[mikeyouse]

> and you should really read the comments on the article you linked, as well as they meta-analyses I provided on mask effectiveness when it comes to respiratory illnesses in healthcare and community settings.

Unfortunately, Tyler Cowen's blog has worse Covid commentary than even HN does, which is pretty impressive given the amount of HCQ/Ivermectin/bioweapon conspiracy theorizing here.

> Surgical masks in medical settings are designed to protect from bacterial infections, not viral ones.

This is patently untrue.. you're not one of those "virus particles can fit through masks" people are you? As just one example of how obvious it is that masks protect against viruses in HCW from the last SARS outbreak;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112437/

[defaultprimate]

I literally linked several meta-analyses that show it's patently true.

[mikeyouse]

You should perhaps read the studies you've linked a bit closer? When mentioned (as several of them are explicitly about masks in non-healthcare settings) - they all advocate for universal masking in healthcare settings specifically to limit the spread of Covid...

> Although more research on universal masking in heath settings is needed, it is the expert opinion of the majority (79%) of WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members that universal masking is advisable in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community or cluster transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

> 1. In areas of known or suspected community or cluster SARS-CoV-2 transmission, universal masking should be advised in all health facilities (see Table 1).

> All health workers, including community health workers and caregivers, should wear a medical mask at all times, for any activity (care of COVID-19 or nonCOVID-19 patients) and in any common area (e.g., cafeteria, staff rooms).

> Other staff, visitors, outpatients and service providers should also wear a mask (medical or non-medical) at all times

[defaultprimate]

Opinions not supported by empirical evidence are not opinions worth listening to.

"Experts" supported eugenics, antibacterial soap, breakfast cereal, the food pyramid, lobotomies, and all kinds of other things on the basis of popular "consensus"

[mikeyouse]

See now you've gone and boxed yourself into the typical HN corner...

The people making those recommendations are experts in the field and have all read the relevant research. Weighting the good studies vs. the bad ones, measuring evidence, etc. They literally exist to give guidance on world health matters based on the spectrum of results from all these different researchers.

And here you are, telling me that in your opinion, we should ignore their assessment and only trust these few specific papers that you choose to emphasize. (At least you've stopped advocating for ivermectin now?)

A bit of a paradox to get people to rely on your opinion when you've previously said we shouldn't rely on opinions isn't it? Or is it just that you don't like the WHO's opinion on World Health issues because they might be in the pocket of "big surgical mask".

[defaultprimate]

I haven't boxed myself in anywhere, I've maintained the same position throughout.

I'm not telling you anything in my opinion. I'm telling you what the empirical evidence says or doesn't say.

I have not stopped advocating Ivermectin. The empirical evidence shows that it is still an extremely cheap, safe, and correlated treatment demonstrated across populations of billions through a mechanism of action that has been well established.

There's literally no reason not to try it, and there's a reason it's part of treatment regimens across several countries. Its use doesn't involve eroding the liberty of the populace or solidifying absolute power of state. It has virtually zero side effects medically or socioculturally, unlike things like masks or vaccines that have zero long term data