha's paper? I've got it here. I have so many problems with someone relying on that paper beyond its narrow applicable scope. I wonder if they've ever worn a mask. I digress. Additionally (we're back to the paper you shared), you should count how many times "except the low-filtration adult surgical mask" or some combination of those words following except comes up in that paper. It's also a model and not a study. Let me know when there's a study that shows masks work (the Guha paper mentioned is a study, in a lab, not using people or even a model of a face), in use by the general public, in the kind of settings they wear them, and it's the kind of masks they usually wear. |