Um, the John Hopkins report by economists is not the same as the Cochrane report. You listed them both and I addressed them separately. Did you not even read them?
And yes, Cochrane studies are generally among the best and most respected, but this one fell short.
The Cochrane Collaborative's review of masks to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses suggests deeper problems with the EBM paradigm.
www.respectfulinsolence.com
We asked Prof. Jason Abaluck, who co-authored a landmark randomized trial of mask promotion in Bangladesh, what conclusions we can draw from the recent Cochrane Review—and what the evidence says about the effectiveness of masks.
insights.som.yale.edu
Wait, what? The report you link to is a meta study, a study of studies, not a RCT study. Do you read your links? This one said that there was insufficient data to draw conclusions.
From your link above: "The researchers stress, however, that the results of this work – which is yet to be peer-reviewed or published in a scientific review – cannot be extrapolated to
other environments, such as a cinema or shopping mall. "
Do you understand what that means or should someone explain it to you?
Cite?
Too bad we did not test and quarantine, in addition to masks.
The Cochrane report did not "fall short". You literally linked to a blog post of some guy saying it is a "fiasco" --that doesn't mean anything. The report was well-received and is important
You can have a meta-study that is comprised of RCTs --do I really need to point out something that basic?
The Bangladesh study that mask advocates like to cite has huge problems. The researchers did not adjust for correlation, made faulty assumptions, and manipulated numbers. The issues with it are outlined here:
Masks are back in San Diego, California, where the school board has just decreed that students must cover their faces or be barred from setting foot inside a classroom. Never mind that, per CDC statistics and Census Bureau population figures, more than 99.99 percent of children in California...
www.city-journal.org
and to further my point, here is a survey of RCT studies involving masks and influenza
Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review - Volume 138 Issue 4
www.cambridge.org
look specifically at table 1 and 2
I can literally post another 50 RCT studies that have similar conclusions.
so you are wrong, and this is why:
1. The evidence from RCT studies, scientists, etc. is overwhelmingly in support of the claim that neither surgical or N95 masks stop the spread of influenza/SARS/COVID. Just because a handful of studies come to a different conclusion (most of them non-RCT, non-peer-reviewed, or deeply flawed) does not mean we start claiming masks work--they don't.
2. From observed experience and data, we say that all over the world, the infection rate of COVID-19 was not slowed or stopped by masks. The Spanish school study formally confirms this. Texas had very few mask mandates and very low compliance. California had strict mask mandates for over 2 years. California had 4 million more COVID-19 cases than Texas.
3. Dr. Fauci himself claimed in 2020 "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material" --and later tried to retract this statement after getting political pressure
My son caught COVID in a college classroom where everyone was masked and vaccinated.
you can believe what you want, but the political left has latched on to this mask thing and won't let it go, no matter the amount of evidence that is shown to them. A mask is a political / ideological statement, or a "MAGA hat for leftists"
