A scientist.
There are a great many things that we did during this pandemic that had no evidence whatsoever, and turned out to be wrong. Some turned out to be harmful (over-ventilation, for example). Are mask mandates one of these things? I have no idea. Neither do you.
It isn't wrong to admit that we don't know, because that's the first step to finding the answer.
Prove it. So many assertions...so little actual evidence.
And for the record, I'm not talking about silly stuff like "wearing a mask raises my CO2 level". There's a very serious debate to be had about risk compensation -- because of the over-the-top messaging about masks, a large number of people think they're personally protected when wearing them. That can make people do risky things. Howard's review skims over the issue and pretends it is settled. It is not.
It's not clear at all that masks -- and in particular, mask mandates -- have a positive net effect. The RCTs on the subject certainly do not support strong claims of effectiveness.
You've made up your mind and all you're doing is hurting people. This is pointless and I'm not going to be fodder for more of your bullying.
If we cannot ask questions and discuss them rationally without being accused of "hurting people", science is dead. This is a fundamentally anti-intellectual reaction, it is a way of villainizing people who question your opinions, and pointing it out is not unkind.
Medical understanding of Covid has made huge strides over the last year, precisely because doctors and researchers never claimed to be omniscient about the virus.
Meanwhile the deniers are still claiming the virus is "just a bad case of flu" and "masks don't do anything" and "lockdowns don't work" in spite of the accumulated mountain of evidence that those statements are nonsense.
You have now commented twice in response to me, and in one post you cited an editorial in Nature as definitive proof of "the science" on masks, and now you are making black and white claims that would seem to group together people who question masks with "anti-vaxers" and other negative charicatures.
To the extent that I am making a claim here, it is that we need to be more circumspect in our discussions of science. I am advocating for less certainty, and more humility.
You seem to be making claims with a great deal of certainty.
> The one thing that defines fervent anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, the "let's open for business while people are still dying" crowd, and others with bizarre beliefs is that they make their statements with absolute certainty, and with no admission that they might ever be wrong.
> Meanwhile the deniers are still claiming the virus is "just a bad case of flu" and "masks don't do anything" and "lockdowns don't work"
> There is no "uncertain marginal effect." The science is in, and it's clear.
> The political point here is that masks - which have now been proven to be helpful - are only considered a 'politically fraught act' by people who want to politicise the Covid response.
> For people who are rational about this, there is no issue. For people who are hostile to public rationality, there is.
All of these are examples of black/white thinking, straw-man and red-herring logical fallacies.
Again to echo the person you’re replying to, the fact we still have to have this conversation is embarrassing.