Coronavirus Thread

[Farrington fox]

10 minutes ago, kyleolly said:

Are there 10s of thousands nhs staff unvaxed, I'm not sure, most were pressured in to getting it early doors.

There was a piece in several papers only a few weeks ago, the one I read was the Telegraph, who claimed there could be around 100k. So who knows.

[Legend_in_blue]

6 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

There was a piece in several papers only a few weeks ago, the one I read was the Telegraph, who claimed there could be around 100k. So who knows.

There was an early study within the Leicester Hospitals Trust I believe.  Take up wasn't above 65%?  Can't remember the exact figure but it wasn't great.

[WigstonWanderer]

The lunatics appear to have taken over this particular asylum.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, shade said:

@leicsmac This is the more the kind of thing I was railing against, rather than the scientific method. I suppose I was trying to suggest that it's corrupted by the people surrounding it? Does it really encourage scientific debate when you know your career could be destroyed?

 

 

 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10324873/Emails-reveal-Fauci-head-NIH-colluded-try-smear-experts-called-end-lockdowns.html

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116

Others have taken on the topic of the Great Barrington Declaration before I got the chance to, but I largely agree with them.

"

The only thing I'll add is that, yet again, the viewpoint of scientific consensus means more in terms of fact than that of a few experts in the field. If they are correct, they will be confirmed as such by their peers - that's the way the scientific method works.

[Spiritwalker]

After avoiding this for 2 years and being triple jabbed I thought maybe I wasn’t going to be affected,

however after having cold like symptoms today I’ve done  a couple of lateral flow tests which have 

come back positive.

 

[leicsmac]

Anyhow, to allay the last couple of pages of discussion, something of a list for those who might be watching but not actively participating in discussion here:

 

1.) There is a marked difference between society taking measures to protect itself from unvaccinated people and "mandatory vaccinations".

 

What is happening is measures based on the former, not the latter. Freedom of choice cuts both ways.

 

2.) A surgical mask helps prevent the spread of Covid, N94 masks vastly help prevent spread of Covid, cloth masks may or may not help.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293

 

These are peer-reviewed, real-world studies - there's not much more to say.

 

3.) The words of a single expert, no matter how eminent, is not worth more in terms of scientific "fact" than that of peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

 

There is an awful lot of "cherry-picking" that goes on when it comes to people choosing to believe those "going against the narrative". The simple truth is that these people might be right, but until such time that their peers agree with them and prove them to be so, their words should be taken at face value - interesting viewpoints, but not matters of scientific fact in the same way that peer-reviewed and verified study is.

 

Which leads to...

 

4.) The lack of trust in expertise and the scientific consensus has consequences that extend far beyond Covid.

 

There are individuals and small groups within science who look to subvert scientific findings for their own personal, political or financial gain. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that these people are then found out and discredited by the system of peer review and scientific consensus that is self-correcting. What disproves science? Better science.

 

The problem is that people use the example of these rogues in order to cast doubt on the scientific method itself as corrupt while not considering that it is the very same method that catches and neutralises these rogues. And that has consequences beyond Covid because if enough people buy into that, and disregard scientific fact (as we know it now) as arrived at by the scientific method, then policymakers will do the same (albeit they may do so anyway). And that, when faced with a natural crisis that doesn't indulge anything but facts, could be devastating for human future. I have no doubt that a significant proportion of Covid deaths and long-term illnesses are a direct result of the people involved disregarding scientific fact in this case and paying dearly for it - both themselves and those around them (sometimes). And Covid, for all the disruption it has caused, is (comparatively) mild compared to what the Earth can deliver to us - and what it may already be delivering to us in the form of climate change. Enough people disregarding that in the same way as Covid, and we may well end up with a billion people either dead or homeless refugees because of lack of food and potable water.

 

Trust in the scientific method and the collective (rather than individual) actions of those who work on it is, quite frankly, critical to future human survival and I would ask everyone here, please, pretty please with fvcking sugar on top, to take the findings it comes up with as people trying to help you and the future, not harm you.

 

A related find:

 

 

I think that's about it, really, but one last thing.

 

The virus (and by extension the natural world) is our main enemy here, not other parts of humanity (as malevolent as some might be), scientific fact and knowing as much about it as possible to take action against it is our best weapon against it, and in matters of natural disaster we either take them on united, or they pick us off piece by piece divided.

