Oh wow so you're an antimasker too, didn't have that on my bingo card. Thing is I did wonder how last years WHO-antimaskers cope with the advise reversal. Now I

Oh wow so you're an antimasker too, didn't have that on my bingo card. Thing is I did wonder how last years WHO-antimaskers cope with the advise reversal. Now I see they didn't. We found that communities with high reported mask-wearing and physical distancing had the highest predicted probability of transmission control. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30293-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7... Not a shocker really given how all successful containment measures over the pandemic did include masks (same for earlier SARS outbreaks). And we literally had a hundred years worth of practice using masks for airborne transmission diseases to draw conclusions from. > What am I supposed to take from that? That it's entirely possible to use common sense to gauge everyday risks without demanding a peer reviewed study. Crossing into traffic is dangerous. Mechanical barriers help catch particles. Deceptive people are less trustworthy. A formal study would often quantify that, but coming to opposite conclusion than common sense concept happens very infrequently and then usually warrant a replication study. However the dynamic with online peertards is they use proof requests as an attempt to shut down the discussion, knowing all well that finding supporting research (which often does exist!) in unfamiliar field is a lot of work. When people object to that, the perfect trifecta of cookie-cutter strawman, ad-hominem and non-sequitir accusation follows. In our case you didn't seem to bother looking for peer reviewed research that cheaters are more (or even just as ) trustworthy as baseline, which would be a really remarkable, counter-intuitive result worth sharing. Nope, you'd rather latch on an entirely reasonable comment and insist that not playing along with your foolishness is anti-intillectualism.