Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Pat]

You continue to be wrong on this Pat and you've never been able to support your claims with studies which actually support the claims you make about them. Yes, you can ALSO get it from smaller particles, and yes ventilation matters, but that does not mean large particles don't matter and don't transmit it and are not a primary means of transmitting it which can be helped by masks.

Also my wife got it from a supermarket and supermarkets have in fact been one traceable, provable transmission location here in Los Angeles.

But bottom line, masks help to reduce the spread of your larger particles to others, which does in fact pose more risk to others, so pick out a cool one you like and wear it you fucking stubborn partisan fool.

I've linked many studies, including the only large randomized control study on covid-19 and masks (conclusion: masks don't work), and until now you've linked zero. Since you seem to like the CDC, here's a study from May by the CDC that says wearing masks doesn't help with influenza. And here's the European CDC, who in the last month changed from saying masks have zero effect to maybe they have a small effect. It's worth reading, because it's current and tries to summarize the information available prior to the pandemic (universal consensus that masks don't work), to now (a few studies maybe, but so far the data is pretty much crap).

More than 98% of superspreader cases occurred indoors. If large particles were the primary mode of transmission, then there would be more outdoor spread in places like stadiums where people are packed together, which simply hasn't happened.

And yes, supermarkets do spread the disease. So do schools. But both are spreading them at rates far lower than expected. That's the whole point. It's absolutely absurd to argue based on whether cases exist or not, because we're talking about rates of transmission, not about the disease magically disappearing. It's like me saying that masks don't work because I know someone who wore a mask and caught the disease -- that's a garbage argument, whatever side you're standing on.

Your studies are largely focused on protective effects, not on source control. The latter is, admittedly, harder to test (both practically and ethically).

The hamster study looked at source control and concluded it had an effect, but that's a lab study with fuzzy tribbles and cages wearing masks rather than humans in the real world, so at best it's suggestive rather than conclusive. Other theoretical studies, like the handful that look at improper use, suggest the opposite. The studies of the impact of mandates on the infection rates in various areas also include both, and they're highly ambiguous. For every region where the infection rate went down, there's another where it went up, and it seems to largely correspond to preexisting patterns (if it's going up it keeps going up, and vice versa). But it's pretty clear that prior to pandemic, everyone advised against masks, so the early mandates involved going against the consensus, and there's still no clear evidence they have a significant effect. The evidence on whether the disease is spread significantly by large droplets vs. whether it's aersolized is circumstantial, but fairly strong because, thanks to contract tracing, we now have a much better idea how it spreads, and it's much, much higher in situations where there is poor ventilation, and close to zero where there's good airflow. But the generalization of your second point is well taken; there's far too much certainty in public discussion. There's still an awful lot we don't know about the disease.

[jhkim]

But it's pretty clear that prior to pandemic, everyone advised against masks, so the early mandates involved going against the consensus, and there's still no clear evidence they have a significant effect. The evidence on whether the disease is spread significantly by large droplets vs. whether it's aersolized is circumstantial, but fairly strong because, thanks to contract tracing, we now have a much better idea how it spreads, and it's much, much higher in situations where there is poor ventilation, and close to zero where there's good airflow. But the generalization of your second point is well taken; there's far too much certainty in public discussion. There's still an awful lot we don't know about the disease.

Prior to the pandemic, everyone did *not* advise against masks. Among countries that have had the *lowest* death rates like South Korea and Japan, masks were not only recommended by officials, but they were already common practice among the public. The U.S. CDC initially advised reserving masks for health care practitioners, but the U.S. also has one of the highest rates of covid deaths per capita (along with Belgium, Italy, and the UK).

I agree about there being too much certainty. Too many people feel that conversely either (1) masks make them definitely safe and therefore they can be indoors and/or close with others; or (2) masks have no effect therefore they don't wear them at all. The issue of large droplets vs aerosolized is an open question, and it is likely *not* a simple either one or the other. There is a wide range of droplet sizes from less then 1 micrometer to 100 micrometers or more. Aerosolized ​droplets (under 5 micrometers) might be *possible* to carry covid-19, but if larger droplets carry more of it, then infection chances can be decreased. Here are two papers on droplet size, for example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78110-x

The hamster study looked at source control and concluded it had an effect, but that's a lab study with fuzzy tribbles and cages wearing masks rather than humans in the real world, so at best it's suggestive rather than conclusive. Other theoretical studies, like the handful that look at improper use, suggest the opposite. The studies of the impact of mandates on the infection rates in various areas also include both, and they're highly ambiguous. For every region where the infection rate went down, there's another where it went up, and it seems to largely correspond to preexisting patterns (if it's going up it keeps going up, and vice versa).

