The evidence that masks work at a community level (outside of medical institutions) is very questionable as well so that could fall into the 'rain dance' category.
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
One could look at it and conclude that most birth control isn't very effective at a community level, which is more like the "typical use" column.
The stat that's missing is the rate of pregnancies caused by not using any birth control at all. I imagine that compared to that stat, even the worst of the typical use stats look pretty good. Then you would conclude that you should probably wear a condom.
Same goes for a mask, in my opinion.
A condom is typically used once and has pores small enough to block designated particles.
This is how medical masks in a medical establishment is used.
Cloth masks at a community level are basically wearing the same condom everyday and the condom is full of holes.
Its a 'rain dance', and just makes people feel better, which does have it's benefits, like religion or nationalism.
That's why Fauci is saying to double or triple up on cloth masks, because cloth masks reused daily are minimally effective, which is what the vast majority of the population does.
Here's a real actual scientific article about it.
How do you test particle penetration in a 'maskless' group?
Isn't it implied that the 'maskless' group would have 100% particle penetration?
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577/F2.large...
The evidence shows that changing masks frequently combined with using medical grade material is effective.
The current mask recommendations for the USA though... is folk science akin to using leeches or trepanation.
And no one demands any scientific rigour they just follow along blindly trusting whoever is on the T.V.
Masks need to be changed constantly.
That's not an accurate comparison at all, and I think you have completely missed the point.
Using a condom perfectly results in the fewest pregnancies. Using it typically (ie, once in a while you have one break or slip off) results in more pregnancies than perfect use, but still many less than unprotected sex.
The same logic should hold for masks. Using them perfectly (ie single use, medical grade quality) results in the fewest infections. Using them typically (ie, non-medical grade cloth mask, wearing the same one more than once) results in more than the perfect use but still less than being unmasked. It is not a "rain dance"
If you are trying to make an argument that wearing a mask makes you equally as likely to get infected as being unmasked, I don't know what to tell you. You're just straight up wrong.
Edit - because you added your article link after I was already replying: you cannot generalize the usefulness of masks on healthcare workers who are typically very close to patients and breathing the same air as them, touching the same surfaces as them for extended periods of time to the usefulness to a community of people who are supposed to be sticking 6 feet apart.
Yeah if you are standing a foot from a sick person wearing a mask and they cough in your eye, and you get sick, it's gonna seem like the mask did nothing.
Because the biological agent is never disposed of.
And it keeps being applied over and over day after day.
It's why you wouldn't want your surgeon to walk in to your operation with the mask he just used from the previous operation.
It's also basic medical hygiene theory. The same reason that washing hands is effective because germs are transmissable via numerous vectors.
Yes, using things that are broken means they don't perform their intended function very effectively.
That doesn't imply that using non-broken versions of those things is less effective somehow. That's not how the transitive property works.
Edit - again because you're super edit happy.
> It's why you wouldn't want your surgeon to walk in to your operation with the mask he just used from the previous operation
No, ideally of course not. But given the choice between "surgeon wearing the old mask" and "surgeon wearing no mask at all" I think I prefer the old mask. Would you seriously just prefer the surgeon to breathe directly into whatever open cavity you have during the surgery?
Breathing on me > contaminated infectious rag in the O.R.
There is actually no evidence that surgical masks are protective during surgery. Mainly because nobody wants to do the experiment, but still.
See some of my previous posts for those.
It doesn't perfectly protect you, but anything helps. A KN95/N95 is more effective and covering the eyes is better yet.
If that were true you might consider flipping the mask inside out.
If you have the virus, and are exhaling, the goal is to stop large droplets of moisture, which carry further, from exiting the mask. They are larger, hence, they get blocked and absorbed by the mask.
Further, when breathing out, air is slowed, and also again passes around the edge of the mask. This reduces the spread, and is also why '6 feet' is recommended as a distance to keep from people.
