Yeah, so generally speaking, it’s like if someone offered an explanation for what kind of metal was good for a task, and suggested the use of “earring,” “nail,” and “printed circuitry” are better than the use of “engine block.”

What? They all could involve metal. https://twitter.com/naogannet/status/1313969859009695746

“In our tests, liquid was found to be much more drinkable than a steak cooked medium rare. Some examples of liquid are water, lighter fluid, and molten steel, but not all proved similarly drinkable.”

And the thing is, when someone DOES a study on mask materials and they don’t know things like “cotton is a fiber which can be made into many kinds of fabric via many methods,” what’s left out of the study and who is the study supposed to benefit?

“Well, we used cotton.”

Okay. Woven? Knit? What structure?

“Well, we used pink, blue, yellow, and colourfully dyed.”

Okay. Socks, t-shirts, jeans, camping tents, washcloths?

“I called a fabric store and they said the words batik and fat quarters, so it must be those.”

And I wanna know, who funded these tests? Who reviewed their materials and methods? How were peer reviewers selected? Where were results published, and who reads those outlets?

Because somehow, nowhere in there is there anyone who’s ever SEWN something.

Or — and this IMHO is *more* likely — there ARE people in there who raised these points, and their feedback was discarded.

I submit to you that a survey of the demographics of reviewers who had a problem with the materials, methods, or results would be eye opening.