• kent_eh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    they used random cloth ones and the surgical looking ones. The

    While not as good as a properly fitted N95, they are still more effective than no mask at reducing the spread of airborne particles from the wearer.

    Remember that masks were always mostly about protecting others, not so much about protecting the wearer. And I think that’s where the loudest resistance came from - selfish people who don’t give a fuck about the wellbeing of other people.

    • s_s@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      they are still more effective than no mask at reducing the spread of airborne particles from the wearer.

      Yes, but the wearer has it on their chin.

      The theoretical effectiveness of masks used in best practice and the actual effectiveness of actual practices are often miles apart.

      I’m not anti-mask at all but from a public policy perspective the overall effect was meh.

    • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Great, can you quantify how effective they were? So the issue is that if almost all infection happened not in public and cloth masks are marginally useful, what the point of wearing them in public if there is no measurable benefit?