The problem with studying mask mandates is that it's a study of public behavior and psychology, which is bound to have varying effects. Not everyone obeys the mandate, and even if they do, people may behave in more risky ways by trusting masks too much and/or wear masks improperly (like under the nose, or removing the mask to speak).

There are vanishingly few randomized studies of mask wearing specific to covid-19, because in most places, officials haven't wanted to subject the public to risky randomized trials in the face of the pandemic. Regarding the one you cited earlier...

I've linked many studies, including the only large randomized control study on covid-19 and masks (conclusion: masks don't work) and until now you've linked zero.

You claim this shows that "masks don't work" - but what it specifically shows is that surgical masks (which have no filtration) don't significantly protect the wearer. That doesn't mean that masks don't work, and therefore surgeons should do without masks - or that filtering masks don't have any effect.

I think it's exactly this sort of statement that leads to false certainty. I think there is good reason to think that masks can reduce the spread from people carrying the disease. Even aerosolized particle spread can be reduced by wearing a mask. Particles still spread, but if there are fewer of them going less distance, then the mask can reduce transmission. From the Environmental Research paper earlier:

[Pat]

But it's pretty clear that prior to pandemic, everyone advised against masks, so the early mandates involved going against the consensus, and there's still no clear evidence they have a significant effect. The evidence on whether the disease is spread significantly by large droplets vs. whether it's aersolized is circumstantial, but fairly strong because, thanks to contract tracing, we now have a much better idea how it spreads, and it's much, much higher in situations where there is poor ventilation, and close to zero where there's good airflow. But the generalization of your second point is well taken; there's far too much certainty in public discussion. There's still an awful lot we don't know about the disease.

Prior to the pandemic, everyone did *not* advise against masks. Among countries that have had the *lowest* death rates like South Korea and Japan, masks were not only recommended by officials, but they were already common practice among the public. The U.S. CDC initially advised reserving masks for health care practitioners, but the U.S. also has one of the highest rates of covid deaths per capita (along with Belgium, Italy, and the UK).

No. Mask wearing was widespread in those countries when people got any kind of sniffles, long before covid-19. But it's a social convention, or a form of etiquette, and a cultural difference is not scientific consensus. Even if you can find formal recommendations that recommended wearing masks in every country you mentioned, that's still just a handful, and doesn't change the broad consensus as shown in the scientific literature and agencies like the CDC and the WHO.

And I feel like I'm talking to a child who doesn't understand how population studies are conducted, because anyone else would know that the mere fact that those countries had low death rates doesn't prove anything about masks. Population studies are messy and it's very hard to draw conclusions, because it's extraordinarily difficult to isolate the different factors. One of the leading theories for why the death rates were lower is simple cross immunity: Waves of earlier coronaviruses in the region led to at least partial immunity. If we consider it in the longer term, there might even be genetic adaptations in play. But that's all highly speculative. The truth is, nobody really knows.

The problem with studying mask mandates is that it's a study of public behavior and psychology, which is bound to have varying effects. Not everyone obeys the mandate, and even if they do, people may behave in more risky ways by trusting masks too much and/or wear masks improperly (like under the nose, or removing the mask to speak).

What are you talking about? That's a strength, not a problem. Because it's not a lab study, or a study in a controlled clinical environment like a hospital, it means it's not operating under unrealistic standards that fall down when applied to people who aren't medical professionals working in a very controlled environment with abundant training, resources, and motivation. And if you actually looked at the studies, you would have noticed nearly all of them consider compliance, which has typically been in the 85-95% range. In fact, many of those studies concluded that that voluntary compliance rates are already so high than the possible incremental benefit from a mandate was hard to suss out, or wouldn't amount to anything significant.

You claim this shows that "masks don't work" - but what it specifically shows is that surgical masks (which have no filtration) don't significantly protect the wearer. That doesn't mean that masks don't work, and therefore surgeons should do without masks - or that filtering masks don't have any effect.

