Do you have any source for this? I remember multiple claiming that this research exists, but as I mentioned, I have so far failed to find it. The “near-useless” claim also appears to be contradicted by the study I linked in the other comment:
We estimated that, irrespective of the assumed value for the incubation period (1 or 2 days), the relative reduction in the daily risk of acquiring a respiratory infection associated with adherent mask use (P2 or surgical) was in the range of 60%–80%
Which seems like a really large amount, and was for non-fitted masks.
Thanks for that, and I have updated towards masks being more useful for non-infected people to prevent getting sick than I previously thought—though not much for the usefulness of advocating mask wearing for the public, given shortages.
I do suspect that the poorly fitting masks were useful for other reasons, like reducing hand-to-mouth contacts and increasing handwashing—which was reported as 10% higher for adherent mask wearers than non-adherent ones, potentially contributing to the effect. (It was unfortunately not reported for the control group.)
Do you have any source for this? I remember multiple claiming that this research exists, but as I mentioned, I have so far failed to find it. The “near-useless” claim also appears to be contradicted by the study I linked in the other comment:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19193267
Which said:
Which seems like a really large amount, and was for non-fitted masks.
Thanks for that, and I have updated towards masks being more useful for non-infected people to prevent getting sick than I previously thought—though not much for the usefulness of advocating mask wearing for the public, given shortages.
I do suspect that the poorly fitting masks were useful for other reasons, like reducing hand-to-mouth contacts and increasing handwashing—which was reported as 10% higher for adherent mask wearers than non-adherent ones, potentially contributing to the effect. (It was unfortunately not reported for the control group.)