That tweet and the attached video are entirely true. It's just that individual people may wish to not chance it, and wear a mask nonetheless, and masks will end up allocated by luck and purchasing power instead of need and risk profile.
There's also some evidence that widespread usage of masks may be effective in lowering the risk for such a disease, but deploying widespread usage of masks equitably on a global scale is nigh-impossible right now, so it's counterproductive to focus on it. Distancing is achievable instead, and leads to a similar result.
> deploying widespread usage of masks equitably on a global scale is nigh-impossible right now
You don't need high grade medical masks to significantly reduce the amount of transmission. Any sort of fabric-based covering on your face can help, just make sure you can comfortably breathe through it. Fabric is cheap and ubiquitous, it's literally everywhere.
That doesn't seem right. If the mask doesn't prevent droplets from penetrating doesn't it actually act as more of a trap for potentially viral-laced droplets to gather and get inhaled?
So I think I inferred that PC was referring to wearing a mask to prevent getting infected, which may have not been the case, but in a way needs to have clarification. 100% mask usage would be great, then the particles never get into the air from the infected. I think it's important to not let people think that wearing a simple cloth mask will prevent you from being infected.
There's also some evidence that widespread usage of masks may be effective in lowering the risk for such a disease, but deploying widespread usage of masks equitably on a global scale is nigh-impossible right now, so it's counterproductive to focus on it. Distancing is achievable instead, and leads to a similar result.