Researchers who compared the ability of cloth and surgical masks and KN95 and N95 respirators to impede SARS-CoV-2 leakage into the environment show that the "duckbill" N95 won handily, stopping 98% of the virus that causes COVID-19.

 

A University of Maryland (UMD) research team, which published the findings last week in eBioMedicine, collected breath samples from volunteers with community-acquired COVID-19 infections starting in May 2020. 

...

N95s as standard of care in healthcare settings

All masks and respirators reduced exhaled virus at least 70%, but the duckbill N95 reduced SARS-CoV-2 load 98% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97% to 99%) and performed significantly better than cloth or surgical masks or KN95s. Cloth masks impeded more virus than surgical masks and KN95s.

 

The study didn't test the face coverings as wearer protection against SARS-CoV-2 in the surrounding air.

 

(more)

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/n95-respirator-gets-top-billing-stopping-sars-cov-2-viral-leakage-air

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

"Our study demonstrated that N95 respirators were significantly more efficacious as source control than all other types of masks and respirators used in this study. Conversely, the KN95s that we used did not perform any better as source control than loose-fitting cloth and surgical masks. The finding regarding N95 respirators is consistent with a previous experimental study with manikins²¹  showing that N95 reduced more viral load compared to cotton and surgical masks. Another study also showed that N95 respirators blocked more cough-generated aerosols than cloth and medical procedure masks as well as neck gaiters.²²

 

Importantly, our study further demonstrated that the inexpensive duckbill N95 respirators we used were highly efficacious even when used by untrained study participants who did not undergo respirator training or a prior fit test.

...

All of the masks and respirators used in this study were efficacious as source control for SARS-CoV-2. They all demonstrate a source control factor of over 70, suggesting a substantial reduction in the viral RNA load when wearing a mask or respirator."

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00192-0/fulltext#

 

 

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

How would they work that out?

Cough in someone's unmasked face and then put a mask on them & do the same?

Makes NO sense.

 

Recommended for idiots only

 

 

 

If you bothered to actually read either the full OP news report or the linked full study report it's based on, you'd know.

 

A trolling post commenting on a fellow forum member has been removed, along with an off-topic post.

 

Per the forum's rules:

 

"31. You will not publicly discuss other members..."

 

10. You will not post troll messages. Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing forum members by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other members into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

 

Reading the linked blurb and perusing the actual study, I don't guess they bothered measuring pulse ox levels to see if the masks restricted breathing or oxygen uptake   Seems like that's a variable they should have tested for in a study of people who were having a hard time breathing, like Covid patients are prone to.

 

Putting a plastic bag over my head would do an even better job of reducing my cough generated aerosols.