[mikekchar]

I'd love to actually read the paper to see if it is reasonable. Anybody have a link? Having said that (and keep in mind that I'm in favour of wearing masks and wear one myself when I go out in public), I think it's pretty clear (as indicated in the article) that masks alone won't bring the R value below 1.

The article says, "He [Richard Stutt, who co-led the study] said the findings showed that if widespread mask use were combined with social distancing and some lockdown measures, this could be 'an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity' long before the development and public availability of an effective vaccine against COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus." (emphasis mine)

Anecdotally, in Japan (where I live) there seems to be a much higher than 50% use rate and there is still need for lockdowns. However, as the article suggests, it appears that the severity and length of the lockdowns might be reduced.

The question I have, though, is if the sheer number of people with the disease in the US and UK may be an issue. In South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, the total number of active cases never really got above 10K -- so the chances of meeting someone with the disease is really quite small. Potentially (as seems to be the case in Japan) you can get away with just dealing with cluster cases and let the stragglers go -- as long as the masks are effective enough to keep transmission rates low in those situations. But if you have millions of people with the disease, many of them in large cities, I wonder if it will be as effective.

[l_davis]

Masks alone are probably not enough. But they do seem to help when combined with other preventative measures.

My impression in the US is that people continue not to take this seriously, which causes us to be lax in the basic measures that could get this under control. Very frustrating.

On the positive side, looks like the R1 for most US states is below 1 - https://rt.live/