IMO this was never about masking. This was about a minority of cluster-B types having a public meltdown at the ideologically intolerable fact that collective responsibility is a real thing.
There is no ambiguity about "Masks work." It simply means masking is better than nothing.
There's nuance in the type of mask, and masking practices, and other fine details. But the principle is straightforward.
And unless you're seriously going to try to argue that dentists and surgeons have been wasting their time and money on PPE for all this time, the effects are clear.
I saw some police walk up to a small elderly and otherwise inoffensive woman and kick her off a tram because she wasn't masked up. It is better than a Jew Badge, but I think people can have a legitimate concern that the same authoritarian mindset was behind both mandates. Drawing the line at police telling people they have to start dressing differently as a show of public support for a cause is an extremely reasonable position.
Especially since as far as I've seen there is still no evidence it achieved anything beyond just offering up a "hey, wear a mask" as advice and encouraging voluntary behaviour. This study makes it look like even the evidence for voluntary masking is up for question.
Whoa there...you skipped a big step. "Collective responsibility" requires that the thing you're all doing is shown to be responsible. If the thing doesn't have any effect, then you're just engaged in theater. Or worse, maybe the thing has negative consequences. Because that's certainly possible, and not something you can just hand-wave away.
You don't get to skip the test of effectiveness, blindly assume that whatever you're mandating is automatically good, and dismiss anyone who dares to question your assumptions as "irresponsible".
Instead of just running the damned experiments, it's tribal warfare and insults, and clinging desperately to crappy data.
> And unless you're seriously going to try to argue that dentists and surgeons have been wasting their time and money on PPE for all this time, the effects are clear.
Huge conceptual leap from "dentists and surgeons wearing fitted, fresh PPE in a sterile environment" to "people on the street wearing unwashed cloth rags" (aka "a bit of cloth on your face"), so I'd probably start there.
The parent is also certainly on to something with the Cluster B's and those pesky "ideologically intolerable fact[s]", I'm just not sure it's so one-sided.
The entire thing was ideology first, science second, to the point of science worship. Many people with a reasonable grasp on science were labeled as heretics simply for asking questions or talking about anything that suggested masks/vaccines weren't 100.00% effective with 0.00% downside. Remember Faucisexuals? Yikes.
As someone said, we need to stop "believing" in science (or not) and start "understanding" it.
Right. Which is why we saw a great many "virologists" (who are not "maskologists", btw, so I'm not sure where we get this idea that they "work on masks" [1]) blindly assert that it didn't matter what kind of mask you wear, then for a long time defended the silly notion of a 6-foot rule (remember "ballistic droplets"? I do!), then said, "OK, cloth masks probably don't do much, but 'swiss-cheese model!'", and so on and so forth. Literally anything than just be intellectually honest about what the data says.
This entire debate has been insipid, and OP is correct: a great many people who should have known better shifted their brains into neutral and allowed slogans to drive the conversation. The entire point of the linked article is that the CDC has historically used crap studies to make causative arguments that wouldn't work in any other scientific debate.
[1] ...and let's not forget people like Jeremy Howard (philosophy major; Kaggle guy) and Zeynep Tufecki (librarian) somehow get cited as 'mask experts' and publish total gibberish in PNAS and other high-profile journals, despite having zero relevant experience. Expertise is a slippery concept when the speaker makes an argument you like!