Are you really being this disingenuous? That study literally shows that masks have no significant effect. Of course it only applies to the specific circumstances of the study, but it's a 100% accurate statement, and if you had read just the rest of that sentence, you'd have seen that I summarized a bunch of other studies and just called that one out as one of the stronger examples. The rest of the paragraph also covered a bunch other studies looking at masks from different angles, at a very high level, as well.

I've repeatedly, endlessly stated my full position: That mask mandates, which involve cloth masks worn by the public, have no significant effect on reducing the transmission of sars-cov-2. That doesn't mean zero effect. Could be positive; a couple studies suggest it is. But there are others that suggest it's negative, and that masks actually hurt. But either way, the effect is small enough that it's lost in the noise. And yes, that means cloth masks and surgical masks, because those are the masks actually worn by the public. It doesn't mean N95s or respirators, because they're not widely worn by the public (and even if they were, it would be pointless, because the chance any random person will get a good seal is essentially nil). And I've also stated that there are many studies that show that masks work, but they're either testing N95s; or studying mask use in clinical environments like hospitals, where people are rigorously trained and adhere to strict standards, and thus are completely different from Average John or Everyday Kim wearing a mask while juggling groceries, kids, and a budget; or are focused on different diseases. The Danish study is one of the few that tests plausible masks in real world environments and covid-19, and of those is the only large randomized study. And to repeat myself again, since you apparently just decided to ignore it, the regional studies on mask mandates don't care whether the person wearing the mask is spreading the disease or trying to protect themselves.

That can be summarized as "masks don't work" because it coveys the essential information, and typing that every fucking time is ridiculous.

I think there is good reason to think that masks can reduce the spread from people carrying the disease. I think there is good reason to think that masks can reduce the spread from people carrying the disease. Even aerosolized particle spread can be reduced by wearing a mask. Particles still spread, but if there are fewer of them going less distance, then the mask can reduce transmission.

Then what are those good reasons? Those simplistic graphics you and Mistwell love so much are just theoretical models, not evidence. They made sense at the start of the pandemic, when they though the disease was spread by large droplets, but now that we have more evidence, they don't seem to hold up. Aerosolized particles are not significantly reduced by a mask, the particles pass through without being hindered. What can be affected is airflow, a mask can cause air speed to be reduced or redirected, usually around the sides of the mask. But that only affects the transmission of large droplets. Studies show that small droplets quickly spread throughout any enclosed area, and are quickly found in roughly equal concentrations everywhere. It's not about directed transmission, it's about the gradual build of the concentration, which increases the chance someone in the area becomes infected. (It's also about talking; continually opening your mouth and ejecting new particles adds to the concentration faster -- that's another reason people speculate why transmission was so low on the jam-packed Japanese trains, they pressed up against each other, but not chatty.) That's the point of aerosolization, and that explains why masks seem useless while ventilation is important.

[Shasarak]

Prior to the pandemic, everyone did *not* advise against masks. Among countries that have had the *lowest* death rates like South Korea and Japan, masks were not only recommended by officials, but they were already common practice among the public. The U.S. CDC initially advised reserving masks for health care practitioners, but the U.S. also has one of the highest rates of covid deaths per capita (along with Belgium, Italy, and the UK).

NZ bet the Chinese Wuhan virus without mandated masking (except on public transport).

Social distancing seemed to work much better for us.

[Mistwell]

You continue to be wrong on this Pat and you've never been able to support your claims with studies which actually support the claims you make about them. Yes, you can ALSO get it from smaller particles, and yes ventilation matters, but that does not mean large particles don't matter and don't transmit it and are not a primary means of transmitting it which can be helped by masks.

Also my wife got it from a supermarket and supermarkets have in fact been one traceable, provable transmission location here in Los Angeles.

But bottom line, masks help to reduce the spread of your larger particles to others, which does in fact pose more risk to others, so pick out a cool one you like and wear it you fucking stubborn partisan fool.

I've linked many studies, including the only large randomized control study on covid-19 and masks (conclusion: masks don't work), and until now you've linked zero.

Wow, I literally linked to one in the post you were quoting and you cut the link and claimed I didn't link to any.

That, or you managed to reply so quick my link was an edit in the 20 seconds after the post, and you never saw it. In which case, you can go back to the post now to see it.

Bottom line, CDC proof masks help reduce the risk you infect others. Your studies were talking about the protective effect for the person wearing the mask, which ignores the point you were responding to.

