I'm not saying that masks don't work. But whether they are effective at reducing transmission and, if so, in what measure are open questions. The literature is at this point inconclusive[1]. Even the latest Lancet paper on masks and distancing attracted some criticism[2].
Of course,I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, as the BMJ post I quoted earlier says, instead of just saying "wear a mask", the best idea would also promote trials to verify their effectiveness (like the Danish trial). It's done all the time for drugs, why not masks?
"missing the compounding effect"
- What about the compounding effect of numerous people putting a plague vector directly on their respiratory system?
"Mistaking Absence of Evidence for Evidence of Absence"
- The argument isn't that because there's no evidence it's guaranteed to not work. The argument is that without solid evidence constitutional rights should not be infringed.
Of course,I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, as the BMJ post I quoted earlier says, instead of just saying "wear a mask", the best idea would also promote trials to verify their effectiveness (like the Danish trial). It's done all the time for drugs, why not masks?
[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-...
[2] https://pubpeer.com/publications/6AF113CE946CABB0FBB811697E5...