https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article We told you all the truth... but most of you could not handle it. Future Research Directions More research on cloth masks is needed to inform their use as an alternative to surgical masks/respirators in the event of shortage or high-demand situations. To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial (4) has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks. More randomized controlled trials should be conducted in community settings to test the efficacy of cloth masks against respiratory infections. According to the US Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, more research on the engineering design of cloth masks to enhance their filtration and fit is needed (16). Moreover, various methods for decontaminating cloth masks should be tested. Here is the abstract - notice they confusing use of "may be used" Abstract Cloth masks have been used in healthcare and community settings to protect the wearer from respiratory infections. The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate. The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use. ==== Here is the argument or the hope for masks... The primary transmission routes for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are thought to be inhalation of respiratory droplets and close contact; therefore, WHO recommends wearing medical masks during routine care and using respirators during aerosol-generating procedures and other high-risk situations (17). However, SARS-COV-2 is a novel pathogen, and growing evidence indicates the possibility of airborne transmission (18–21). Recommendations to wear masks to protect the wearer from droplet infections are based on the assumption that droplets travel short distances only, generally 1–2 m. However, of 10 studies of horizontal droplet distance, 8 showed that droplets travel >2 m, in some instances ≈8 m (22). A recent study also showed that SARS-CoV-2 may be transmitted up to 4 m (18). Therefore, ideally, all frontline healthcare workers should use a respirator. However, demand for personal protective equipment has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and respirator shortages in previous pandemics have also been reported (23–26). If respirators are unavailable, healthcare workers could use a medical mask but may be at increased risk if they do so (2). CDC and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control initially recommended that all healthcare workers use respirators; however, because of shortages, they later recommended respirator use for high-risk situations only (27,28). Some countries also recommend sterilizing and decontaminating respirators for reuse; however, limited evidence supports these practices (29), and they may not be feasible in low- and middle-income countries. During a pandemic, cloth masks may be the only option available; however, they should be used as a last resort when medical masks and respirators are not available (3). Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, but some may choose to use them if there are no alternatives (30). Protection is affected by proper mask use as well as by selection of fabric and design of the masks for water resistance, filtration, and fit. Current evidence suggests that multilayered masks with water-resistant fabric, high number of threads, and finer weave may be more protective (3,10). Several studies have examined filtration, but fewer have examined fit or water resistance. Surgical masks are normally rated for fluid resistance, and cloth masks should be too. Masks should be able to prevent a stream of fluid flowing at a pressure of up to 160 mm Hg from seeping through the mask and potentially into the mouth. Furthermore, the degree of fit affects effectiveness because air flows in the direction of least resistance; if gaps are present on the sides of the mask, air will flow through those gaps instead of through the mask. Cloth masks can be made in large quantities in a short time. They can be reused after being decontaminated by various techniques, ideally washing in hot water with soap. Other methods or products include using bleach, isopropyl alcohol, or hydrogen peroxide; autoclaving or microwaving; and application of ultraviolet radiation or dry heat (16). Unlike disposable medical masks and respirators, the material of cloth masks is unlikely to degrade from standard decontamination procedures. However, hospitals will have the extra burden of cleaning and decontaminating used masks. If healthcare workers perform decontamination themselves, they may fail to wash masks frequently enough and may risk self-contamination (31). The general public can use cloth masks to protect against infection spread in the community. In community settings, masks may be used in 2 ways. First, they may be used by sick persons to prevent spread of infection (source control), and most health organizations (including WHO and CDC) recommend such use. In fact, a recent CDC policy change with regard to community use of cloth masks (1) is also based on high risk for transmission from asymptomatic or presymptomatic persons (32). According to some studies, ≈25%–50% of persons with COVID-19 have mild cases or are asymptomatic and potentially can transmit infection to others. So in areas of high transmission, mask use as source control may prevent spread of infection from persons with asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or mild infections. If medical masks are prioritized for healthcare workers, the general public can use cloth masks as an alternative. Second, masks may be used by healthy persons to protect them from acquiring respiratory infections; some randomized controlled trials have shown masks to be efficacious in closed community settings, with and without the practice of hand hygiene (33). Moreover, in a widespread pandemic, differentiating asymptomatic from healthy persons in the community is very difficult, so at least in high-transmission areas, universal face mask use may be beneficial. The general public should be educated about mask use because cloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their limited protection against acquiring infection (16). Correctly putting on and taking off cloth masks improves protection (Table). Taking a mask off is a high-risk process (34) because pathogens may be present on the outer surface of the mask and may result in self-contamination during removal (31).
Yet you don't even post the Conclusions... let's go read them. They basically say everyone in the community should wear the best mask possible. Conclusions The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, who should as a priority be provided proper respiratory protection. Cloth masks are a more suitable option for community use when medical masks are unavailable. Protection provided by cloth masks may be improved by selecting appropriate material, increasing the number of mask layers, and using those with a design that provides filtration and fit. Cloth masks should be washed daily and after high-exposure use by using soap and water or other appropriate methods.
Good... so lets review what your conclusion is really saying... if you want to a cloth mask which may have a chance or protecting you even though we tell health care workers they should not wear them.. make sure you swap out a clean mask every few hours... plus... make certain a. it fits so tightly you can not pull in or expel any air out the sides b. make sure you have enough layers of water proof fabric that you can't breathe... in Summary... since we have no science saying cloth masks work the only way you really know you are protected is if you suffocate..
