> Science changes course as more data comes in. And that's reason to express epistemic uncertainty when basing one's conclusions off limited data. > At first

> Science changes course as more data comes in. And that's reason to express epistemic uncertainty when basing one's conclusions off limited data. > At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. First of all, there was already evidence that masks worked. Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. > The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. The studies show limited effectiveness of masks, particularly with newer variants that have higher exhaled viral loads. People who argue that the benefits of masking are outweighed by the costs are labeled science deniers. This is despite there being some evidence of negative impacts from masking (e.g. on childhood development).