3 ms·
> "medical mask" = "surgical mask" is that it? anyway, this one seems a bit fishy to me, as far I can tell, in the first wave covid wasn't THAT MUCH more widesp
by YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
> "medical mask" = "surgical mask" is that it? anyway, this one seems a bit fishy to me, as far I can tell, in the first wave covid wasn't THAT MUCH more widespread, when very few regular people were wearing masks, this claim seems dubious to me
you are going against the scientific based evidence provided in the very op and countless other studies with terms like "fishy" and "dubious" without providing any evidence yourself. You are even making it clear in your very comment that you didn't really understand the article itself. That's misinformation or at least classic misdirection or in other words spreading FUD.
- lambdaba 5y agowhat? I said as I understand it the study is MODELLING infections and it's not studying actual infection events; this is something that's even somewhat admitted in the article itself, my point though was that looking at the case graphs it wasn't obvious in the first wave that the addition of masks had such a dramatic effect that you would expect from the figures given in the article what the article says and what I'm also saying is that there is a difference between mask types, and I was ASKING if what the article calls a "medical" mask is, in fact, the surgical mask people commonly wear anyway, the main discussion I wanted to have is how long are we to expect to live like this, granted the effects of masks so dramatic, because, in case you haven't noticed, Covid ain't going away, ever
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]