https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-ma...
EDIT: I would appreciate a proper rebuttal instead of what I can only interpret as downvotes for wrongthink.
There is no information about what proportion of the populations actually wore masks, how close people actually got to each other, what the population density and degree of urbanization is, etc.
In Norway we mostly have not had strict lockdowns and have not had compulsory mask wearing until very recently and our infection rates and death rates are lower than most other countries as shown on the charts. But you need to be careful how you interpret that; Norway has a relatively low population density and a large proportion of jobs are of a type that can be done at home. So pretty much everyone who could work from home immediately did so (a lot did anyway). We also have a strong tradition of solidarity; unlike the UK 'We're all in this together!' is not just a slogan.
Our government has also been largely consistent in the advice that it has issued and, with a couple of exceptions, avoided overreacting which means that people are willing to adhere to the rules even though most are just advice and not enforceable.
Most charts from all sources, and especially things like the Federalist, should be taken with a shovel of salt; not because of what they include but because of all the information that is omitted.
>There is no information about what proportion of the populations actually wore masks
If you had scrolled a bit, you'd have seen the chart linked highlighting compliance rates: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2...
I looked at the chart titled 'Avoiding going to work' and was bemused because I couldn't see the line for Norway, where I live. When I turned of the Asia, and US I was able to see it. It would be interesting to know the expected error of the surveys that were used to generate that because the impression I have is that vastly more than 18% of the Norwegian working population is working from home. In fact even in normal times a lot of people work from home a significant fraction of the time.
So I am still of the opinion that such charts don't tell us very much and in particular they do not tell us how much we can rely on them.
And one last point: there is a chart showing that 40% of Norwegians say that they are 'Avoiding physical contact with tourists'. What tourists? There have been essentially zero foreign tourists in Norway since March and internal tourism has practically disappeared a well so what meaning, if any, can be associated with such a statistic.
1. The article attacks a straw man, in that it suggests that masks are supposed to be a cure-all against Covid-transmission. I have not heard this seriously claimed - rather, masks are only one of a range of responses. (Indeed, by far the most important and effective reaction seems to be reducing the number of personal contacts - masks are only intended for those situations where this is not possible.)
2. Masks can only be effective where they are worn. At least in Germany, recent data suggests that most infections are taking place in private settings - where masks are not compulsory (and usually not worn). This could be used to argue both ways: either that the widespread use of masks in public has been successful in reducing infections in the public space, or that the continued widespread infection in private settings means that wearing masks in public is irrelevant. (I do not have the data to meaningfully compare these two claims.)
3. The evidence we have on the effectiveness of masks does seem to be pretty patchy, with many studies showing methodological problems and coming to different conclusions.
4. Generally, the protection effect for the wearer seems to be low or non-existent. However, while not significantly reducing inhalation of virus particles, masks do reduce droplet exhalation (and so protect others in the vicinity of the wearer). I.e., there is an indirect protection effect.
5. It seems to be true that masks are not very effective against aerosol infection (preventing this requires other measures, specifically good ventilation). However, this cannot be used to argue that masks are superfluous, as droplet infection (which masks do help with) is another important transmission vector for Sars-CoV-2.
TL;DR Masks are not a cure-all. They must be used in conjunction with other preventative measures, or they are useless. However, they are probably effective as part of such a larger package.