It's not heresy, it's just a banality that has been stated countless times before.

Not washing your hands properly can be counterproductive. Not being socially distant enough can be counterproductive.

If you're not even arguing against masks, what is your point?

Read the whole thread. It was a reply to:

> So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health.

My point is that if the mask is inefficient it could be counterproductive due to fidgeting. See sibling comment about fleece masks that hopefully makes a better case since you can't agree the slightest that anyone would ever fidget with their mask.

Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks:

> There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...

> Read the whole thread.

Obviously I read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have commented on what you wrote in it.

> Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks

It's a banality when in absolutely every thread on this subject at least one person states the totally obvious that doing something incorrectly could might potentially possibly may be worse than not doing it at all.

Not washing your hands properly or not being socially distant enough are not counterproductive, they are just unproductive. No-one thinks that less social distance gives you more protection, while wearing an inefficient mask may have the opposite of the desired effect. You're mixing up the "too much anything is bad for you" trope with a serious caveat that has caused whole countries to recommend against face masks.

I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more.

You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject.

I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit.

Next time I won't bother assuming possible good faith on the part of anyone spouting textbook anti-masker noise.

You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us".

The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious discussion about the topic.

The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.

Yeah, what a fool I am for discussing the topic at hand. You are the one polluting this thread with ad hominem attacks and overly defensive windmill fighting against imaginary anti-maskers. Again, read the thread before you decide to jump into a conversation next time.

It's not up to you who jumps into a thread or why or when, and when you jumped in it was not to discuss the topic, but to spout anti-mask noise that wearing a mask "may be a net negative", under the guise of 'Hey, I'm just innocently saying what "Scandinavian countries" are saying'.

When you were informed that Scandinavian countries are not taking an anti-mask stance, instead of holding your hands up that your argument was based on something false, you simply carried on making the same anti-mask point by fixating on something else (three sentences from a six page PDF) instead.

Like I said, you are not fooling anyone.