________________________________________________________________________________
I've read the article only once cursively, but enough to ask, if the conclusions are indeed correct, and the reduction is SO DRAMATIC (like in the order 40x reduction with a well-fitted mask using the numbers given), than in theory masks would be enough to basically eliminate the circulation of the virus, but in order to do so we have to accept them as a permanent fixture of daily life.
I, for one, would not find that acceptable. But what if there is no other way, how many more years do we go on living with the visible symbols of the plague all the time?
The other day I had a weird experience where I somehow managed to enter a store without a mask on, and only realized it when I was already in line at checkout (small store, nobody told me). It really struck we how naked I felt and how much I had gotten used to this. It's very strange, I understand the rationale (which is what I want to discuss here), but we can't say it's not having an effect on us, maybe one that's undesirable (I think particularly for children we need to question what that might be doing).
Of course, one last thing we need to discuss is this kind of annoyance is not on the level of the scenario I'm discussing, as most people (myself included) are NOT strictly adherent to best practices the majority of the time (wearers of "fashion" cloth masks being at the most extreme end, as I understand cloth masks don't do much), and certainly I'm not wearing one all the time, not when having a discussion with friend, or in social settings, etc.
Replying to my own comment, re: risk reduction, are masks the new seatbelts, as some like to point out? Are our bodies now to be considered as dangerous as vehicles, and so it's reasonable to enforce security measures when you "take your body out for a ride"? This seems very strange to me, and, along with the vaccine passports, quite disturbing.
This isn't studying the risk of infection per se, is it? It's calculations of probabilities of certain kinds of particles being exchanged between subjects in different situations, and making some assumption on the level of risk of infection those correlate too.
"Although the detailed analysis by the Max Planck researchers in Göttingen shows that tight-fitting FFP2 masks provide 75 times better protection compared to well-fitting surgical masks and that the way a mask is worn makes a huge difference; even medical masks significantly reduce the risk of infection compared to a situation without any mouth-nose protection at all."
"medical mask" = "surgical mask" is that it? anyway, this one seems a bit fishy to me, as far I can tell, in the first wave covid wasn't THAT MUCH more widespread, when very few regular people were wearing masks, this claim seems dubious to me