More so than not wearing a mask at all, yes. Are you arguing for more effective mask distribution and more stringent mask enforcement? I think I'd agree that is warranted at the moment. But you're not, you're just whatabouting.
Texas lifted all restrictions including masks and has lower infection rates per capita than most places with mask mandates and Covid restrictions.
So the statement you make with arrogance may actually be wrong misinformation.
Are you living in a cave? How can you not have seen all this. UCSF has this amazing review, and it's right at the top of the google results page: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...
You are claiming not to have seen this not because you have looked for this evidence and failed to find it, but because you have been CONVINCED BY YOUR MEDIA that this evidence doesn't exist.
You also cite lies. Texas is one of the worst areas in the country for both total infection count and current infection rate: https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=states...
> So the statement you make with arrogance may actually be wrong misinformation.
Ditto.
It's... a medical school. An elite one, no less, doing public outreach. Effectively that link is a review paper written for non-experts, it's certainly not "opinion journalism". I mean, it links to studies throughout the piece. It absolutely represents (and I don't understand why you think this is controversial) virtually uniformly held scientific consensus on this topic.
I mean, I don't know what to say. If you don't trust doctors about medical issues, preferring to read pieces from (literal) Swiss conspiracy theory sites and citing isolated single Vietnamese studies, then I guess I can't help you.
But yes: SWPRS and sites like that are LYING TO YOU. Very effectively, since now you trust them more than you do one of the best med schools in the country.
vs
An opinion piece.
The absolute state of Covid fanatics.
I went and clicked on the first two links in that collection, both claimed to show "little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population":
Both were studies of mask POLICY (i.e. does TELLING people to wear a mask work?) and not mask USE (do the masks actually work?). The first was just a historical review of previous pandemics with no ability to look at case studies.
The second looked only at Denmark, an environment where masks aren't common, and didn't even track whether or not the participants actually wore them. All they checked was if they were "recommended" or not. And the kicker? They ACTUALLY DID find a statistically significant benefit to mask recommendation, just not a large one. The inclusion in your magic "collection" is basically a lie.
Now I read two links carefully. Your turn: go back to that UCSF site and read some of the links there.
You mean epidemiological studies on communities?
Ok....
Masks may or may not work as a stop for particles but do they stop spread on a community level?
"Mask policy" - what a government organization (DOH, city council, what have you) states as its recommended behavior, action, enforcement practices.
And has _absolutely nothing to do with_ epidemiological studies on communities. Nothing. Whatsoever.
Policy: 'you should do X'
Epidemiological study: a controlled investigation into what happens when people do X, when they don't, including how many do, how many don't, and all the circumstances surrounding it.
The first three articles:
1. Meta analysis of mask usage
2. "''A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal...."''
3. """large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants"""
You clearly didn't click on the first two articles like you said you did.
You're a liar and a fascist.
I'm done here.
Would you go into surgery with a physician who wears the same mask on a daily basis?