That's drawing an unnecessarily sharp description. To a first approximation all Cochrane pieces are editorials. They're interpreting what's actually out there.

That's drawing an unnecessarily sharp description. To a first approximation all Cochrane pieces are editorials. They're interpreting what's actually out there. > But let's be slightly rigorous thinkers for a moment: there's a fairly obvious difference between a fit-tested n95 mask in a laboratory setting, where there are lots of other interventions happening at the same time (negative pressure labs, hoods, etc.), and putting on a loose surgical mask on a bus. We should be able to talk about that rationally, and not resort to superstition. No one's resorting to superstition. You're the one saying there's no value in an intervention that has empiric laboratory evidence to support it. The argument here is what matters at the population level. If the problem is performance, then we train people to select and use masks better, not simply say that there's no point to it at all.