> Gee, I wonder if anyone thought of testing conditions similar to real life. Nah, nobody did, because everyone is stupid. No need for that, at all. From [1]:

> Gee, I wonder if anyone thought of testing conditions similar to real life. Nah, nobody did, because everyone is stupid. No need for that, at all. From [1]: > A recent British Medical Journal review looked at six, fairly porcine, studies concerning mask-wearing and estimated an impressive 53% reduction in risk. But the single randomised controlled trial estimated the smallest effect: a reduction of about 18% (-23% to 46%) in Sars-CoV-2 infections. The “heaviest” studies, an analysis of US states and a survey of about 8,000 Chinese adults in early 2020, observed rather than experimented and its editorial highlights the risks of confounding variables influencing both wearing masks and infections and the impossibility of disentangling the effects of measures fluctuating simultaneously. Indeed, this review found an identical 53% reduction from handwashing. There is an introduction of Spiegelhalther and Masters given here[2]. It's well worth reading that BMJ article, btw. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermectin-mask-wearing-quality-of-evidence-matters https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermect... [2] https://statsandstories.net/media1/covid-by-the-numbers https://statsandstories.net/media1/covid-by-the-numbers