[CamperBob2]

(Shrug) I don't require scientific proof of the inverse-square law. It's self-evident to the point of being axiomatic. Standing 6 feet away from a virus source will expose you to about 44% fewer virus particles than standing 5 feet away from one, while not imposing any real hardships in most public interaction scenarios. What's controversial about that?

If you demand precise scientific rigor in all aspects of everyday life, public health is probably not the career field for you.

[Workaccount2]

The same with masks:

Put a water hose on mist and spray someone with it. Then put a cloth over the nozzle and try to spray them. It's self evident yet people just could not grasp it.

[ggdG]

It's "self evident" yet a large Cochrane meta-analysis finds no benificial effect of masks whatsoever:

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

[Workaccount2]

You sure?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abs...

When the medical field phases out masks because they "have no benefit" I will believe that masking was useless. Also keep in the mind that the primary reason for studies showing masks not working is that people don't wear it correctly or at all.

[ggdG]

>You sure? >https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abs...

That's just one RCT. The Cochrane meta-analysis looked at a bunch of them.

>When the medical field phases out masks because they "have no benefit" I will believe that masking was useless.

You're putting the cart before the horse. In an ideal world, guidelines for the medical field are based on scientific evidence. But there's always a delay.

You better consult the scientific evidence to make up your mind.

When it comes to covid and masking, policymakers will wait as long as possible before aknowledging the evidence, because they know the public hasn't forgotten the draconian masking of school kids yet.

[Workaccount2]

If you read the study you would see that they addressed the issue of meta-studies on the topic.

[CamperBob2]

You can find a meta-analysis to prove anything you want.

It is an extraordinary claim that wearing a mask properly does not reduce transmission of viral particles. You'll need to come up with a physical basis for this unintuitive hypothesis if you want to be taken seriously. Then you can point to studies whose results are explained by that hypothesis.

[ggdG]

>You can find a meta-analysis to prove anything you want.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I just rely on the judgement of domain experts.

In this thread I cited Cochrane, The Lancet, SciAm and Science Magazine. If you have more reputable sources, please share them here.

>You'll need to come up with a physical basis for this unintuitive hypothesis if you want to be taken seriously.

It's only unintuitive if you stick to the droplet model. SARS-CoV-2 however spreads like smoke through the air, as I documented already extensively in this post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39234677

[nextaccountic]

Are you saying that face masks are not effective?

[CamperBob2]

He's saying that someone else got to him first. He has a meta-analysis, don't you see.