Again, this isn't about protecting you, but protecting others if you're infected, spreading, and per-symptomatic.
FYI, in most non-US countries ... this isn't a debate. It's just accepted. For example in Canada, politicians of all stripes, left/right/whatever, agree on such basic concepts.
We also didn't have weird things with public servants lying about basic mask protocols.
I'll put this another way.
If you're spreading, and wear no mask? Being a few feet from someone, and talking, isn't going to just get the virus in their mouth. Inhaled. It gets it in their eyes, on their face, their clothes, the list goes on and on.
Masks are about reducing that kind of spread!
Do they help you? A little bit, sure. But thaw's not the point. The point is to protect others!
The cynic in me thinks "What an American attitude. It's all about me, screw protecting others!"
The asymmetry comes from the shorter distance of the mask from the source of exhalation, faster/wetter air, when you breath out vs your intake which is ambient air pressures and speeds.
Wetter air leaves your lungs, but air quickly goes to ambient and then takes on ambient air humidity anyways, so not sure how relevant to the people around you.
And again, ambient air pressure has nothing to do with it. you determine the pressure with your lungs. If you breath in as quickly as you breath out, you will have similar air speeds and pressures.
And you put those ejaculate covered pants directly on your face.
An actual better rule is "don't be inside with other people without masks".
Masks and lockdowns are trivial for politicians to implement. Especially with emergency powers. They don't have to go through any political process to get done. It doesn't even matter if they work at all. It shows they are "taking it serious" and "saving lives". Even if the measures harm society far more than if they did nothing at all.
Actual non-pharmaceutical things that would truly slow covid require 10 or 100x more political willpower than masks or lockdowns.
Masks and lockdowns will very much be looked upon the same way we look at rain dances and goat sacrifices.... it's just humans fooling themselves into thinking they have more control over mother nature than they actually do.
We did that, it was called PPP and PUA. But many people were "essential workers" or didn't want to quit their jobs just because we were paying them to.
Common sense would say that wearing something covering your nose and mouth is better than nothing at all, but this fails to take into account how the masks are treated by regular people.
I firmly believe that masks do not change anything significantly, at least until a study can prove the opposite.
What matters now is getting back to the pre-corona situation without restrictions.
Those who wants to be vaccinated on a yearly basis should absolutely do so, but those who choose not to should absolutely be free to enjoy all aspects of life without restrictions.
Despite all the pro-mask science being based on in-the-heat-of-the-moment research done in the middle of a highly politicized pandemic.
Prior to all this, the science on masks was completely inconclusive. And there was literally no research done on the effectiveness of shutting down large swaths of human life for more than a year. Though it shouldn't take an expert to deduce that it has profound negative impacts on economic, social and mental health.
We are in the middle of a massive, uncontrolled experiment with billions participating without any consent.
The idea that smart well meaning people are supposed all just fall in line and agree with the prevailing groupthink is almost despotic. I shudder to think of what would happen if "the experts" even so much as hinted at it being okay for people to use violence against non believers. It's terrifying, honestly.
With any luck, we will learn some things that will help us deal better with the next pandemic.
Then say that. Saying that masks work is a lie. The truth is nobody really knows.
Public health officials are treating the people they work for like children. Public health officials are not our parents. We are their customers and they serve us. Big difference.
Texas open up fully a month ago, with only a 5-10% vaccination rate and nothing has happened that was predicted. Even Fauci was stumped when asked why the infection rate wasn't increasing. They're at record low infection rate. Norway and Sweden NEVER shut down or required a mask mandate, and the dire predictions never came true.
Quarantine was wrong, hospital overflow was wrong, the infection rate models were wrong, surface infection was wrong, cloth mask usage was wrong.
Everything was wrong but everyone who obeyed unquestioningly will look like fools if they admit it.
We have to play along with this stupid un-scientific hand-wavy narrative until the media and government decides it's enough, and gently let's the unquestioning acolytes off the hook.