@Kropotkin See? There’s the rub. When a scientist starts making public statements concerning how this virus acts, what the best course of action for us to take should be, etc, then I would say they better damn well have the research and facts behind them. They are representing the scientific community. They are epidemiologists and ought to be able to speak from a position of knowledge and authority. When they don’t, but make grandiose statements anyways, then they are playing politics and trying to manipulate things the way they, or their handlers, want.
Let’s take your citations as perfect examples. Your first one, from medrxiv.org starts with this statement: “This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.” Yet here you are, trying to use it as proof. It has not been evaluated. You were not on previous discussions on this topic, but I posted numerous studies, some from the CDC, that WERE evaluated and approved, that showed mask usage has no obvious impact whatsoever. There are specific masks that HAVE been verified to have an impact on reducing impact. But the key here is that ONLY those masks were verified and often those masks have to be fitted to the wearer.
Let’s look at your second citation. This supports exactly what I am saying. Here is a quote from your citation: “Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). ” Please note that they separate out the N95 or similar respirators from disposable surgical masks or those other things most people use as masks. The N95 mask are designed to stop viruses better. How many people actually wear them? This citation doesn’t really support the crap masks most people wear. Yet our medical experts are saying they are just as good. Where is the support for this?
Your third citation has this jewel in it:
“Although the aforementioned studies support the potential beneficial effect of masks, the substantial impact of masks on the spread of laboratory-diagnosed respiratory viruses remains controversial [6]. Smith et al. indicated that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 masks are superior to surgical masks in protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings [7]. Another meta-analysis suggested that facemask provides a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.16–1.71, I2 = 48%) against the 2009 influenza pandemic [8]. Xiao et al. concluded that masks did not support a substantial effect on the transmission of influenza from 7 studies [6]. On the contrary, Jefferson et al. suggested that wearing masks significantly decreased the spread of SARS (OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.25–0.40; I2 = 58.4%) [9]. ” So there are POTENTIAL beneficial effects of masks, but specific studies show this isn’t really true and also that there is contradiction
By the way, another example of the politicization is seen in this article that our medical expert did, in fact, tell us stuff that wasn’t true for political reasons. He was trying to mold public reaction.