It's just a sloppily-written study. There are spelling and grammar errors all over the place, and it's full of unsubstantiated claims that are hard to take seri

It's just a sloppily-written study. There are spelling and grammar errors all over the place, and it's full of unsubstantiated claims that are hard to take seriously at face value. It's hard for me to even call this a study. > However, in many western advanced economies, those wearing masks are often met with suspicion in public, even causing panic in certain situation. Really? Citation needed. > Although the 1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus) caused an estimated 40–50 million deaths worldwide, many still may view personal protective equipment (PPE) and physical barrier including wearing the mask as contrary to freedom and individualism. Non-sequitur alert! Number one, PPEs themselves are value-neutral; it's the mandate that contrary to liberty as enshrined in the Constitution (you know, the highest law in the land). Number two, mask mandates can be both effective in slowing viral spread AND "contrary to freedom and individualism;" the two concepts are orthogonal. Most people understand this, but differ in prioritizing one over the other. The author seems to suggest that the two cannot be believed at once! Are we all supposed to just take it for granted that masks would have helped in a situation that took place over 100 years ago before so many other medical advances? I don't think that's a fair assumption at all. If so, we could just invoke the Spanish Flu as evidence for any medical intervention we desire. Omissions like these make it hard for me to take this study as authoritative about anything, especially when they themselves admit that the evidence on universal masking is contradictory.