If you both wear it, the chance of getting sick is close to 0.
Whoa..........
How close? Less than 1%? .5%?
Can you cite the study?
(a) How close does it need to be for you to be convinced? If wearing a mask cut down by 80% your chance of getting it and wearing a mask cut down by 90% the chance of your giving it to anybody else, and the combined
only reduced it to a 5% chance of getting it, would that be close enough for you?
(b) Yes, but it is not one study, Kid -
many studies done in many ways have shown this. If I thought you actually gave a fuck about evidence, I would bury you in them.
Here's one from April that is a lit review on what was known at that point:
https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdfThis is a look at the effectiveness of a mask mandate on growth of COVID-19 cases in the 15 states and DC in the US:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818This is a look at 198 countries' death rates from COVID-19 and their policies:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Association_of_country-wide_coronavirus_mortality_with_demographics_testing_lockdowns_and_public_wearing_of_masks_Update_June_15_2020-58983
We have studies that show 68% reduction in risk for an individual wearing a mask and 77%... if both people wore them, it would be 89.7% to 94.7% effective in preventing transmission
with consistent wearing.
We know that the incidence of health care workers catching COVID is very low, but even lower at work.
And yes, we know that touching surfaces and then eyes or getting droplets in eyes is a risk. Masks plus eyewear reduces the risk of catching it even further, but it is cutting down on transmission that is and always has been the primary purpose of the masks.
This is what you and the President keep ignoring:
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america?view=total-deaths&tab=trendWe KNOW what the costs of not mandating masks is, Kid. We've been mapping it by country and by state for months.
And you fucking blow it off.
Poll
5 (45.5%)