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.
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.