2 ms·

Well forgive me but I was hoping for more than a first hit from Google and apparent common knowledge. Since you mentioned having read studies about airborne tr

Well forgive me but I was hoping for more than a first hit from Google and apparent common knowledge. Since you mentioned having read studies about airborne transmission and aerosols, I was hoping you could point me to one where they examined the masks and found them to be significantly worse than FFP2. Because in this study presented, only the people in the direct path facing the infected person were infected, not everyone, so wearing even EN14683 IIR masks could seem effective. My guess, and this of many doctors in my area, is that EN14683IIR are, in fact, enough (if properly worn etc). If that is not true, I‘d like to know - from a reputable source.

zaroth 6y ago
The thing is specifically not designed to stop coronavirus, and specifically disclaims providing any protection against coronavirus. That’s not an editorial, that’s the written scientific standard for the medical device. If you could get people to wear them without making people think they were a panacea then there wouldn’t be a problem (it would be a “can’t possibly hurt” situation). Unfortunately that’s not the equation that we’re faced with. I’m sure EN14683 IIR is somewhat better than nothing, perhaps shifting the odds of infection somewhat lower depending on the circumstance. But if people slap one on and then feel they can’t be infected while standing in a room with people outside their household, that’s a mistake. I think it’s blatantly obvious looking at flu vs. COVID numbers that it’s not that the precautions people are taking are not totally ineffective, they are just not nearly as effective as we need them to be against COVID.