3 ms·

First you say > Face masks ... don’t work to slow transmission whatsoever and when pushed on it, you imply that this is true because there’s been no trial on

First you say > Face masks ... don’t work to slow transmission whatsoever and when pushed on it, you imply that this is true because there’s been no trial on it, which is not how implication works. You then also try and suggest the presence of an unfalsifiable hypothesis which you don’t try and explain, and seems suggestive that you don’t know what the term means?

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
It’s unfalsifiable because it requires studying a whole community and sequencing every SARS-2 infection to attribute “blame” to the source of the infection. That is very difficult to do and that is why such an RCT does not exist. And yet most of the world is performing this intervention anyway. That’s the brilliance of “my mask protects you”. It’s not feasibly falsifiable. “My mask protects me” is very easy to falsify. That’s why we have one RCT that studied exactly that and failed to reach significance. Again, the theoretical MoA of masking only makes sense if SARS-2 spreads via respiratory droplets. If it spreads via aerosols, the sub-micron aerosol particles stay aloft for minutes-hours and bypass the comparatively giant holes of the mask with ease. The sightly altered directional flow is largely irrelevant. You can watch any of the many videos of someone vaping with a mask on/off to see what I’m talking about. Imagine that every time you exhale.
- peteretep 6y ago
  > It’s unfalsifiable because ... very difficult to do That’s not what that means.