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.
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.
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.
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.