[Spinachcat]

The proof that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are worthless has been proven in the real world study called California vs. Florida, or even just in the same areas pre/post the idiot mandates. Of course, anyone who smelled a fart through their face diaper should have figured that one out all by their lonesome.

What's going to get real fun are the dropout rates, suicide rates, addiction rates, long term poverty, academic failure rates and all those other neato-peachy-keen effects we're going to see happen for the next decade because the mass of the so-called "first world" chose security over freedom, and predictably received neither.

Plus we get to see how mRNA experiments work in the wild! Whee!!

And before anyone starts crying that I'm a dreaded anti-vaxxer, allow me to assure you that I absolutely recommend that everyone who wears face diapers and supported the lockdowns should get as many mRNA doses as they can...and then get more.

[Kiero]

Bottom line, CDC proof masks help reduce the risk you infect others. Your studies were talking about the protective effect for the person wearing the mask, which ignores the point you were responding to.

If you were actually ill, and wearing a proper mask, not a filthy rag, of course. Because "asymptomatic transmission" is utter bollocks.

[Pat]

I've linked many studies, including the only large randomized control study on covid-19 and masks (conclusion: masks don't work), and until now you've linked zero.

Wow, I literally linked to one in the post you were quoting and you cut the link and claimed I didn't link to any.

That, or you managed to reply so quick my link was an edit in the 20 seconds after the post, and you never saw it. In which case, you can go back to the post now to see it.

Bottom line, CDC proof masks help reduce the risk you infect others. Your studies were talking about the protective effect for the person wearing the mask, which ignores the point you were responding to.

No I made no such claim. Do you not understand what the words "until now" mean?

As I've pointed out in I think 3 different posts now the studies I referenced were not just talking about the protective effects to the person wearing the mask. The population studies, for instance, look at the overall rise or drop in the infection rate across an entire population. Which, it should be obvious, involves both people infecting others, and being infected themselves. The hamster study I alluded to, while it seems to favor masks (albeit in very artificial conditions that don't seem to hold up given later evidence), explicitly tested and separated out both. There are others, but that's enough to completely repudiate your claim. Ignoring half of what I said and then claiming I didn't say it isn't a valid argumentative technique.

[Mistwell]

The proof that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are worthless has been proven in the real world study called California vs. Florida

They use masks in Florida, and they had a mask mandate for most of the time. Even without a mandate, most people used them.

or even just in the same areas pre/post the idiot mandates. Of course, anyone who smelled a fart through their face diaper should have figured that one out all by their lonesome.

It's not an on/off virus. Exposure to a tiny amount of virus is typically not enough for you to be infected. It's an issue of quantity, often from larger particles. Masks help prevent that from spreading away from your mouth/nose if you're wearing a mask. You know this. You've known this for 9 months.

[jhkim]

The problem with studying mask mandates is that it's a study of public behavior and psychology, which is bound to have varying effects. Not everyone obeys the mandate, and even if they do, people may behave in more risky ways by trusting masks too much and/or wear masks improperly (like under the nose, or removing the mask to speak).

What are you talking about? That's a strength, not a problem. Because it's not a lab study, or a study in a controlled clinical environment like a hospital, it means it's not operating under unrealistic standards that fall down when applied to people who aren't medical professionals working in a very controlled environment with abundant training, resources, and motivation. And if you actually looked at the studies, you would have noticed nearly all of them consider compliance, which has typically been in the 85-95% range. In fact, many of those studies concluded that that voluntary compliance rates are already so high than the possible incremental benefit from a mandate was hard to suss out, or wouldn't amount to anything significant.

I've repeatedly, endlessly stated my full position: That mask mandates, which involve cloth masks worn by the public, have no significant effect on reducing the transmission of sars-cov-2. That doesn't mean zero effect. Could be positive; a couple studies suggest it is. But there are others that suggest it's negative, and that masks actually hurt. But either way, the effect is small enough that it's lost in the noise. And yes, that means cloth masks and surgical masks, because those are the masks actually worn by the public. It doesn't mean N95s or respirators, because they're not widely worn by the public (and even if they were, it would be pointless, because the chance any random person will get a good seal is essentially nil).

You're talking only about the *mandates* here, which I don't see as the main issue. The question most relevant for an individual is "Can masks help reduce the spread?" i.e. Should I wear a mask when going outside if I want to help reduce transmission? My full position is:  "By maintaining reasonable social distancing, wearing masks, and avoiding large groups indoors, people can greatly reduce the spread of covid-19. The exact effect of masks is not well-known, but there is good reason to believe they reduce the range and amount of infectious droplets spread by breathing, coughing, and speaking."

