seattle prattle wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
He couldn't possibly say that regardless of what the study found. It is one study. Point being, follow safety regulations and don't cherry pick your data.
And if you read the results, the group that wore that was recommended to wear the masks had a 26% less infection rate.
Did you even read it? Do you understand it and its limitations or do you just go around looking for tidbits that support your anti-masking narrative?
You say this, you insult someone, by using your own set of "tidbits" that support your own baseless narrative. The reality is that masks can certainly reduce the number of virus particles people may spew and breath in, but there is little evidence this in the general public does anything to mitigate spread of disease. It only really works in the hospital setting where people are working face to face with the ill. This is no the same as the grocery store or a restaurant, or a park, or church. Personally I think tht any help masks in public may provide is so minimal that it is not worth the cost of the masks themselves, nor the mild health consequences of wearing them all day or the psychological consequences of never seeing a facial expression. There is no value in it, nr was there values in the business/school shutdowns that occurred. It was a ll a farce that went against all conventional practice, wisdom and reason. A narrow minded, selfish and paranoid/opportunistic knee-jerk response by stupid elite members of society.