 

We are the only species that we know of to have the intellectual capacity to identify the difference between the two. History is full of fossil records of animals that chose the latter.

 

So, please...let humanity be smart enough to be the former.

[shade]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Anyhow, to allay the last couple of pages of discussion, something of a list for those who might be watching but not actively participating in discussion here:

 

1.) There is a marked difference between society taking measures to protect itself from unvaccinated people and "mandatory vaccinations".

 

What is happening is measures based on the former, not the latter. Freedom of choice cuts both ways.

 

2.) A surgical mask helps prevent the spread of Covid, N94 masks vastly help prevent spread of Covid, cloth masks may or may not help.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293

 

These are peer-reviewed, real-world studies - there's not much more to say.

 

3.) The words of a single expert, no matter how eminent, is not worth more in terms of scientific "fact" than that of peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

 

There is an awful lot of "cherry-picking" that goes on when it comes to people choosing to believe those "going against the narrative". The simple truth is that these people might be right, but until such time that their peers agree with them and prove them to be so, their words should be taken at face value - interesting viewpoints, but not matters of scientific fact in the same way that peer-reviewed and verified study is.

 

Which leads to...

 

4.) The lack of trust in expertise and the scientific consensus has consequences that extend far beyond Covid.

 

There are individuals and small groups within science who look to subvert scientific findings for their own personal, political or financial gain. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that these people are then found out and discredited by the system of peer review and scientific consensus that is self-correcting. What disproves science? Better science.

 

The problem is that people use the example of these rogues in order to cast doubt on the scientific method itself as corrupt while not considering that it is the very same method that catches and neutralises these rogues. And that has consequences beyond Covid because if enough people buy into that, and disregard scientific fact (as we know it now) as arrived at by the scientific method, then policymakers will do the same (albeit they may do so anyway). And that, when faced with a natural crisis that doesn't indulge anything but facts, could be devastating for human future. I have no doubt that a significant proportion of Covid deaths and long-term illnesses are a direct result of the people involved disregarding scientific fact in this case and paying dearly for it - both themselves and those around them (sometimes). And Covid, for all the disruption it has caused, is (comparatively) mild compared to what the Earth can deliver to us - and what it may already be delivering to us in the form of climate change. Enough people disregarding that in the same way as Covid, and we may well end up with a billion people either dead or homeless refugees because of lack of food and potable water.

 

Trust in the scientific method and the collective (rather than individual) actions of those who work on it is, quite frankly, critical to future human survival and I would ask everyone here, please, pretty please with fvcking sugar on top, to take the findings it comes up with as people trying to help you and the future, not harm you.

 

A related find:

 

 

I think that's about it, really, but one last thing.

 

The virus (and by extension the natural world) is our main enemy here, not other parts of humanity (as malevolent as some might be), scientific fact and knowing as much about it as possible to take action against it is our best weapon against it, and in matters of natural disaster we either take them on united, or they pick us off piece by piece divided.

 

We are the only species that we know of to have the intellectual capacity to identify the difference between the two. History is full of fossil records of animals that chose the latter.

 

So, please...let humanity be smart enough to be the former.

Again I don't really disagree with this. You'll struggle to find many experts in their field who think that the earth is flat, but the fact is I have listened to many, many experts in their field (some amongst the very best), who have legitimate questions on topics surrounding this issue.

[shade]

 

43% of covid cases in hospital in NY were admitted for a different reason.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, shade said:

Again I don't really disagree with this. You'll struggle to find many experts in their field who think that the earth is flat, but the fact is I have listened to many, many experts in their field (some amongst the very best), who have legitimate questions on topics surrounding this issue.

...hence the debate, yes. Which is welcomed.

 

However the proviso must be that while questions are fine, actions should be taken according to the scientific consensus at the time.

 

To be honest, however, when it comes to matters of public action and policymaking things are much more divided than in the scientific field alone, simply because other motivations besides data come into play. Of course, some of those motviations (legal and economic being two) are pretty damn important, but put simply a divided response to a natural event of significant enough magnitude has the power to render both legal and economic systems irrelevant because there will be next to no society left in which they can operate.