For definite individual behavior, I think the evidence is clearer. The studies clearly show a reduction in amount and range of even small droplets, and these are backed by secondary evidence from population studies (which have limitations, but are still the best information).

Regarding surgical vs cloth vs N95 -- the point is that it's silly to expect a surgical mask, which has *zero* filtration, to offer protection to the wearer. But it can still have benefit of reducing how far the wearer spread droplets, especially if they cough or sneeze. Cloth and N95 masks offer filtration both ways. Having a complete seal for an N95 isn't necessary for it to still have a benefit, which is addressed in the studies I linked.

The question of whether masks should be mandatory or just recommended is secondary, and it is more a public relations and/or rights question than a scientific one. You write many of those studies concluded that that voluntary compliance rates are already so high than the possible incremental benefit from a mandate was hard to suss out. But this is inherently already accepting that the voluntary compliance rates are a benefit. As for what's the best government PR to get people to behave responsibly and reduce spread? I don't know for certain. I'd be interested in different views, and don't have a strong opinion.

[HappyDaze]

The proof that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are worthless has been proven in the real world study called California vs. Florida

They use masks in Florida, and they had a mask mandate for most of the time. Even without a mandate, most people used them.

As a resident of Florida, I can tell you that mask use varied (and still varies) quite a bit. When I went down towards Miami, masks seemed to be everywhere, while around Melbourne it seemed like very few people wore them. In Orlando, mask use was prevalent, but I don't know if I'd say "most people used them" (excepting those visiting medical facilities, where compliance was enforced by armed security).

[jhkim]

The proof that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are worthless has been proven in the real world study called California vs. Florida

They use masks in Florida, and they had a mask mandate for most of the time. Even without a mandate, most people used them.

As a resident of Florida, I can tell you that mask use varied (and still varies) quite a bit. When I went down towards Miami, masks seemed to be everywhere, while around Melbourne it seemed like very few people wore them. In Orlando, mask use was prevalent, but I don't know if I'd say "most people used them" (excepting those visiting medical facilities, where compliance was enforced by armed security).

I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. Comparing different states and countries is always difficult, but what I see is,

Florida has has 32,254 deaths out of population 21.5 million, or 150 per 100K.

California has had 56,546 deaths out of population 39.5 million, or 143 per 100K.

But there are a host of factors besides mask-wearing that differ between both populations.

[Kyle Aaron]

As for what's the best government PR to get people to behave responsibly and reduce spread? I don't know for certain. I'd be interested in different views, and don't have a strong opinion.

There are people who studied this for a long time. Essentially their conclusions are that we need persuasion, education, and engagement with and acknowledgement of people's genuine issues and concerns - rather than coercion, hectoring, etc.

Julia Marcus is a good one to follow on these things, and she's not some right-winger rejecting stuff for the sake of it, she's very lefty, has she/her in her profile, etc. She has a series of articles on these topics at the Atlantic and the one I found most interesting was her comparing the covid restrictions to the "just say no" and "abstinence" approaches with drugs and HIV/AIDS here. For reference, she wrote this in May last year.

In all of these examples, a concern about the promotion of risky behavior masquerades as a concern about health. But in reality, resistance to harm reduction is typically a cloak for moral judgments about what constitutes responsible behavior. When people express worry that PrEP will promote condomless sex, it just reveals their preconceptions about what counts as responsible sex. This bias, in turn, perpetuates stigma, the low uptake of PrEP, and preventable HIV infections. Likewise, a moralistic approach to coronavirus prevention—including shaming anyone whose adherence to social-distancing measures is less than 100 percent—will ultimately fail. If public-health officials assume that guidance on strategies such as seksbuddies or double bubbles will promote risky behavior, they will miss a crucial opportunity to reduce the potential harms of actions that some Americans are already taking.

Instead of moralizing, harm reduction comes from a place of pragmatism and compassion. It accepts that compromises will happen—usually for perfectly understandable reasons—and aims to reduce any associated harms as much as possible.

[Pat]

The problem with studying mask mandates is that it's a study of public behavior and psychology, which is bound to have varying effects. Not everyone obeys the mandate, and even if they do, people may behave in more risky ways by trusting masks too much and/or wear masks improperly (like under the nose, or removing the mask to speak).

