Look at the results. Mandatory cloth masks were associated with 3 times as many ILIs (Influenza Like Illnesses). So it is not some tiny statistical variation. It is a huge effect size.
As for the second study, it concludes:"The observed mechanisms may lead to more severe symptoms in individuals with impaired capacity for myocardial compensation."
I am talking about how the all sources of information systematically downplay the negative effects and serious side effects of masks.
Masks do have side effects. The relentless propaganda tells you that is a "mere inconvenience".
Compared to surgical masks. There was no study of unmasked people. I expect it would be 10x.
> The observed mechanisms may lead to more severe symptoms in individuals with impaired capacity for myocardial compensation.
The study was only on N95 masks! Most people are wearing surgical or cloth, it's irrelevant.
> I am talking about how the all sources of information systematically downplay the negative effects and serious side effects of masks.
There appear to be very few, similar to how all sources downplay the negative effects of walking on the sidewalk vs walking in the road.
I would be a lot more sympathetic if you targeted your ire at "washing down surfaces", because that seems irrelevant with respect to spread. But masks work, and that's the long and short of it.
The control group was typical use, whatever the staff chose to do, which included not using masks at all.
The use of masks in the control group was about 23%! And that included medical, N95 and possibly cloth masks as well. Whatever they would typically use.
Here is their conclusion:
"Given the obligations to HCW (Healthcare Workers) occupational health and safety, it is important to consider the potential risk of using cloth masks."
Second study is only N95s. Just don't wear an N95 if you need more air for aerobic capacity. The OP study shows that they're not _that_ much better than surgical masks anyway.
But hey believe what you want to believe.