>>11825014Here was your original post, I'm assuming you're the OP:
"If symptomatic people wore masks and everybody else coughed/sneezed into elbows or tissues, it would be just as effective as if everybody always wore masks. Change my mind."
It wouldn't be as effective. You'll have a greater chance of being infected if you don't wear a mask, and then you'll have a greater chance of passing on your infection. That's not debatable, it's just not. Someone who is infected, no matter what measures they take, will always have some risk of passing on the infection, so your argument has to be wrong. It could never be "just as effective." Thus anything you do to reduce your own risk of infection will then reduce your risk of passing it on. If you agree that surgical masks reduce the chance of becoming infected, then you're acknowledging that wearing a surgical mask is more effective than not wearing one.
>It is that asymptomatic spread is rare. Do you have evidence of that besides outdated information? Prior to the last few years, evidence of transmission was based on case reports, which is how we know people can begin spreading infection one day to several days prior to displaying symptoms.
>Do you keep track of how often you touch your facemask?I do, I don't touch it at all. In fact, prior to the study of aerosols, many tried to pass off the efficacy of non-respirators as being due to preventing touching of the nose and mouth with the hands. I think it's an oversimplification, but the fact is people touch their faces constantly when they're not wearing masks (it's been studied). Some may touch their masks as well, but if there were no masks, they'd still be touching their faces. Looking at the net results, masks reduce infection rates.
>Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.To be clear, this is referring to surgical masks, and it's wrong.
