Rugoz wrote:Because the article literally comes to the opposite conclusion.
It doesn't get there through well reasoned, factual analysis, the author totally contradicts his own data and just asserts the non sequitur you're calling a conclusion.
So you have your cloth mask with limited efficiency, probably at the low end for people who make it at home
Not if they put a team of engineers or whatever on it. They could definitely come up with a cheap and effective homemade mask than anyone could make in 30 minutes from common household materials.
that doesn't protect from small particles and doesn't protect your eyes.
doesn't have to be 100% effective, it just a cheap and easy means of reducing transmission by at least some modest but significant amount.
It's easy to see that the added protection can be negated by a mishandling of the mask (especially cloth masks that are not single use) or by a false sense of security and less social distancing.
The Wired article discussed that, all they had to do was educate people in the same way their doing for distancing and hand washing.
Whether wearing cloth masks will reduce transmission rates in a practical setting is completely uncertain.
Not really. The only halfway decent point your article had was that China relies on masks and they haven't proven very effective, but Wired addressed that too by pointing out that masks have been very effective in S Korea and Japan. So maybe the Chinese need better masks or more masks or better mask education.
But I don't expect any wonders from it,
Well wonders aren't required, just some significant reduction in transmission.
not least because most infections happen in private or at work, where people won't wear masks.
People will wear masks at work, I've worked a lot of jobs where I had to wear full respirators for 10 hours straight. If it's company policy then people will wear the masks. At home people will wear masks around vulnerable family members so that's not a problem either.