[nickthemagicman]

> You will find literally zero papers credibly claiming otherwise.

Here's a paper that says cloth mask usage increases rate of infection.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Here's a collection of studies refuting mask efficacy.

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

You're literally a vector for disinformation which is a bannable offense but only the Rand Pauls who go against the narrative get banned.

Your false information you just posted will be celebrated by the echo chamber members of the internet.

[sampo]

> Here's a paper that says cloth mask usage increases rate of infection.

> https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Using cloth masks only, increased rate of infection in relation to the control group. And the control group: "In the control arm, 170/458 (37%) used medical masks, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period."

So we can conclude that the medical masks, used in the control arm, worked better than cloth masks.

If you were trying to coyly imply that the study said that cloth masks increased infections compared to using no mask at all, you were being dishonest.

[nickthemagicman]

Read that paper again.

Cloth mask wearers had a higher rate of CLI than the control group.

The control group being may or may not be wearing a mask.

"""The control arm was ‘standard practice’, which comprised mask use in a high proportion of participants. As such (without a no-mask control), the finding of a much higher rate of infection in the cloth mask arm could be interpreted as harm caused by cloth masks, efficacy of medical masks, or most likely a combination of both."""

Point is: The CDC mask policy of wearing a dirty cloth rag on your face until the waiter brings the breadsticks is probably not ideal.