[Radim]

One reference is not like the other.

Take your pick:

> "However, according to medical historians, the decline in deaths from influenza in San Francisco can be partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies."

From a social science piece published in May 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820....

The full quote is "Yet in cities like San Francisco, the decline in deaths from influenza was partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies." It contains no further attribution or references.

> "A study then in 1919 concluded that mandatory mask mandates did not make any difference on epidemic, while observing that a likely reason for their ineffectiveness was that masks were worn outdoors and not inside in gatherings when conditions for transmission would be greatest. It also noted that most masks were improperly constructed of inadequate materials."

Comes from an actual medical study by the California Board of Health, published in 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&vi...

[Gupie]

One is a recent quote from the Lancet, a respected medical journal. The other is from 1919, before the discovery of viruses. But I am not going to argue which holds the most credence. What is concerning though is that the original comment selectly quoted the paragraph that supported their no doubt political opinion while ignoring the other.

[op00to]

Would you agree to getting medical care only supported by what was learned and published by 1919?