The hyperbole of that designation aside, it is still just as likely to be directionally correct as it was before.

Even if this meta-analysis was available during the peak of the pandemic, refusing to wear masks while knowing there is as much reason to believe they work as there is to believe they don’t still paints a pretty unflattering picture of the person making that decision, considering the relatively low cost (across all notions of cost) of just taking the precaution until we have more solid info.

This remains true even if we prove down the road that masks did/do nothing.

That isn’t to say that I endorse the social behavior or the absolutism displayed by both “sides” of this topic. That’s a separate issue that is orthogonal to the pandemic itself, and continues to unfold.

Perhaps.

But perhaps by not masking, it shows the individual to be relatively un-cautious.

That’s really useful to know if you happen to be on the other end of the vulnerable spectrum.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are arguing here. Assuming there is no masking policy, the act of not wearing a mask is no longer a signal that someone is more or less cautious than someone else. This is assuming that accompanying that policy is a general public sentiment that masks are not effective.

The act of wearing a mask despite no policy would indicate greater caution, but the inverse is not obviously true.

It seems the existence of a masking policy, public knowledge about the implications of exposure, and the presumption that masks provide some mitigation are all things that are required to then make some conclusion about whether or not the unmasked person across the room is relatively un-cautious.

True enough.

Not wearing a mask now is normal again.

Wearing is the more unusual case.

I thought you were arguing that not wearing paints and unflattering picture.

But I agree that isn’t the case any longer.

Apologies. Misunderstood timing.