2 ms·

> The primary transmission vector by far is nose and mouth and masks are very well established to substantially reduce infection rates. Which doesn't at all ex

> The primary transmission vector by far is nose and mouth and masks are very well established to substantially reduce infection rates. Which doesn't at all explain all of the studies that found little to no effect to pervasive masking. If the effect is as strong as you're suggesting, then even partial masking would show an effect, even at population levels. This issue is simply not as settled as you're portraying. > It’s that you feel that people recommending masking have placed a value judgement on people who don’t and I totally get that. But notice I did nothing of the kind. This thread started on this premise, and I replied along those lines, and then you replied to me. I've made no assumptions about you other than you're clearly pro-mask and convinced by the evidence, and the only position I've staked is that the evidence is plausible but not as clear as you and others have been portraying.

vlovich123 3y ago
> Which doesn't at all explain all of the studies that found little to no effect to pervasive masking Not sure what you're referring to here. Statistically, there will always exist studies that show the null result. That doesn't mean that there's no evidence of effect. There's been lots of repro. Here's a link you can use to start exploring this topic with links to studies: https://coronavirus.delaware.gov/covid-19-myth-or-fact/myth-or-fact-masks-are-effective-against-covid-19/ https://coronavirus.delaware.gov/covid-19-myth-or-fact/myth-... I'm sure you can find other studies. But ultimately clearly no amount of information here will change your conclusion that there's no evidence that masks are effective so I don't know what more to say here. Good luck.