To answer your question succinctly, it is not impossible that mask use in "crowded space" could slow down an air borne communicable disease, but for practical purposes it is nearly impossible.
I have been excessively clear, and consistent, about my views on wearing masks. The general public is (are?) both unwilling and, in almost all cases, unable to properly use masks. As such, each individual improperly using masks puts themselves at greater risk, which doesn't help minimize the spread of respiratory illness.
Cloth coverings don't filter sufficiently to do any good. Surgical masks might help some, but have to be changed out frequently, and done so in a sanitary manner to do any good. Public areas are not equipped to properly facilitate the general public's proper use, change out and sanitary disposal of surgical masks, especially since so many restrooms have been shutdown. Not to mention the lack of supply required for everyone who has to be out in public for extended periods to change out masks on a regular enough basis for the masks to do any good.
Then you factor in the fact that the number of cases caused by casual contact versus long periods of exposure is almost, if not entirely, nonexistent. The recommendations were right two months ago and all the time leading up to that, masks are for symptomatic people who must go into public (and that should only ever be when absolutely necessary), people caring for the ill, and healthcare workers who are at a much higher exposure risk than the general public, and have the facilities to allow for the proper use of masks, assuming the general public isn't draining the mask supply.
My optimistic devil's advocate argument for explaining why the CDC changed their recommendation to having people use cloth masks is so all the people who demanded mask use for the general public would leave the real masks for the people for whom they might actually do some good. If this is the case, then I can be ok with people strapping filthy rags to their own faces, but don't expect me to do it because you think it protects people.
And,
@zimbomb, I actually care about everyone, not just the people
you think need to be cared about. The response to the pandemic should have been targeted at protecting the highest risk individuals. I have been saying that since the get go, so don't say it has anything to do with hindsight. I disagreed with locking down the general population even based on what was actually known about the virus at the time, but I can forgive the overreaction for a short while until we were able to gather more data. Now that we have, there is no excuse for a general lock down, and there is no objective reason for people wearing masks except as I wrote out above.
My views are not even strictly about the economic impact, which has been bad enough, they are about the balance of individual rights versus the responsibility of the individual to society. I care enough about everyone to want to take actions that will be both effective to protect the most vulnerable, and protect the liberty of each individual to the highest degree possible. So you can lay that emotional appeal fallacy about me being selfish to rest. You spouting off bad, oversimplified, information and attacking people who don't agree isn't helping anyone.
less.