 

Yes, I'm dwelling on doomsday scenarios here. Again. But someone must, lest we run into one without even knowing it might happen or (more likely) with the clarion call "that couldn't/won't happen!".

Edited 8 January 2022 by leicsmac

[shade]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

...hence the debate, yes. Which is welcomed.

 

However the proviso must be that while questions are fine, actions should be taken according to the scientific consensus at the time.

 

To be honest, however, when it comes to matters of public action and policymaking things are much more divided than in the scientific field alone, simply because other motivations besides data come into play. Of course, some of those motviations (legal and economic being two) are pretty damn important, but put simply a divided response to a natural event of significant enough magnitude has the power to render both legal and economic systems irrelevant because there will be next to no society left in which they can operate.

 

Yes, I'm dwelling on doomsday scenarios here. Again. But someone must, lest we run into one without even knowing it might happen or (more likely) with the clarion call "that couldn't/won't happen!".

Have you seen Don't look up? It's a bit naff, but its pretty much exactly what you're talking about.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, shade said:

Have you seen Don't look up? It's a bit naff, but its pretty much exactly what you're talking about.

I have indeed.

 

It is naff and extremely heavy-handed in its satire and given the cast and premise I doubt it will convince people who need to be convinced about it all.

 

But the issue it covers is indeed real, deadly real, in fact, and really really requires a solution - but I think one that allows for human nature, rather than trying to directly change it, simply because the latter doesn't really work, history has enough examples of that.

[Soup]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Anyhow, to allay the last couple of pages of discussion, something of a list for those who might be watching but not actively participating in discussion here:

 

1.) There is a marked difference between society taking measures to protect itself from unvaccinated people and "mandatory vaccinations".

 

What is happening is measures based on the former, not the latter. Freedom of choice cuts both ways.

 

2.) A surgical mask helps prevent the spread of Covid, N94 masks vastly help prevent spread of Covid, cloth masks may or may not help.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293

 

These are peer-reviewed, real-world studies - there's not much more to say.

 

3.) The words of a single expert, no matter how eminent, is not worth more in terms of scientific "fact" than that of peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

 

There is an awful lot of "cherry-picking" that goes on when it comes to people choosing to believe those "going against the narrative". The simple truth is that these people might be right, but until such time that their peers agree with them and prove them to be so, their words should be taken at face value - interesting viewpoints, but not matters of scientific fact in the same way that peer-reviewed and verified study is.

 

Which leads to...

 

4.) The lack of trust in expertise and the scientific consensus has consequences that extend far beyond Covid.

 

There are individuals and small groups within science who look to subvert scientific findings for their own personal, political or financial gain. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that these people are then found out and discredited by the system of peer review and scientific consensus that is self-correcting. What disproves science? Better science.

 

The problem is that people use the example of these rogues in order to cast doubt on the scientific method itself as corrupt while not considering that it is the very same method that catches and neutralises these rogues. And that has consequences beyond Covid because if enough people buy into that, and disregard scientific fact (as we know it now) as arrived at by the scientific method, then policymakers will do the same (albeit they may do so anyway). And that, when faced with a natural crisis that doesn't indulge anything but facts, could be devastating for human future. I have no doubt that a significant proportion of Covid deaths and long-term illnesses are a direct result of the people involved disregarding scientific fact in this case and paying dearly for it - both themselves and those around them (sometimes). And Covid, for all the disruption it has caused, is (comparatively) mild compared to what the Earth can deliver to us - and what it may already be delivering to us in the form of climate change. Enough people disregarding that in the same way as Covid, and we may well end up with a billion people either dead or homeless refugees because of lack of food and potable water.

 

Trust in the scientific method and the collective (rather than individual) actions of those who work on it is, quite frankly, critical to future human survival and I would ask everyone here, please, pretty please with fvcking sugar on top, to take the findings it comes up with as people trying to help you and the future, not harm you.

 

A related find:

 

 

I think that's about it, really, but one last thing.

 

The virus (and by extension the natural world) is our main enemy here, not other parts of humanity (as malevolent as some might be), scientific fact and knowing as much about it as possible to take action against it is our best weapon against it, and in matters of natural disaster we either take them on united, or they pick us off piece by piece divided.

