3 ms·

Sure, here's a Cochrane review that shows the opposite of what you say. Have you looked at the scientific literature on this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc

Sure, here's a Cochrane review that shows the opposite of what you say. Have you looked at the scientific literature on this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/pdf/bmj-336-7635-res-00077-el.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190272/pdf/bmj... Even a surgical mask provides protection to the wearer. A professional-grade surgical mask provides N95 level filtration, it just doesn't seal to the face like an N95. That means that some of the air coming in will not be filtered. However, much of it is, and larger, non aerosolized ballistic droplets will be stopped and absorbed by a mask.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Sure, here's a Cochrane review that shows the opposite of what you say. It doesn't. > Have you looked at the scientific literature on this? Yes, I have, including this particular review as well as several of the reviewed papers. I have yet to find a single convincing study that shows that simple masks protect the wearer against viruses. If it existed, people would be waving it around and governments would have no reason to not ask people to wear them. Simple masks were never in short supply. This review makes abundantly clear that virtually all the studies are of poor quality. Note that the effect found in this review is not that large (+13% over washing hands) whereas the effect of wearing a gown is much larger (+27% over washing hands). Yet I haven't seen any big discussion on what kind of gowns people should be wearing out in public.