Key point: no significant effect for protecting wearers. The study makes no claims (and didn't study) whether the masks protect others from the wearer.
This headline is inaccurate to the point of malfeasance. The study absolutely did <i>not</i> look into whether masks have a significant effect on COVID-19 transmission; it tracked whether a medical doctor's <i>recommendation to a patient</i> would reduce transmission.<p>One of the limitations called out in the paper was the fact that compliance with mask wearing was low, and/or not tracked.
Wasn't the main argument for basic masks the entire time that they reduce <i>the wearer</i> spreading it if they are infected? And thus deriving "no significant effect on spread" from this finding seems a bit odd?
Conclusion:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.<p>If there's those more qualified I'd be interested to know if these results are only being done on the receiving end, or if surgical masks still protect others to some extent.
Danish studies that only suggest the use of masks and doesn't control for adherence fails to find any results (original link <a href="https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817" rel="nofollow">https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817</a> )<p>That's it. It's a crappy study and don't expect much from "The Spectator"
The paper itself: <a href="https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817" rel="nofollow">https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817</a>