When you wed "science" to a political sector, it becomes a frightened rabid cult instead :-/ Always look for the hidden agendas.

Oh, you got us! It's all a conspiracy and the only thing holding us on the flat earth is our will to believe. Or maybe chewing gum.

Actually I've posted at great length as to the various fallacies of the mask dogma in past. A lot if it is just common sense. Most doctors know they're ridiculous for viruses, droplet claims or no droplet claims, but are unwilling to stick their necks out.

And I've probably spent far more time engaging actual real-life flat earthers here than you have. So losing no sleep here.

The almighty gold standard of masks, the N 95, still lets 5% through. It’s just a matter of time till something gets through your mask. That is exactly why the last several months have seen a big surge in cases.

95% effectiveness means that potentially 95 out of a hundred people who would have gotten sick, don't. With social distancing and hygiene measures, that saves a lot of lives.

Even 80% effectiveness from a mask can save a lot of lives. Harm Reduction is one of the key concepts of modern health planning. You wouldn't not wear a seatbelt, I hope, because it only prevented 95% of injuries in case of an accident.

You're mistaken about the n95. That rating basically says it stops 95% of particulates of a determined metric size. It has NOTHING to do with viruses.

Viruses are much smaller than the gaps of an N95. It's literally like people say, expecting a chain link fence to stop mosquitoes. They TRY to claim it stops droplets, but (1) droplets only re-evaporate anyway, and (2) a large percent of the airflow STILL bypasses around the edges, even if you wedge the metal nose bridge carefully, and still MORE simply bypass to the eyes.

If masks stopped viruses, docs would wear them around AIDS, hep, and papilloma patients. But of course they don't. They only wear them in operating rooms to catch much or most of their own coughs or sneezes. That's it.

They really wouldn't wear them around HIV, Hep (A,B, or C) or papilloma patients. None of those viruses are airborne.

I'm including an article on how masks work to prevent viral transmission (without being 100% effective). I'm sure you've seen others like it, but give it a read and an open-minded think. The source is not a news agency, it's a teaching hospital.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Also, the name of the game in public health is something called Harm Reduction. Masks, condoms, seat belts, hand-washing, medical checklists, needle exchanges and smoking cessation campaigns are all stellar examples. The goal isn't to make a perfect, disease-free world, it's to introduce interventions that effectively reduce the total pain and suffering. And it works.

When one of the first things they talk about is the efficacy of a wet washcloth, I don't consider them off to a good start.

I have a lot of issues, but for me one of the key ones is arguing timing across demographics. I probably don't have to explain things like correlation/causality issues to you. Their two non-transmittal to 25 or 140 people I find implausible as claimed and can't help thinking you might too. Especially when as I have often pointed out here - and they sort of bury their acknowledgement shortly following - the eye vector remains.

(Hell, even Rutherford departed from that ass Fauci, who contended the distancing was more important than the masks. Of course that guy's just a ridiculous weathervane anyway.)

That methodology was like the 98% flu-reduction double-standard claim. I read that stuff, I watch people trying to have their cake and eat it too, I see an agenda behind the untenable claims, and I call bull.

And I see it in the larger context of implausible explanations and shifting goalposts and much more, and the alternative explanations simply becomes the most plausible theory instead.

Science entails holistic common sense too.

I like the way you're thinking about it. However, if there's an agenda behind the untenable claims, it's the goal of getting Americans, who trend very scientifically unsophisticated, to follow common-sense harm reduction.

And, you know, a wet washcloth with soap is pretty powerful.

Right. So we all wear masks for the rest of our lives for a damned cold.

Except wait, we want max filtration, so right, we're all going to wear wet washcloths instead.

You'll pardon me if I can't wait for the day when people *really* start waking up to how massively they've been had. And not a fraction of the real rest of the story is out yet.

Well, we decide, individually and as a society, how we feel about flu deaths -- for an example. According to the CDC, the US loses 12,000 - 61,000 annually from flu, but this last year, the steps we took to contain Covid made the flu less powerful too. Are we going to quarantine every winter? I doubt it. But will a lot of people wear masks in crowded spaces during flu season? Maybe . . .

No, it means that it stops 95% of the virus from going through the mask and allows 5% through. Over a long enough period of time 5% of aerosols will get through it and infect you. 100% of the people will get sick. How many times can you play Russian roulette before the gun goes off?

Harm reduction. There is a correlation between viral load and the chance of infection, and the precautions around space, time spent inside, and handwashing are intended to keep you from getting sick from that 5% over time.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/why-doctors-wear-masks

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

https://thenewamerican.com/cdc-admits-no-conclusive-evidence-cloth-masks-work-against-covid/

There’s a big difference between aerosols and droplets as far as transmission is concerned. Most transmission is caused by aerosols which are not stopped readily by masks. It actually takes very few viral particles to infect you.

Food for thought. I'll dig into it when I have time. I do believe (on a first pass) that those graphs blur issues of compliance and mask quality.

My personal experience is wearing a mask 100% of the time did not prevent the virus from infecting me.

I'm sorry to hear that!

I appreciate that. I was prescribed HCQ, ivermectin, zinc and antibiotic. Three days later I felt 100% better.