What are you talking about? That's a strength, not a problem. Because it's not a lab study, or a study in a controlled clinical environment like a hospital, it means it's not operating under unrealistic standards that fall down when applied to people who aren't medical professionals working in a very controlled environment with abundant training, resources, and motivation. And if you actually looked at the studies, you would have noticed nearly all of them consider compliance, which has typically been in the 85-95% range. In fact, many of those studies concluded that that voluntary compliance rates are already so high than the possible incremental benefit from a mandate was hard to suss out, or wouldn't amount to anything significant.

I've repeatedly, endlessly stated my full position: That mask mandates, which involve cloth masks worn by the public, have no significant effect on reducing the transmission of sars-cov-2. That doesn't mean zero effect. Could be positive; a couple studies suggest it is. But there are others that suggest it's negative, and that masks actually hurt. But either way, the effect is small enough that it's lost in the noise. And yes, that means cloth masks and surgical masks, because those are the masks actually worn by the public. It doesn't mean N95s or respirators, because they're not widely worn by the public (and even if they were, it would be pointless, because the chance any random person will get a good seal is essentially nil).

You're talking only about the *mandates* here, which I don't see as the main issue. The question most relevant for an individual is "Can masks help reduce the spread?" i.e. Should I wear a mask when going outside if I want to help reduce transmission? My full position is:  "By maintaining reasonable social distancing, wearing masks, and avoiding large groups indoors, people can greatly reduce the spread of covid-19. The exact effect of masks is not well-known, but there is good reason to believe they reduce the range and amount of infectious droplets spread by breathing, coughing, and speaking."

For definite individual behavior, I think the evidence is clearer. The studies clearly show a reduction in amount and range of even small droplets, and these are backed by secondary evidence from population studies (which have limitations, but are still the best information).

Regarding surgical vs cloth vs N95 -- the point is that it's silly to expect a surgical mask, which has *zero* filtration, to offer protection to the wearer. But it can still have benefit of reducing how far the wearer spread droplets, especially if they cough or sneeze. Cloth and N95 masks offer filtration both ways. Having a complete seal for an N95 isn't necessary for it to still have a benefit, which is addressed in the studies I linked.

The question of whether masks should be mandatory or just recommended is secondary, and it is more a public relations and/or rights question than a scientific one. You write many of those studies concluded that that voluntary compliance rates are already so high than the possible incremental benefit from a mandate was hard to suss out. But this is inherently already accepting that the voluntary compliance rates are a benefit. As for what's the best government PR to get people to behave responsibly and reduce spread? I don't know for certain. I'd be interested in different views, and don't have a strong opinion.

I don't think masks work. There was basically no evidence for or against at the start of the pandemic, because the previous studies on masks were almost exclusively focused on clinical environments, and most of those just looked at N95s. It wasn't just there was no evidence that masks worked against sars2 in specific, they also had no real evidence that cloths masks worn by the wider public in everyday settings had any effect on respiratory diseases. But sometimes you have to act without knowledge, and they initially assumed covid-19 wasn't aerosolized (in fact, it took a while before they realized it was airborne), and they thought the disease was about 10 times deadlier than it turned out to be, so there was a good argument to support the public wearing masks as a stop gap while the evidence and understanding caught up. But of course, that's when they were telling everyone not to wear masks, and the CDC lied through their teeth about the N95s.

Then a few studies came out like the hamster study that supported the idea that masks did work, which made masks sound like they might have an effect. But they were highly artificial studies, and eventually the weight of evidence shifted as they began to study the effects outside of the lab, for instance in all the population studies. Note that the evidence is still fairly weak; most of the studies are absolute crap, very low on the tiers of evidence based medicine, with weak controls and small data sets; or in the case of population studies, are dealing with a situation where it's notoriously hard to isolate effects, because people and societies aren't particles. That's the main reason I've mentioned the Danish study a couple times, because it's the only real, high quality study (randomized, thousands of participants, etc.). But while the mask studies are heterogeneous and inconclusive, there have been enough of them that the case for masks is very weak and would require strong evidence to budge the dial.

