No. The second article reaffirms what they said in the original paper. The original paper called for widespread use of masks in the medical community. Something that makes absolute sense.
It also re-affirms that there is a time and place for the public to wear masks: which isn't all the time. They are nothing more than a security blanket in most cases. They say, and I quote.
"We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces,
not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission
is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas
the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.
8 We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies f
or all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods."
Within 6 feet
For Sustain periods.
Let that soak in.
You aren't getting their by walking by someone. You aren't getting this a Lowes or Publix or Belk's. You aren't getting this by walking into a resteraunt to pick up food. In most cases, those are not periods of sustained interaction with 6 feet.
A packed Death Valley, yup that's a risk. A movie theater, yup that's a risk. A bar, yup that's a risk.
Are you wearing a mask in your house? Because you have a higher likihood of catching COVID there vice a grocery store.