I'm not saying that masks don't work. But whether they are effective at reducing transmission and, if so, in what measure are open questions. The literature is at this point inconclusive[1]. Even the latest Lancet paper on masks and distancing attracted some criticism[2].

Of course,I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, as the BMJ post I quoted earlier says, instead of just saying "wear a mask", the best idea would also promote trials to verify their effectiveness (like the Danish trial). It's done all the time for drugs, why not masks?

[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-...

[2] https://pubpeer.com/publications/6AF113CE946CABB0FBB811697E5...

This article is flawed in numerous ways.

"missing the compounding effect" - What about the compounding effect of numerous people putting a plague vector directly on their respiratory system?

"Mistaking Absence of Evidence for Evidence of Absence" - The argument isn't that because there's no evidence it's guaranteed to not work. The argument is that without solid evidence constitutional rights should not be infringed.

And on and on.