I think mask mandates are absurd. The 90% or so compliance rates when mask wearing was elective makes them pointless, even if mask wearing had a significant effect. But the evidence is against that, so they're pointless on top of pointless. In addition, there's the moral issue. They're a massive intrusion on personal choice, and set a horrible precedent when it comes to the limits of governmental control. The fact that the public has largely acquiesced gives me little hope for the future of free societies. We already don't seem to care about massive surveillance, and basic civil liberties are being eroded. How long before all that's a distant memory? In 100 years, I fully expect the entire world to be controlled by a totalitarian super-state. Mask mandates aren't just bad policy, they're evil. But that's far beyond a covid-19 discussion, because this is just the latest slide down a long, slippery slope already stained a deep brown with skid marks.

I don't think filtration matters, because viral particles contained in aerosolized particles are far too small to be filtered out. As I mentioned before, what masks do is affect the air flow, and catch large droplets. That can stop transmission, if transmission is by large droplets. A mask can break up a sneeze and prevent the beads of snot and water and virii from being blasted across a room, and generally lower the speed of exhalations and redirect them sideways instead of straight forward. But that doesn't seem to be a big mode of transmission. At the start of the pandemic, medical science had a model that disease were either aerosolized, or they were not. That was a false model, and covid-19 helped jump start the realization that aerosolization is a spectrum, with all airborne diseases displaying a spectrum of particle sizes. There still isn't good direct evidence of aerosolization/non-aerosolization for sars2, but the circumstantial evidence is very strong. The seeming lack of spread by surfaces or close proximity, for instance. The nature of superspreader events, the vast majority of which are indoors, and the bias is even greater when it comes to the number of cases (outdoor superspreader events cause far fewer cases than indoor ones). The few cases in Japan, despite the trains. The effectiveness of ventilation. That people talking seems to be one of the major drivers of infection. And on and on. Covid-19 appears not just to be on the aerosolized spectrum, but highly aerosolized, with most infections being caused by viruses suspended in the tiniest of droplets, which can hang in the air for hours or days, and spread quickly (minutes or tens of minutes) through any enclosed area, regardless of their origin point or initial velocity, and which build up over time, as more of them are emitted (and you lose a lot of moisture/small droplets when you keep your mouth open, say to speak). Masks without a perfect seal don't affect that.

[Pat]

As for what's the best government PR to get people to behave responsibly and reduce spread? I don't know for certain. I'd be interested in different views, and don't have a strong opinion.

There are people who studied this for a long time. Essentially their conclusions are that we need persuasion, education, and engagement with and acknowledgement of people's genuine issues and concerns - rather than coercion, hectoring, etc.

Julia Marcus is a good one to follow on these things, and she's not some right-winger rejecting stuff for the sake of it, she's very lefty, has she/her in her profile, etc. She has a series of articles on these topics at the Atlantic and the one I found most interesting was her comparing the covid restrictions to the "just say no" and "abstinence" approaches with drugs and HIV/AIDS here. For reference, she wrote this in May last year.

In all of these examples, a concern about the promotion of risky behavior masquerades as a concern about health. But in reality, resistance to harm reduction is typically a cloak for moral judgments about what constitutes responsible behavior. When people express worry that PrEP will promote condomless sex, it just reveals their preconceptions about what counts as responsible sex. This bias, in turn, perpetuates stigma, the low uptake of PrEP, and preventable HIV infections. Likewise, a moralistic approach to coronavirus prevention—including shaming anyone whose adherence to social-distancing measures is less than 100 percent—will ultimately fail. If public-health officials assume that guidance on strategies such as seksbuddies or double bubbles will promote risky behavior, they will miss a crucial opportunity to reduce the potential harms of actions that some Americans are already taking.

Instead of moralizing, harm reduction comes from a place of pragmatism and compassion. It accepts that compromises will happen—usually for perfectly understandable reasons—and aims to reduce any associated harms as much as possible.

I don't think I agree with her on a lot of the specifics, but I'm firmly behind that kind of approach. As I've said many times, I think the public health messaging during the pandemic has been disastrously bad. Their job -- their only real job -- is to assess threats, and then educate and persuade the public. They failed, and failed at a spectacular level. Though I think it's more than just the hectoring and moralizing, public health also failed to address the uncertainty when it came to a lot of their conclusions (granted, that's hard in the first place, and there's a lot of pressure to do otherwise because the public always wants clear answers even when they don't exist), and they also destroyed the trust the public had in them by lying. The last is probably the worst, because it might be a generation before significant chunks of the public believe them again.