[timr]

"Downplayed the role of masks as a public measure to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 early on (often out of a duplicitous desire to preserve PPE for the medical community, without considering that homemade cotton masks would not reduce PPE supply for medical workers)"

Or maybe you're being deceived now?

Honestly, the evidence for universal masking hasn't changed (recent papers on this have largely been terrible and/or meta-analyses of the same group of papers that were written before the pandemic). There are still a lot of informed, intelligent scientists who have been saying the idea isn't supported by data. The "consensus" on this issue appears to be driven by politicians and media, not by science:

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-...

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia...

[keenmaster]

Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. The evidence for the efficacy of universal, compliant mask-wearing is extremely strong, but there will always be specious studies with contra-claims. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more those studies are amplified, the more confused people are, the less they wear masks, the less their politicians mandate that they wear masks, the more it becomes a political issue, etc...and the less masks do their job, leading to more death and injury. I can't understate the marginal economic injury either. All for what? Seriously, for what? So that people don't put a $5 chunk of cloth on their face to save lives? Good lord. We're talking about a nearly certain enormous gain with very little "cost." There isn't even a real trade-off.

[timr]

"Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. The evidence for the efficacy of universal, compliant mask-wearing is extremely strong,"

Indeed, thank you for providing a wonderful example of "scientism": a blind belief in the conclusions of "science", even when you're presented with ample scientific evidence that disproves your belief.

If your secret evidence is so strong, you should cite it, instead of merely asserting that it exists. I just gave you two incredibly well-sourced articles showing that the opposite is true, and your response is to insult me and claim I'm wrong (without proof).

Michael Osterholm (CIDRAP) and the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based medicine are not crackpot organizations, and the cited articles are reviews of all literature, not "specious studies". In all likelihood, these articles have already discussed the evidence that you believe is compelling.

[keenmaster]

Here is an excellent study with both theoretical and empirical results showing the efficacy and importance of universal mask wearing, even when cotton masks are used (PDF download is in the upper right corner): https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.13553

Institutions involved: University of Cambridge, University College London, Ecole de Guerre Economique, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

As for Michael Osterholm, I don't have much patience for people like him so I won't cite this but you can easily look it up: he clarified his comments and said that people should universally wear masks. Of course, he followed up with strawman arguments, implying that many people have the illusion that COVID would be suddenly be "driven to the ground" if everyone wore masks. He also said that other measures are important. Of course they are.

As for Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine: simply put, they are like a hammer in search of a massive double blind nail. When it becomes more and more clear how tragically incorrect and misguided such organizations are during a pandemic, the "evidence" in their title will suddenly have a sardonic ring to it. Their example will demonstrate that sometimes expertise of a certain kind, if not properly adapted to a new situation, can become an impairment in the new context. Read the discussion at the following link: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

That being said, the University of Oxford in general is a top rate institution. The Oxford Vaccine Group might be first to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine. They're also home to professor and NIH senior investigator Dr. Trisha Greenhalgh, who sharply discussed the limitations of evidence-based medicine during this pandemic at the above link :) Of course, that's evidence-based medicine as a specific category, not the general idea of medicine backed by proof.

[timr]

"Here is an excellent study with both theoretical and empirical results showing the efficacy and importance of universal mask wearing, even when cotton masks are used (PDF download is in the upper right corner)"

This is not a study of masks. First, and most importantly, it assumes that masks work, and makes a model of a world in which they work. From the methods:

"A gradual increase in mask wearing was modelled using a linear increase in the proportion of individuals randomly allocated with a reduced rate of transmission. The factor by which β was reduced was conservatively set to 2."

And for their second model:

"Varying degrees of mask effectiveness are modelled by the mask transmission rate T and mask absorption rate A, which denote the proportion of viruses that are stopped by the mask during exhaling (transmission) versus inhaling (absorption), respectively. We set T = 0.7 and A = 0.7"

So when you make a model that assumes masks reduce infection by half or more, the model shows that infections are reduced. Shocking.

Then, when they say that their models have a "nearly perfect correlation" with reality...they don't actually compare their models to reality, nor do they calculate any correlations. They simply quote a bunch of numbers they cherry-picked from news sites (with no controls or normalizations) classifying countries into "mask-wearing cultures"...which is so obviously silly that any halfway rational person should see right through it. This is a "paper" only in the sense that it might someday be printed on paper by someone who was gullible enough to believe it.

Regarding your comments on the researchers I mentioned: perhaps you should spend more time reading the articles you cite, and less time judging well-established scientists who disagree with your opinions.