No, the study ****did not find that****. Not even their own extremely limited data (n=1 person for most tests) show that. And where is the outside scientific comment on this study? WHERE IS IT? Did everyone forget how this works? https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1293170815052152835

&to be clear, no, I am not in the pay of Big Buff or Big Gaiter or whatever. I just don't want people giving up a low-entry opening to protect others based on data for 1 person in 1 kind of garment of unknown provenance. +it'd be super cool to see this covered well #gaitergate

By @MeganMolteni @wired https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-put-masks-to-the-test-with-an-iphone-and-a-laser/

Key points.
From outside expert: "Maybe extra particles aren’t all respiratory droplets...could be fibers shedding off the material itself. This has been shown to happen before&would be easy enough to test—but [they] didn’t." 1/x

"sample size for most of the mask testing is precisely 1 person... doesn’t capture variability...so 1 shouldn’t read too much into the performance outcomes of individual masks based on this study alone, she says." 2/x

&say the authors themselves: "This was never going to be a definitive ranking of all masks under all types of conditions....Doing that would require 100s, or even 1000s, more people testing lots more masks" 3/x

"“What we don’t want people taking away is: ‘This mask will work. This will not.’ It’s not a guide to masks. It is a demonstration of a new, simple methodology for quickly and somewhat crudely visualizing the effect of a mask,” he says." 4/4

OK, y'all?