There are hundreds of studies. And, it’s pretty conclusive that masks have zero efficacy for stopping viral transmission. But, you’ll get shouted down by the mob for pointing this out. Nobody reads the actual studies.

The article references a study:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

but based on your own contention, you won't read it, so here's a key sentence from the abstract:

The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts.

> There are hundreds of studies. And, it’s pretty conclusive that masks have zero efficacy for stopping viral transmission

Could you link some?

What I have read seems to suggest otherwise, for example "Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis" [1]

Key conclusion: "Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect"

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473312/

N95 masks have crushed it in every study I’ve seen. Is there a study that shows they’re ineffective?

Conflating N95 respirators with masks indicates you are not arguing in good faith.

And at this point, nearly 2 years into the pandemic, claiming that cloth masks do nothing is not arguing in good faith.

A number of studies have been linked in sibling comments, studying the effects of cloth masks. They work to significant reduce exhaled contaminant load.

> In one study, during talking, unmasked subjects expelled more than 5,000 contaminants per 5 cubic feet; 7.2% of the contaminants were associated with particles less than 4 μm in diameter (68). Cloth-masked subjects expelled an average of 19 contaminants per 5 cubic feet; 63% were less than 4 μm in diameter. So overall, over 99% of contaminants were filtered. The second study used the same experimental setup, but studied a wider range of mask designs, including a four-ply cotton mask. For each mask design, over 97% contaminant filtration was observed (69).

> https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#abstract-1

Also, at this point we know that even if you catch COVID-19, the viral load that you catch plays a factor in how seriously ill you get. Masks reduce the viral load that a sick person exposes others to.

>> Conflating N95 respirators with masks indicates you are not arguing in good faith

Why?

I am not the parent and also not a native English speaker - is it not common to call respirators also "masks"? Does that term refer to surgical masks only? I live in the Czech Republic and the Czech word "maska", which is translated as "mask" (and I assume comes from the same latin origin) is pretty general term used to refer to basically anything that covers something.

If it is not a general term, do people in the US still really use surgical masks with the intention of protecting themselves from Covid? Where I live we would be talking about FFP2 and above, discussing surgical masks as covid protection would be irrelevant because no one wears them (granted, many people do not wear anything). Is it not like that in the US?

Late to reply, but yes. I'm a native English speaker, and everyone I know refers to N95 masks as masks. I don't know a single person who refers to them as respirators, even though that's the technical term.