How is my posting your words that contradict what you have and continue to claim is somehow now proof of me lying? You keep trying to pretend wearing flimsy face masks protects the wearer, but there remains no convincing evidence that face masks actually prevent people from catching the Wuhan virus. I have said all along that the best evidence to date suggests the person wearing a flimsy cloth and even paper surgical masks gets very little or no protection from catching the Wuhan virus by wearing such masks.
There is even less quality scientific evidence that flimsy face masks protect people near you from contagion if you happen to be obviously infected with SARS-CoV2. We know the Wuhan virus, like the flu and other respiratory virus, are primarily spread by microscopic aerosol particles that easy pass through these masks as well as out the top and sides through gaps.
Because you didn;t post me contradicting myself. I explained that.
No.. I don;t keep trying to pretend that flimsy face masks protect the wearer. THAT A LIE on your part.
I have said that there is some evidence that masks MAY offer SOME protection.. but the research data has not shown a statistically significant protective effect in the research I have read.
The reality is that there is EXCELLENT scientific evidence that masks reduce the chances of the infection spreading. I.E. that masks work as source control
A plethora of good scientific evidence has been presented to you.. and you ignore it... because of course you cannot refute it..
Your lame attempt to refute it has been "but but but No RCT".
But ooops... now you have had to admit that you believe that smoking causes lung cancer... even though...that information is based on OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES..
Sorry dude.. but you just fail.
We know that the covid virus is spread by both large and small respiratory droplets that contain larger amounts of virus. and are often stopped by two layers of cotton mask or a surgical mask. .and by aerosoled viral particles that are also often stopped by a surgical mask/two layers of cotton mask or redirected up and or back from the infected person.. reducing the area of infection around them.
Which is why.. a plethora of good observational studies have shown that masks are a significant factor in source control.
Yet you proclaim such flimsy face masks are effective for preventing aerosols from being expelled from an infected person even though those same flimsy face masks are useless or nearly so for preventing those same aerosols from going through and around those same masks. That defies common sense and yet you vehemently argue no RCTs can even be ethically done on the efficacy flimsy face masks for source control. Hummmm, methinks thou dost protest too much.
Dude.. "defies common sense"? You don;t seem to have a lick of common sense.
You do realize that when an infected person..breathes out.. if their nose and mouth are covered by the mask.. that mask will stop a percentage of the respiratory droplets that contain virus as well as redirect and partially stop the aerosoled viral particles.. thus reducing the chances of a person around the infected person getting enough viral load to overwhelm their immune system.
Meanwhile.. a person wearing a mask.. around an infected person without one.. is a DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION!!!. Since.. when the infected but unmasked person coughs. sneezes or just breathes near the person wearing a mask... THE MASK DOES NOT COVER THE PERSON's EYE MUCOSA.
Which means the virus has a fairly good unprotected avenue for infection!
In addition.. any respiratory droplets containing virus that are stopped by the mask? Land on the outside of the mask.. where if a person not trained in the use of PPE touches the outside of the mask.. to say adjust it.. and then touches their eye.. or rubs their nose, etc.. has a chance of transmitting the virus to themselves!.
Dude.. its common sense. Which you lack.