Masks with close to zero efficacy according to a systematic review of 78 studies by Cochrane:
Where do you get thst from.. their original version quite clesrly states what i said. Ut people misinterprited what they said to erroneously claim they meant what you said.. so they are changing the wording to be more explicit so people like you dont try and put words in their mouth like you did.
@vixxo @post @freemo @feld Yeah I'm sure that's true; just like before administering a flu test one always puts on n95 respirators/etc. And gets trained to do it properly. I think it's clear that is helpful in reducing spread.
That doesn't mean surgical masks or cloth masks protect against these diseases, or me re-using a surgical mask that I leave in my car for a few days is at all a good idea.
@ech @post @freemo @feld The only 2/78 studies included in that MA about masks and covid shows masks work. They also included a Danish paper that apparently ignore the bidirectional cover from masks. Moreover the whole analysis is about policies and they clearly state about adherence. A bad application of a policy doesn't prove it doesn't work. @post here is mixing up on topics to avoid the specific issues. That way to claim proofs could demonstrate everything.
Except the vaccines do work, what you mean to say (if your being accurate, which you probably arent) is they dont work as well as the vaccines we are used to, they behave more like flu vaccines do, reducing risk significantly and having that protection fade with time, and without being able to establish a strong herd immunity as easily as with other vaccines (and perhaps not at all).
Virions cannot be isolated physically but are believed to cause disease by inference and I recognize that evidence. If you stop misusing the term "isolate" maybe people would stop emphasizing that they can't be isolated as if that would make a big difference. The misunderstanding is caused by those who use this improper term.