[timr]

The Masks4all paper (your link) is neither credible, nor is it a study. It should never have been published.

It is a mashup of a literature review with a bad methodology, and a simulation that adds no new information to the debate. It excludes and/or minimizes randomized clinical trial data when that data doesn't support the desired narrative.

For those who might read this later, the Cochrane collaboration published a high-quality review of masking literature:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

[Sporktacular]

That's one paper out of dozens, feel free to pick another.

“Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” Dr. Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, said in a March 10 statement. https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-what-the-cochrane...

It's not particularly conclusive, whereas many other sources point to a small increase in protection. Which is important at scale.

[NoPie]

>> That's one paper out of dozens, feel free to pick another.

It is not. It is the review of all available evidence (studies).

[timr]

I picked one. Did you read it, or did you just read the factcheck.org link?

[Sporktacular]

I read a few, none of which seem to be above some criticism. Which is why I'm inclined to let more qualified people synthesise and summarise it all. You however seem certain that you know better than the consensus which is that there is a small advantage to mask usage. But you haven't demonstrated why. Are you an epidemiologist? Serious question.