4 ms·
Your first link is a meta analysis which does not say masks don’t work. It says that they do work, but complains about the lack of data and it’s inconsistency (
by rhaway84773 3y ago
Your first link is a meta analysis which does not say masks don’t work. It says that they do work, but complains about the lack of data and it’s inconsistency (presumably this meta analysis hopes to help resolve that issue).
> This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection.
Your second link is to an opinion writer with no scientific background who infamously wrote his first opinion piece in the NYTimes denying the scientific evidence for climate change, but worse, with so many errors it needed a whole bunch of corrections appended to it.
Your “scientific pieces of evidence” are (a) not evidence for what you claim they’re evidence for, and (b) not scientific.
- frankreyes 3y ago> Your first link is a meta analysis which does not say masks don’t work. No, I already copied the relevant piece of text. Here is one more time: >>> Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against CRI (...) and laboratory-confirmed bacterial (...), but not viral infections or ILI ...[influenza-like illness] <<< > Your second link is to an opinion writer with no scientific background No. Click on the link on the first sentence and you can read the original scientific study. Here is the link: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full?s=08 https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... Read the article. It says that face masks, surgical masks, and N95 provide no benefits.