>>12384751I really don't have time to go hunting down the supposed source on this but I'm willing to bet it doesn't say what the article alleges it is saying.
And a few seconds later I'm right.
I found the study.
It alleges the complete opposite of what the clickbait article says.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817Conclusions:
"A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was ?0.3 percentage point (95% CI, ?1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."
tl;dr out of 3003 who wore masks all of 46 people got covid.
The conclusion then is that it reduces rates by 48% but not 50%.
Thus while there was reduction, masks alone isn't enough.
