But all of these links you posted are dated after the April 3 recommendation by the CDC for the public to wear masks. https://www.livescience.com/cdc-recommends-face-masks-corona...
"Based on the best evidence available at the time, it was not deemed that that would have a significant impact on whether or not a healthy person wearing a mask would contract COVID-19," Adams said."
We now know that this apparent good result was not because of masks, but because of geography. Czechia is ranked #1 in the world in cases / million in the last week and #3 in deaths / million (and its numbers are still climbing). Every single eastern european nation had low cases/deaths in the spring and now all of them are having their first large surge.
It's abundantly clear that cloth masks, as a whole, do not play a major role in how the virus spreads in a country.
I didn't realize masks were that ineffective in other countries as well.
I just picked the first one as an example of how seriously we should take your words at.
Now you start going on a tangent with meta-analysis of statistical data, comparing Sweden with America with no appreciation of the difference in the culture, lifestyle and handling of the coronavirus and then attribute their relatively good performance just to the lack of a mask mandate?
Give me a break, man.
For the same reason it might be hard to find recent studies proving that blood letting is not efficacious.
It's basic physics and statistics. A germ of a certain size can only fit through a certain size whole. Masks of any type will reduce the number of particles and thus reduce your chances of contracting. Same goes for your statistical likely hood of spreading to others.
What's not clear is if applying a plague vector directly on your face with a virus that remains active on surfaces for days is efficacious.
Is it efficacious at the community level?
It's basic epidemiology. You could be more pro-science and consider these things.
> Supporting the validity of this finding, there was a dose-response effect: by multivariable analysis, persons who always wore masks had a 70% lower risk of being diagnosed with clinical SARS compared with those who never wore masks, and persons with intermittent mask use had a 60% lower risk. Many persons who wore masks in the community did not use N-95 or similar highly efficient filtration devices, which have been recommended for use in the hospital setting.
Did you just read the title?
"""At this point, arguing that masks don't work is absolutely taking the piss""'
Fanatical beliefs with no evidence?
Is Corona a cult?
I look at countries like Sweden and Norway and know that masks mandates don't work.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-f...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8#ref-CR4
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3
Who would have guessed that most people are reasonable and take heed of doctors and scientists?
Why have democracy at all if you don't believe our collective ability to make good choices most of the time?