> most of the cloth masks were effectively just for appearances because they didn't form a seal around the sides of your mouth
I remember people saying that, but I had always understood the primary benefit of cloth and other masks was to limit the wearer's ability to spread virus-containing droplets if they were infected by asymptomatic (or symptomatic and very reckless, I suppose). I thought it was widely acknowledged that they provided very limited protection for the wearer. "My mask protects you, your mask protects me." This is why, for example, there were recommendations to not wear vented N95 masks.
Of course, the fact that the mask doesn't form a tight seal around the mouth surely undermines its ability to provide both forms of protection, to some degree. But I seem to recall a fair amount of discussion of the fact that masks could still be fairly effective at reducing the number of virus-containing droplets expelled into the surrounding environment even in the absence of a tight fit. (And, for what its worth, that has always made fairly intuitive sense to me. Though I acknowledge that's not a very good reason to believe it.)
Maybe others' experiences differed, but I thought this was very clearly explained by the 'authorities.' Though that didn't stop people from misunderstanding or, in some cases, spreading misinformation to score political points by making mask proponents look stupid.
> An N95 is the opposite. It only filters on the way in.
Only if they have a valve. Masks with valves are usually considered inappropriate for covid.
All valveless masks, including N95, surgical and cloth masks protect both ways, there is no difference between the front and the back of the filtering material. Some masks are better than others, but none are one-way unless there is a one-way valve.
That's also a reason why they recommend N95 and not N99. Most N99 masks have valves (can be uncomfortable without them) and are therefore inappropriate. These are mostly to protect construction workers from harmful dust.
I'd actually like to see the data on the degree to which N95 masks also reduce the number of virus particles expelled. I'd be pretty surprised if an (unvented) N95 really did little to block virus particles from being expelled, even though that's certainly not what they are designed to do.
But, in any case, its consistent with my point that, supposedly, there are benefits to cloth masks, even if they don't fit tightly around the face. That's not to say it wouldn't be better if everyone wore an N95/KN95/etc.--especially people who are at high risk.
It's going to come down to the ventilation of the space you're in regardless. We're back to square zero: improperly ventilated indoor spaces are a huge public health concern, even beyond covid.
Ventilation is certainly important and I'd like to see much greater focus on this. But, to state the obvious, we're not going to improve the ventilation of existing spaces overnight, unfortunately, so we also need to figure out how to mitigate risk in the meantime.
The valve masks are designed for industrial use, like sanding or spray painting. Until 2020 those were the ones you’d see the most, since they’ve been readily available in home improvement stores for obvious reasons.
And if cheap cloth/pseudo-surgical masks don't capture any exhaled droplets, I'd really like to know how they get so wet and gross while I'm wearing them.
Well they do catch droplets, but only enormous ones that would fall almost immediately to the floor.
We really need to be honest with people about masks and stop pretending like they do anything if they aren’t at least surgical, clean, and fitted correctly on the face.
I remember people saying that, but I had always understood the primary benefit of cloth and other masks was to limit the wearer's ability to spread virus-containing droplets if they were infected by asymptomatic (or symptomatic and very reckless, I suppose). I thought it was widely acknowledged that they provided very limited protection for the wearer. "My mask protects you, your mask protects me." This is why, for example, there were recommendations to not wear vented N95 masks.
Of course, the fact that the mask doesn't form a tight seal around the mouth surely undermines its ability to provide both forms of protection, to some degree. But I seem to recall a fair amount of discussion of the fact that masks could still be fairly effective at reducing the number of virus-containing droplets expelled into the surrounding environment even in the absence of a tight fit. (And, for what its worth, that has always made fairly intuitive sense to me. Though I acknowledge that's not a very good reason to believe it.)
Maybe others' experiences differed, but I thought this was very clearly explained by the 'authorities.' Though that didn't stop people from misunderstanding or, in some cases, spreading misinformation to score political points by making mask proponents look stupid.