> But god forbid you ask them to wear a mask to prevent the spread of a deadly disease, they want to see long-term studies in triplicate with massive p-factors.

> But god forbid you ask them to wear a mask to prevent the spread of a deadly disease, they want to see long-term studies in triplicate with massive p-factors. That's a strange example to use to try to back up your argument, especially considering the data and observations we now have available to us. It's scientifically established at this point that those who questioned masking were absolutely correct: masking did not have a significant preventative, nor even mitigative, impact on case counts. What might be among some of the largest and most extensive scientific experiments ever performed confirm this. For example, tens of millions of people across Canada were forced to mask for well over a year in most regions, and two straight years in Toronto (the fourth-most populous city in North America). Yet, despite masking being universal in public for an extended duration, there were multiple significant increases and decreases in case counts over time in such regions. Had masking been effective at preventing, or even just mitigating, the spread, then those observed case count fluctuations would not have happened to begin with. Even scientific observation as basic as watching masked individuals outdoors in colder autumn and winter temperatures showed why masking was ineffective: notable and visible clouds of water vapour would be expelled with each breath the masked individuals took, despite the masks supposedly limiting or preventing that from happening. For most of the widely-used masks, and even respirators as commonly worn, the vapour would often be concentrated as it exited the mask and was directed through gaps where it contacted the wearer's face. In busier urban settings, this would effectively expose those in the vicinity to a concentrated dose of another individual's breath. Masks that didn't prevent egress of such vapour also didn't prevent ingress. The same effect was happening indoors, and during warmer conditions, but just not as easily observable as during colder temperatures. So, it's scientifically established at this point that there is no epidemiological nor physical basis to support masking. Maybe there's a better example you could have found to support your argument.