[antisinguIarity]

I see a lot of comments conflating the mask types, and exactly who is being protected.

Just to put us all on a common footing, here is a reminder of what the public messaging (at least, here in the UK) has been for two years:

Any mask is essential for us to protect others.

At no point has it been shown that a mask-like face covering of unspecified material provides any significant degree of protection to the wearer against airbourne viruses.

It's still fairly controversial to suggest that mass mask-wearing of cloth masks may not have done much public good anyway.

It's pretty clear that a mask that is actually rated to filter to a certain level will protect the wearer, but then those masks typically have a valve to relieve the extra load on the wearer's respiratory system. Obviously, these masks will also not "protect others', as they dump all of your exhaled air right back into the vicinity.

[manwe150]

In the studies I thought they were mainly quoting for that, I thought they usually showed there was similar reductions in both directions, but a greater reduction for source masking. That message somehow then got turned into there being no filtering for inhaling and that a masks only purpose is to protect others

All that being strongly dependent on picking a mask that has decent filtration though, since many don’t and only some do.

[antisinguIarity]

Which studies?

>All that being strongly dependent on picking a mask that has decent filtration though

Like I said, masks rated for the job will do the job (of filtering the air you are breathing into your lungs).