Soon cloth masks will provide certification information on their quality. Cloth face masks will soon have certification labels https://qz.com/1920326/cloth-face-masks-will-soon-have-certification-labels/ Early on in the pandemic in the US, face masks were hard to come by. As leaders encouraged donations of high-quality, medical-grade masks to healthcare workers, evidence was growing that all people needed to cover their noses and mouths to prevent the transmission of Covid-19. So folks got creative, sewing their own masks out of fabric they had lying around, or using a gaiter or bandana. Others had masks shipped from Amazon or a favorite local retailer, crossing their fingers that what arrived would fit. In the months since, researchers have become increasingly certain that the coronavirus is airborne, making face coverings a necessity. The way we mask up, though, hasn’t really evolved. Besides N95 masks, which are required to filter out 95% of all airborne particles larger than 0.3 microns, most face coverings don’t have to meet any particular filtration standards. “We want everyone to be wearing masks…[but] there’s a huge variability how effective cloth masks are,” says Linsey Marr, a civil and environmental engineer and aerosols expert at Virginia Tech. “Things are ad hoc right now, and the public has no guidance.” Fortunately, such a standard will likely soon exist. ASTM International, an organization that develops and sets all kinds of technical standards, is working with a number of industry and government partners to establish guidelines for the filtration efficacy of “barrier face coverings” (what ASTM calls face masks) sold by private industry. In the end, masks will bear some sort of label certifying they’ve met the guidelines. Consumers need such a standard because there’s a lot of variation in how well face coverings stop particles outside a medical setting. According to one 2008 study, N95 masks reduce exposure to respiratory viruses by 99%; surgical masks by 74%; and homemade tea towel masks by 58%. Another study, published this month, found that single layers of several common fabrics—polyester, cotton, silk, and linen—were especially ineffective because they are made of porous materials. In June, the World Health Organization published recommendations for a multi-fabric, three-layer mask, but few products sold today look anything like that design. The task group writing the face mask standard has not yet come to a consensus on how effective the masks should be at trapping particles, according to Jennifer Marshall, program manager for public safety standards coordination at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), one of the project’s stakeholders. “One of the concerns is how much is leaked through and around the barrier and the best way to measure it,” says Marshall. Usability is also critical factor. “There is a balance to blocking particulates and breathability, and ultimately masks need to be comfortable and wearable,” Marshall says, especially since the masks are intended for the general public to wear during daily activities like going to the grocery store. A final version of the standard will identify which labs are certified to run the tests, and set requirements for design and labeling. Similar to the WHO’s recommended design, the new standards may include things like the type and durability of material, Marshall says, as well as what portion of the face it should cover. ASTM’s efforts started in July, and Marshall says a standard could be published before the end of 2020. Having such a standard wouldn’t kill the market for homemade masks that has proliferated on sites like Etsy, which sold $346 million worth of the products between March and August. “This standard is targeted…at the commercial manufacturers producing the vast majority of masks being sold today,” says Marshall, noting that such a standard is also voluntary. “The standard could provide helpful information to guide smaller manufacturers and makers, so they might produce a competitive product. Consumers will ultimately determine if standard-conforming masks are needed in their specific circumstance or application.” Marr is glad that such a standard is being put into place. “It’s good that so many stakeholders are involved, but this makes the process very slow,” she says. “Hopefully, the group will come up with something that is grounded in good science.”
1. you all realized that I as I have been saying for months... there is no science showing these mask save harm from Covid. 2. and you couple that with this... Even the study last week from the CDC showed 70 percent of the people still got Covid in their study even though they said they work masks all the time. whether they ate in restaurants more than the control group or not... they still go covid and only some of them said they ate in a restaurant. 3. and this... the study cited by the CDC had data indicating dirty cloth masks were dangerous.
WRONG 1) There is plenty of evidence showing masks save harm from COVI. The COVID cases in Arizona dropped over 70% after the instituted a mask requirement. 2) The study was about on-site dining. The CDC study you are referencing has nothing to due with studying the impact of masks. Your assertions about 70% or 85% of the people wearing masks is both meaningless and taken totally out of context of the study. 3) Duh... wearing dirty N95 masks and paper masks is also dangerous. Either properly clean your masks or get a new one after each use.
1. that is circumstantial evidence... I said science showing these masks are effective. The CDC just told you there has only been one good study... and it preexisted Covid. So where the fuck you get off thinking there is science is beyond me. You are truly a moron. Circumstantial evidence is not the same. Social distancing could have improved. The virus could have had more trouble spreading because it picked off the low hanging fruit.... etc. 2. The study was about people who were positive for with Covid vs people who had symptoms but tested negative. The study clearly states 70 percent of the people who got Covid stated they wore masks all the time. Period... I proved to you that was 100 percent true even though like a moron you denied in and called me a liar numerous times. don't be such a douchbag. you know damn well that was in the study. b. your argument is that the study found twice as many people who had covid said they were in a restaurant than the control group. Yes that is true. But that was only a percentage to the people. the study also found some people probably got exposed to Covid in other places. you really need to stop being so wrong so often.
Your interpretation of this is really dumb. Must be the same part of your brain that decided Covid is "exploding" in Canada. A little over a week later Canada's numbers look better then most of the rest of the world. One poster showed a study that since mid-June Canada has -13% excess deaths. Think about that for a second lol.