It's interesting how you say that so definitively, when there are multiple, large RCTs ongoing, evaluating the question.
Perhaps you're substituting your opinions for science?
> The null hypothesis is "it does not work". Then you carefully design a study to take care of all the variables, you do your double blind test with a placebo and you look at outcomes. That's the standard.
> As for mask effectiveness: they work, there is ongoing debate over how much they work.
Funny how "the standard" shifts from topic to topic, sentence to sentence. When it's an intervention you support, the presumption is positive, even if the collective evidence of effect is...mixed, at best.
So these studies are in the realm of 'we can't rule it out 100% let's check one more time'. Since this is a forum and not a scientific paper I can claim with some confidence that it isn't going to work, if you want to take the opposite side of that bet be my guest.
Masks work, whether it is 10% or 15% effective is what's at stake there, not whether they work or not. If ivermectin was 10% effective it would have been established long ago.
You are guilty of exactly those things that you accuse me of.
Risks are also low for eating 50 Kg of bananas, it might cure COVID, so why not try it? This sort of reasoning is complete nonsense when it comes to picking your medications.
The null hypothesis is "it does not work". Then you carefully design a study to take care of all the variables, you do your double blind test with a placebo and you look at outcomes. That's the standard. Anything less simply won't do. 'Might work' isn't a reason for (self) prescription.
As for mask effectiveness: they work, there is ongoing debate over how much they work. Like everything else in terms of countermeasures, absolutely nothing will be a 100% sure filter so we layer multiple filters on top of each other to improve the degree of protection we achieve, aka the cheese model.