[gameswithgo]

>It's not for protecting yourself

It does protect yourself, also.

>There is no hidden agenda, conspiracy or whatever satisfies your imagination.

Early on, the CDC and WHO were both saying NOT to wear masks. The hidden agenda at that time was to prevent a run on masks that might prevent health care workers from having enough. That was the lie.

[SuoDuanDao]

Thank you. The amount of experts who want to suppress that they lied about masks is so powerful it's easy to doubt one's own sanity on this point.

[DanBC]

Your claim is that CDC / WHO lied about the efficacy of masks.

CDC / WHO claim that they didn't have good quality evidence that they could use to recommend mask wearing.

It should be really simple for you to prove your point: post a link to any meta-analsis or RCT of mask wearing that shows a benefit. This would be the evidence that WHO or CDC should have used to make the recommendation but chose to sit on. Before anyone says these studies don't exist: they do, there are lots of studies of mask wearing.

[SuoDuanDao]

They didn't just make no recommendation based on weak evidence. They recommended against wearing them [1].

I'm not sure what your last paragraph is supposed to say. Are you claiming there are lots of studies of mask wearing and the preponderance of evidence is that they don't help?

[1] see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYI6ngjDUBo

[DanBC]

CDC said "don't wear masks". CDC said they had no evidence they could use to recommend mask wearing.

You're claiming they did have the evidence, but they hid that because they were lying about the efficacy of masks.

If you're right it's really easy to prove: post a link to the evidence that masks work. Post a link to any meta-analysis or RCT that shows a benefit of mask wearing.

> Are you claiming there are lots of studies of mask wearing and the preponderance of evidence is that they don't help?

You're claiming that there are studies; that the studies show that masks help; and that the quality of the evidence is strong enough to make a recommendation that everyone should wear a mask.

Post a link to one of these studies.

(This, btw, is a common theme in these threads. Everyone says these studies exist, no-one ever posts a link to them. The only time someone did post a link i: the study was published June 2020 and ii: it didn't say what they thought it said).

[SuoDuanDao]

The synopsis of existing evidence I formed my opinion on, conveniently enough for you, was on Slatestar Codex.

If these studies don't exist, why are there recommendations to wear masks now? Were they done in the intervening months?

Edit: And why, when I ask you to clarify what you mean, do you instead try to tell me what _I_ am saying?

[scoutt]

> It does protect yourself, also.

True, but not 100% accurate. You can get it also through your eyes, or by touching something infected like a door knob and touching your eyes or mouth.

> CDC and WHO were both saying NOT to wear masks

I believe they were saying to not rush and PURCHASE masks, that is different to say "NOT to wear masks". It was the period they were appealing to common sense: to keep a distance from others and cough in a kleenex or in your arm, and stay at home.

[gameswithgo]

Quote from WHO in May:

>If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19," the WHO guidelines read.

That was the early advice, countries with experience in pandemics like Korea knew this was bad advice. Seems to have been generally common knowledge that wearing masks reduces the chance of both contracting and spreading, which is why doctors wears masks

[scoutt]

I think you refer to this: https://www.facebook.com/WHO/posts/2953744821337548

Also: "Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing"

They don't say "NOT to wear masks", as you said earlier. These are 2 different messages.

[SuoDuanDao]

Various local administrations (at least here in Canada) did, justifying it by saying you'd be more likely to touch your face to adjust it. It was simply a misinformation campaign to avoid supply shortages but the resulting erosion of trust is hard to counteract.