> The initial research for masks indicated that they weren't helpful, due to Coronaviruses showing up on the outside of the masks after asking an infected perso

> The initial research for masks indicated that they weren't helpful, due to Coronaviruses showing up on the outside of the masks after asking an infected person to cough. It wasn't until a few weeks later when they noticed that the petri dishes that the patients had coughed into had substantially more virus reproduction without masks than with the masks. The people doing the research weren't lying, it was a very logical sequence of events. Sometimes initial research implies an incorrect conclusion, that's why it's called "initial research" and not "conclusive research", which is why they "changed their minds" afterward. This is well documented and is not controversial [0] From your link: > This experiment did not include N95 masks and does not reflect the actual transmission of infection from patients with COVID-19 wearing different types of masks. We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing. Masks aren't some cutting-edge, space-age drug that may cause cancer. They're a piece of material placed across the nose and mouth, and have been in use for literally thousands of years. We have strong priors on their value in preventing the spread of respiratory diseases in general, and in the absence of proof of their ineffectiveness at doing so for Sars-CoV2, recommending their use was obviously the prudent course of action. None of the available information, including the study you link, made it a good idea to recommend strongly and repeatedly against wearing masks, up to and including the Surgeon General exhorting "Seriously, people - STOP BUYING MASKS". The midwit religious adherence to scientism on parts of the left has been one of the biggest cultural failures of the pandemic, a mirror image to parts of the right's knee-jerk distrust of experts. The scientific method is the greatest knowledge-generation engine that's ever existed, but it doesn't mean forfeiting our inability to reason about anything until there's a micro-targeted peer-reviewed trial. Reasoning under uncertainty is difficult, but our public health authorities have proven themselves to be incapable of fairly basic critical thinking. The idea that this is a "logical sequence of events" is beyond laughable.