Also, the government of Ontario clearly states on their info page about masks: "Masks will not prevent you from catching COVID19, but they may help reduce the spread."
May.
We don't know.
But even if it reduces the spread by say 10%, was it worth it? Did it really have an impact overall? (10% is the max estimated blocking rate of aerosols by cloth masks. Droplets, maybe 50%. But droplets fall to the ground in about 10 minutes, aerosols can stay in the air around 8 hours with poor ventilation.)
Ten percent may not be better than no masks when you add in overconfidence, other health concerns like bacterial pneumonia, and the social costs to children, deaf and everyone (stress due to being unable to see people's faces).
But of course, there is no hard math that can be done to determine this. It's a risk-based, fuzzy, social analysis.
They aren't. If you want some research, besides the obvious increase in cases due to seasonality:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-/
Also, the government of Ontario clearly states on their info page about masks: "Masks will not prevent you from catching COVID19, but they may help reduce the spread."
May.
We don't know.
But even if it reduces the spread by say 10%, was it worth it? Did it really have an impact overall? (10% is the max estimated blocking rate of aerosols by cloth masks. Droplets, maybe 50%. But droplets fall to the ground in about 10 minutes, aerosols can stay in the air around 8 hours with poor ventilation.)
Ten percent may not be better than no masks when you add in overconfidence, other health concerns like bacterial pneumonia, and the social costs to children, deaf and everyone (stress due to being unable to see people's faces).
But of course, there is no hard math that can be done to determine this. It's a risk-based, fuzzy, social analysis.
But I 100% agree. We should be told.
Yes this is the long-awaited DANMASK study that several research journals refused to publish. And a good analysis of it.