
Widespread mask-wearing could prevent Covid-19 second waves, study shows - pseudolus
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-masks-study/widespread-mask-wearing-could-prevent-covid-19-second-waves-study-shows-idUSKBN23G37V
======
rurban
Germany did the same study and came to same results. Those fabric masks are
still only 3% - 10% effective, eg pretty useless against the main infections,
1. direct aerosol via the nose, 2. hand to eye, but even those little numbers
sum up in the exponential growth scenario.

They help against flyby droplet infections, help a bit against the aerosol
load, and they prevent touching your eyes a bit. Removing caughers and washing
your hand is still much more effective though.

And btw. the "second wave" will come for certain in the fall, but it will be
another uncertain mix of influenza viri. Vaccination is always a gamble,
because you never know what will come. 2018 it didn't work out, with the same
numbers or worldwide much higher numbers as 2020.

~~~
davidgould
> fabric masks are still only 3% - 10% effective

Where did this number come from? It seems quite at odds with other sources.

~~~
Tagbert
also, most of the mask studies seem to be done in medical scenarios where the
viral exposure is much higher and prolonged than what the general public
faces. I suspect that, if a study could actually look at effectiveness in more
common scenarios, the masks might look more effective.

------
harry8
[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.2020...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376)

The paper itself.

------
anoncake
Unless people get tired of it too early. Which they will.

------
mikekchar
I'd love to actually read the paper to see if it is reasonable. Anybody have a
link? Having said that (and keep in mind that I'm in favour of wearing masks
and wear one myself when I go out in public), I think it's pretty clear (as
indicated in the article) that masks _alone_ won't bring the R value below 1.

The article says, "He [Richard Stutt, who co-led the study] said the findings
showed that if widespread mask use were _combined with social distancing and
some lockdown measures_ , this could be 'an acceptable way of managing the
pandemic and re-opening economic activity' long before the development and
public availability of an effective vaccine against COVID-19, the respiratory
illness caused by the coronavirus." (emphasis mine)

Anecdotally, in Japan (where I live) there seems to be a much higher than 50%
use rate and there is still need for lockdowns. However, as the article
suggests, it appears that the severity and length of the lockdowns might be
reduced.

The question I have, though, is if the sheer number of people with the disease
in the US and UK may be an issue. In South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, the total
number of active cases never really got above 10K -- so the chances of meeting
someone with the disease is really quite small. Potentially (as seems to be
the case in Japan) you can get away with just dealing with cluster cases and
let the stragglers go -- as long as the masks are effective enough to keep
transmission rates low in those situations. But if you have millions of people
with the disease, many of them in large cities, I wonder if it will be as
effective.

~~~
l_davis
Masks alone are probably not enough. But they do seem to help when combined
with other preventative measures.

My impression in the US is that people continue not to take this seriously,
which causes us to be lax in the basic measures that could get this under
control. Very frustrating.

On the positive side, looks like the R1 for most US states is below 1 -
[https://rt.live/](https://rt.live/)

------
goatinaboat
What convenient timing to publish this now!

------
jakeogh
CDC: Influenza and pneumonia deaths by influenza season and age United States
2008–2015: [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/influenza-and-
pn...](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/influenza-and-pneumonia-
deaths-2008-2015.pdf)

If I wear a mask, it's because I want to. Doing so "for others" is a direct
route to supporting forced medical procedures. They can put one on if they
want to.

Silent protest is free speech; clearly facial experssions are too:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333873](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333873)

Did Reuters post a story/retraction on the sourceless HCQ paper?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23272222](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23272222)
If so, what metrics are available to the reader to gauge how prominently they
posted each?

~~~
harry8
> forced medical procedure

This is silly. Wearing a cloth over your face is no more a forced medical
procedure than wearing one over your genitals.

Now adults are going to discuss weather the costs of getting a high uptake of
people in society wearing a cloth over their face are worth the benefit that
accrues, if any. You may decide you've made your point and leave it at that.

~~~
jakeogh
The Hippocratic oath is meaningless unless the subject decides what
constutites a medical procedure.

