Except they are effective. They are not as effective as a N95 mask but all scientific data shows they are still effective and reducing transmission rate in a population.
> A bigger droplet scatters more light than a smaller droplet. This insight is important to interpret the result of the neck gaiter. The neck gaiter has a larger transmission (110%; see Fig. 3A) than the control trial. We attribute this increase to the neck gaiter dispersing larger droplets into several smaller droplets, therefore increasing the droplet count. The histogram of the binary diameter for the neck gaiter supports this theory (see fig. S5).
---
disclosure: I think people should wear masks, even gaiter types. My point is that skepticism shouldn't necessarily be banned. Saying a mask works or doesn't is an incredibly complicated thing and more probabilistic than anything else.
If the question is presented as whether or not a mask would guarantee you being protected from COVID-19 particles, then the answer is much closer for "no" than "yes" for non-KN95/N95 masks.
If the question is whether they offer "some protection" then the answer is basically yes as long as you have anything in front of your face.
The study was not about testing masks, it was about developing a new cheap method of testing masks. They only tested each mask once, because the question was whether they could get data from the technique, not to actually study each mask type.
Cloth masks are effective in preventing covid in the same way that "the rhythm method is effective at preventing pregnancy." Which is to say it reduces the probability a small amount, but not nearly enough to justify a person treating it as an effective prophylactic. So it depends on what your definition of "effective" is, but it seems to me more like disinformation to call cloth masks or rhythm method "effective" than to say they are not effective.
You're leaving out over half of the truth, here. The idea behind universal masking is that EVERYONE is wearing the masks. In other words, the person who might infect you is masked (and cloth masks DO work very well to prevent that person from spewing droplets everywhere), and also, you are wearing a mask too. You are leaving out that first part of the equation, which is the most important part.
It's also the part that "Rand" Paul is undermining.
Most people aren't going to be willing to wear masks forever. Compliance is already quite low in most places. Especially in private homes where much of the viral transmission occurs.
Well the problem is that people who are purveying information in this country at large - but especially between Paul and his base - is a lack of nuance. Calling cloth masks or "OTC" masks ineffective, esp. w/o pointing out that n95 masks are effective is over the line between disingenuous and lying imo.
As a single data point: despite a universal mask mandate that was enacted early on (May 6th 2020) along with a very high compliance, Massachusetts had the 3rd highest COVID death rate in the US (as of Aug 9):
A little over 20% of Massachusetts deaths occurred before May 6th, 2020. Another 20% occurred in the 3-4 weeks immediately ofter which are likely largely attributable to people who got COVID before early May.
If you compare Massachusetts deaths after that point to other states they come out somewhere near the middle.
Not significantly, it came into force May 6th indoors and outside if you couldn't maintain 6', but most cities in eastern MA had 100% outdoor mandates too. I think it was Nov 6th when they made it 100% outdoor statewide regardless of distancing. The mask mandate wasn't lifted until May of this year.
That's not how this works. You can only compare with the future that wasn't. People may decide all by themselves that wearing a mask is a good idea, mandate or not, and then there is the point that not all masks are created equal, which is the subject of this thread.
Not without carefully controlling for all kinds of variables, demographics, geography, internal and external connectivity and so on. No two areas are closely alike in all those respects.
Do you similarly feel that comparisons across different populations are invalid for arguing the affirmative?
e.g. arguments like "we should try masking / UBI / $15 minimum wage / free healthcare / universal pre-k because it worked well in ${location}" are also "not how this works" because we can "only compare with the future that wasn't?"
Do such arguments need to control for the infinite number of confounding variables before having any value?
Are they though? I wear a mask and don't have much of a problem with doing so (although it is no longer required where I live), but at this point I do it because of social pressure, not scientific evidence. So far as I can see, the cloth masks most people wear are of minimal benefit compared to social distancing and avoiding enclosed spaces with inadequate ventilation.
On the other hand some researchers think cloth masks, specifically gaiter types, are worse than nothing. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083
> A bigger droplet scatters more light than a smaller droplet. This insight is important to interpret the result of the neck gaiter. The neck gaiter has a larger transmission (110%; see Fig. 3A) than the control trial. We attribute this increase to the neck gaiter dispersing larger droplets into several smaller droplets, therefore increasing the droplet count. The histogram of the binary diameter for the neck gaiter supports this theory (see fig. S5).
---
disclosure: I think people should wear masks, even gaiter types. My point is that skepticism shouldn't necessarily be banned. Saying a mask works or doesn't is an incredibly complicated thing and more probabilistic than anything else.
If the question is presented as whether or not a mask would guarantee you being protected from COVID-19 particles, then the answer is much closer for "no" than "yes" for non-KN95/N95 masks.
If the question is whether they offer "some protection" then the answer is basically yes as long as you have anything in front of your face.