> That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB):

> That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB): > Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures. Perhaps The Science™ did change a bit, particularly with regard to public policy, but I don't think anyone except the headline-skimming public and adults who still pull their shirt up over their nose when someone farts expected masks to do much of anything. It was always a kind of improvisational measure, as Science™ of course already knew the correct answer to be D) None of the above. The 2003 SARS studies in particular have been used in wilderness/disaster medicine as evidence for a lecture that goes something like this: "Stateside, you'll mostly always have enough top-notch equipment to go around, but should you find yourself in a clinic in sub-Saharan Africa, rural SE Asia, etc. during a disease outbreak, a surgical mask is probably better than nothing. Sure, you're fucked without a PAPR, and if there are no surgical masks available, perhaps wrapping a bandana or some gauze around your face (and/or saying a prayer) will keep you from dying, who knows. Good luck; have fun!" The difference between "things that sometimes work for certain patients/scenarios" and "things that we can prove work well enough to justify forcing on an entire population" is also relevant, and why I say I don't think <strike>Science</strike> Medicine has learned much from this - the answer has always been "use the correct mask for the situation", and these masks have never been the correct mask. This[1], for example, is one of those best-effort hacks one keeps in their toolbox, and anyone using it knows it's sub-par. No ortho would be surprised that their cell phone vibrator diagnosis didn't match the X-ray (and likely, neither would their patient) - but after six months of "Cell Phones Are X-Ray Machines" articles, the public is gonna be upset when they finally realize they aren't. > You mean, like the CEMB has? No, this one: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/do-what-you-love/journalism https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/d... [1] https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf