> That it's entirely possible to use common sense to gauge everyday risks without demanding a peer reviewed study. It's also entirely possible to be wrong, and

> That it's entirely possible to use common sense to gauge everyday risks without demanding a peer reviewed study. It's also entirely possible to be wrong, and divorce or being cheated on is not an "everyday" risk, hence the challenge you encountered. > 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 Why should I need to? I know you want to make this personal as you keep engaging in rudeness and ad hominem but it's got nothing to do with your claim, and I'm not making a claim. Just try backing it up instead of deflecting and being rude. As to your study in the Lancet, did you read it? Even glance across it? > Methods > Serial cross-sectional surveys were administered via a web platform to randomly surveyed US individuals aged 13 years and older, to query self-reports of face mask-wearing. Amusing. I really think you should read the articles written by the esteemed epidemiologists I supplied, especially where they talk about what makes a good study.