> One of the problems of DIY cloth masks being recommended to the public is that they start to lose effectiveness as soon as you put them on. https://www.ijic.i

> One of the problems of DIY cloth masks being recommended to the public is that they start to lose effectiveness as soon as you put them on. https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788 https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788 Your summary doesn’t match that of the linked study, which says: > Face masks significantly decreased bacterial dispersal initially but became almost ineffective after two hours of use. Also the study takes its measurement at 10-12cm away. I would be interested in other distances, bc idk about you but I’m never usually that close to someone’s face in public. Viral load in the area tested (a theatre in this instance), both with and without masks, would have been something of interest too. If we could also have real-world data comparing infection rates between two control groups, even better. There’s also stuff like this[0]: > If two people are wearing masks, the viral particles can travel about 5 feet away from each individual. When an infected person is not wearing a mask, those particles can float through the air 30 feet or more and stay alive for up to 30 hours. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond and provide sources for your claim. However, I find that your linked resources are not compelling and do not support your original statement. The Norwegian article is particularly light on details/data - which I can forgive seeing as it’s literally labelled a “memo” and a also a “rapid review” [0] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scientists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scie...