only in the U.S.
High transmission rate + (relatively) low complication / death rate = ideal conspiracy fodder
A mask is very effective and is worn for others, not yourself. At any point in time you might be carrying asymptomatic or not-yet-symptomatic COVID. Your mask prevents your saliva from flying in the air around you, protecting people near you and their parents/susceptible relatives this might get passed on to.
And if it’s against your interest when emergency healthcare can’t help your sick child because they have not enough resources due to COVID patients, then over long term wearing a mask is actually for yourself, too.
You have no evidence to support this point.
Scientists (WHO, CDC, Lancet, etc) don't say "masks are very effective", they say that masks _may_ help prevent the spread, but only if they're part of a package of preventative measures. They all say that distancing is much more important than mask wearing.
That said, I believe it is settled that airborne transmission happens via saliva droplets, and a properly worn, clean mask is great at stopping those from traveling further than your face (physics) without harming your own health.
Also, I believe it is wrong to equate WHO, CDC messaging with “scientists”. Those organizations are careful not to make specific claims that masks are great at preventing the spread, since a mask is pointless if it’s not a suitable mask (e.g., lets large enough particles through) or is worn badly, since human error is unavoidable, a dirty mask is actively dangerous to the wearer, and over-reliance on improperly worn masks could result in a disaster.
Does it mean we shouldn’t bother deploying our individual common sense in equipping masks? That we wouldn’t make a positive difference to the spread by wearing a good mask properly? I disagree.
Also, having been to crowded subway trains of Seoul recently, I question the claim that Russian cities are somehow crowded enough to render masks useless.
so, imagine one "other" without a mask and everybody around in masks (actually "face coverings" which allow air in/out from sides) commuting everyday in a densely packed bus. Do you think that "other" has much improved chances when aggregated over several months? (again, i'm not arguing against proper mask's efficiency during occasional exposure)
The herd immunity is 2/3. If say 1/3 of population has already some pre-existing immunity (from casual reading of Internet it looks that some noticeable share of population does have it for Covid and it seems larger than 1/3) then the total infection rate until herd immunity is reached is 1/3. The Spanish flu hit 30% of human population for example.
So, for Moscow 1/3 is 4M. They already got 0.5M cases and currently is having, despite the tight masks/gloves/partial lockdown measures, 7K/day cases. I don't see why would it slow down, and if anything i suppose it will only go up in the coming several months. Thus in the year they will have a total of 2.5M of officially registered cases. If one adds non-detected cases one can see that it is would be in the ballpark of 4M. I.e. herd immunity, end of pandemic, masks or no masks, lockdown or no lockdown. Basically like Spanish flu scenario, and i personally just don't see how the numbers can play differently.
Global effects are the sum of local effects. I don't see how you can simultaneously believe that a mask lowers the local transmission rate without effecting the global transmission rate.
1) A slower infection rate prevents or at least helps with “flattening the curve,” that is, avoiding overwhelming health care systems, which impacts both COVID and non-COVID patients
2) A lower initial viral dose seems to lead to better outcomes (lowers mortality rate)
3) We are seemingly within reach of effective vaccines
2) Would be a win if it is so. I haven't yet formed even a barely informed opinion. It looks like a new development though, and I don't remember such thing mentioned about other viruses.
3) which is why i put the numbers only up to a year ahead as any mass vaccination doesn't seem happening earlier than that.
Fauci has widely explained why he felt it was justified at the time, admitted he was wrong, and apologized. Like when I just started to do a search to provide sources, it autocompleted the query even. Probably similar for the other sources you named, so I encourage you to do some research if interested.
No, the problem was that people took the statement that we didn't yet have the evidence on efficacy to mean that masks were useless.
Not having evidence... Means that things can go either way. And the WHO didn't even stop by saying no evidence, they said no evidence, and then went ahead and said it might help anyway.
> Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure. - WHO