[Grandpa Drudge]

You ask "Are you suggesting either type of mask doesn't work because people got infected anyway?"

Of course, that's exactly what I'm saying, and I said it very clearly, highlighted in bold red print. Isn't that obvious?

Your comment "Furthermore the study only considers masks for uninfected people, not infected people. Masks worn in public are for both." is utter nonsense.

The study was to determine whether N95 masks provided better or worse protection from influenza than surgical masks. The results showed that neither mask provided any significant protection. The very high infection rate with both is sufficient to prove ineffectiveness of both.

[palmer]

No, it doesn't prove ineffectiveness because wearing masks was not compared with no wearing masks. It is evidence that masks are not perfect, and/or infections can happen other routes than through the mask. We knew that going in.

I'm reading the second paper referenced above, and it points to the study we are discussing, the Jacobs study (insufficient cases to conclude anything), Al-Asmary which I am reading now, and two others: Davies and Hobday. Al-Asmary concludes that masks should be discontinued for the Hajj. But the numbers show a slight edge for mask users, 16% infected versus 22% for non-users. But I believe their conclusion is based in "intermittent" mask users because 34% of them were infected.

The study is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197120600124X It's applicable, unlike the one we just discussed, because it compares wearing, intermittent wearing and non-wearing.