DRTDEVL
Mothfukle
That depends upon the study. There were 17 studies over the past 100 years, and 2 completed this year. The 17 prior studies all concluded that cloth masks ranged from marginally effective at best, to totally ineffective. They also concluded that in order to have any non-placebo effect, you would need FOUR layers of cloth, but that would be too difficult to breathe through and would leak out upon exhaling (the reason we're being told to wear them is to trap potential virus and aerosols from escaping), rendering them ineffective as well.
Then came two studies that were conceptualized, organized, funded, completed, compiled, submitted for review, peer-reviewed and published in 45-60 days that say the opposite.
What's the problem with that?
The median time from compilation of the data through the last two steps (peer review and publishing) is 100 days. Somehow, they did the entire study, start to finish, in 45 days... on a virus with a 14 day incubation window. That leaves a maximum of 30 days to complete everything. You know, conceptualize, organize, write and file for the grant funding, run the study, complete it, compile it, submit it for peer review, review it, and publish.
HOGWASH.
The media and the WHO have been pushing these two studies as the facts of the matter, even though the data flies in the face of 17 other studies that say the opposite. Those two studies say they are 60% effective, while 17 say 0-30%... I'll believe 102 years of science over two rushed "studies" that were completed to fit a narrative.
