I have not really addressed my problem with you, specifically. This is primarily because I'm doubtful of anyone on this site taking a discussion seriously and thus it not being worth my time to go into longform conversation, but you might be an exception, so, here we go. That said, I'm happy to revert back to the pithy shit instead of respectful conversation if this goes sideways with you:
You've completely dismissed anything that doesn't agree with you outright, and seemingly refuse to even consider evidence of the *possibility* or *probability* that masks *might* help. The difference in our positions seems to be that you need irrefutable proof before you take an action that *might* protect yourself or your loved ones. That's like refusing to fight an intruder before he's in the house and instead requiring a guilty verdict from a court room before you'd pick up arms, which, like masks, are just tools that are also no guarantee of success. Obviously, I suspect neither you, nor most on this site, would wait for incontrovertible proof in that circumstance, but why would you/they require it in the case of a virus we reasonably perceived as a threat? Also, why have you come to a conclusion at all without irrefutable proof that masks do not work? Your bias seems to be in the standard of proof required for coming to one conclusion instead of its opposite... Or, have you incorrectly concluded from the evidence you've provided that you have irrefutable proof if their ineffectiveness?
You are one of the only or perhaps the only person in this thread even attempting to characterize the antagonism of mask-wearing, mandate-opposed, conservatives like me as reasonable and evidence-based. However, it seems to me that you're confusing 'lack of evidence' from the only cherry-picked studies you'll accept with 'irrefutable evidence' of both ineffectiveness & harm. To an open-minded, reasonable person, this comes across as clearly wrong, at least from what you've provided to this point.
Now, if you actually want to seem reasonable in taking such an affirmative, antagonistic position, then the burden is on you to prove the harm, and therefore the unreasonableness, of mask wearing... not just their ineffectiveness, which you still have not done. It's not good enough that you find studies that fail to find statistically significant evidence that masks help. That's a misunderstanding of statistical results, and that is the area of my expertise (Master's in ORSA). Others studies do find statistically significant evidence of effectiveness and I will continue to provide them here, if for no other reason then the entertainment of stringing out this thread and antagonizing my wanna-be antagonizers, even though you will continue to dismiss them...
Nevertheless, your refutations are still the wrong approach. To rightfully antagonize the reasonable position of attempting to protect oneself and loved ones with masks, you must affirmatively demonstrate statistically significant evidence of unmitigable harm. The closest I have seen here is the claim that the mandate is harmful, with which I am already in agreement. I'm beyond reasonably confident that you cannot demonstrate that properly worn masks are harmful, for if they were, that fact would have been clearly discovered and demonstrable by the millions of medical workers who have worn them correctly every workday for decades. So, at worst-case, I'm neither harming nor helping myself or my family. At best-case I successfully mitigated the transmission of COVID from outside of my home to its inside. Those of your persuasion never tried, and I support the right to do that, but I believe the decision was dubious, particularly if you have health-compromised or elderly family in your home.
Point made, for now.
Today's evidence countering your Cochrane review post:
Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief of the library that commissioned the Cochrane review you cited: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."
www.cochrane.org
So, your turn. Link the studies that suggest wearing masks may be an unmitigable health hazard? To be clear, I don't want you to show me how idiots or populations can harm themselves. I also don't care to argue the socio-political value of pushing back against unwarranted mandates. I want you to show me how I, as an individual, cannot avoid harm despite training and discipline. All I've seen from you so far is suggestions that they haven't been proven to work, and rejections of anything suggesting that they might. The difference is, if you can demonstrate unmitigable harm, meaning training and disciplined use of masks is still harmful, you could actually change my mind. I know I cannot change yours.
med.stanford.edu
