News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering e... by lol2143651 on Sunday August 09, 2020 @09:59AM (#24099674)
Results

> The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.

Conclusions

> This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

Re:Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering e... by bitcurious on Sunday August 09, 2020 @01:03PM (#24100986)
To be clear, this compared cloth vs. medical masks. There was no “unmasked” arm. So the caution was of the “given the choice, choose medical masks.” Also this measures auto-protective properties of mask wearing, not preventing spread to others.