[ggdG]

>The six foot rule was based on what the best understanding of the experts was at the time, and probably saved thousands of lives.

You can't just make up the beneficial effects of something as you go. Can you cite some randomized controlled trials that support your claim?

>Just like forced masking up probably saved tens of thousands of lives.

One year ago, a huge Cochrane meta-analysis of the available RCTs regarding masking has put that idea to bed: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

[felixgallo]

literally quoting from that meta-analysis, which does not include many clinical trials that have demonstrated an impact:

"Key messages We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed."

Example very large study published in a reputable journal: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069?cookieSe...

[ggdG]

>literally quoting from that meta-analysis, which does not include many clinical trials that have demonstrated an impact:

Yes. To their credit, they only looked at randomized controlled trials.

>"Key messages We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed."

In other words: the RCTs don't show an effect to a significant degree.

[felixgallo]

no, it literally says that they do not have a conclusion. You are trying to read it differently because you have an agenda. Please do science instead.