[thecupisblue]

You are looking at it too shallowly, you need to observe multiple dimensions. As someone mentioned, quality of the study in 1919 is quite questionable. But in 1919, population density was way different.

Average home was about 5 people, now its about 2.5. US has about 8 times more households than back then. Back then, there were 9 areas that had population between 500k-1 million. Now, theres about 40 in that category and about 40 in above 1 million category.

Why take a look at this data? Because it shows you what happened - less people inside, more people outside. There are more external centres of congregation than we had before - more malls with more people, more bars, more shops. The chances are you will encounter 5-10 times more people than back then on your way to the store, and thats a low guesstimate.

Edit: My point is, masks outside are now way more necessary than in 1919 when in mid-high populated areas.

[tartoran]

Sure but what harm can masks do? Why are people so vehemently refusing to wear them? I don’t get it really

[rascul]

Some of the complaints I hear are difficulty breathing, and fogging up glasses. Seems to me that in such cases a different mask design might suffice. Some also believe that the masks aren't useful, so don't bother.

[Fnoord]

I suffer from both problems (fogging up glasses and difficult to breath) but I still prefer to wear a mask. It just means I go less to places where its mandatory to wear one. Which means I go out less, which is statistically good to combat the pandemic. My mother does the very same, except she's a risk group while I'm not. As does my partner. n=3 but I doubt we're alone. Even in a seemingly unlikely way such as this indirect example, masks work.