 

We are the only species that we know of to have the intellectual capacity to identify the difference between the two. History is full of fossil records of animals that chose the latter.

 

So, please...let humanity be smart enough to be the former.

An interesting quote from Stevie Berryman there. She obviously hasn't got round to listening to the endless scientific reports about healthy living. Unless she's big boned? If she is then I'll take that back.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Soup said:

An interesting quote from Stevie Berryman there. She obviously hasn't got round to listening to the endless scientific reports about healthy living. Unless she's big boned? If she is then I'll take that back.

...and?

 

I'm trying to see where the point with relevance to the accuracy of what she said or the rest of the post is here. Some clarification would be appreciated.

[Soup]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...and?

 

I'm trying to see where the point with relevance to the accuracy of what she said or the rest of the post is here. Some clarification would be appreciated.

Isn't she saying that we all should trust the experts?

 

And she's fat so doesn't care what the experts say in this particular field of Science

Edited 8 January 2022 by Soup

[shade]

11 minutes ago, Soup said:

Isn't she saying that we all should trust the experts?

The problem with just "trusting" is that the science changes quickly in situations like this. The experts were obviously telling the government that masks weren't necessary at the start, but that soon changed. The experts said the spike protein stayed in the muscle at the injection site and ridiculed conspiracy theorists who said it travelled through the body, that changed. The experts said the vaccines would more or less stop you catching covid, but new variants soon changed that. The problem is that the situation is so fluid, the science will change quickly.

[danny.]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

2.) A surgical mask helps prevent the spread of Covid, N94 masks vastly help prevent spread of Covid, cloth masks may or may not help.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293

 

These are peer-reviewed, real-world studies - there's not much more to say.

Seems bonkers we don’t have an N94/N95 mandate then!? Why allow “face coverings” where there is a mask mandate if there is no proof they do anything. 

Edited 8 January 2022 by danny.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Soup said:

Isn't she saying that we all should trust the experts?

On matters of science, yes. Or, more accurately, the scientific consensus that experts produce (which isn't exactly conclusive on health and weight btw).

 

No, her being a possible hypocrite in a single rather unimportant aspect of this doesn't invalidate what she is saying, in the same way that what a climate scientist is saying about the climate changing even though they are not personally doing absolutely everything they can to address it.

 

It's:

 

 

fallacy all over again.

 

4 minutes ago, shade said:

The problem with just "trusting" is that the science changes quickly in situations like this. The experts were obviously telling the government that masks weren't necessary at the start, but that soon changed. The experts said the spike protein stayed in the muscle at the injection site and ridiculed conspiracy theorists who said it travelled through the body, that changed. The experts said the vaccines would more or less stop you catching covid, but new variants soon changed that. The problem is that the situation is so fluid, the science will change quickly.

Absolutely. And as such, people and policymakers have to be prepared for changing courses of action as a situation changes. I'm not sure what is wrong or difficult about that. It doesn't stop any new information being the best we have at any one time, nor is it an argument against it being followed at that time.

 

The scientific method is the very opposite of dogmatic, and that's a feature, not a bug. And this, and the reasons why, have been detailed multiple times on here.

 

4 minutes ago, danny. said:

Seems bonkers we don’t have an N94/N95 mandate then!? Why allow “face coverings” where there is a mask mandate if there is no proof they do anything. 

Because, in the case of cloth masks,  precautionary principle.

 

Because, in the case of surgical masks, definitive improvement. 

 

... are people going to chime in on the larger issue of misinformation and the damage it might cause mentioned in the post, I wonder?

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, danny. said:

Seems bonkers we don’t have an N94/N95 mandate then!? Why allow “face coverings” where there is a mask mandate if there is no proof they do anything. 

They are obviously better than nothing and I suspect one of the main reasons for their mandate is to remind you to try and keep your distance from the person near you. It’s human nature to be social - our reflex is generally not to keep away from people. Seeing a mask on them reminds us that we are amidst a pandemic.  I know that there is evidence that some people think a mask protects them and they can get close to others but I’m pretty sure that the first outweighs the second by some distance. 

[Vlad the Fox]

8 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

After avoiding this for 2 years and being triple jabbed I thought maybe I wasn’t going to be affected,

however after having cold like symptoms today I’ve done  a couple of lateral flow tests which have 

come back positive.

 

I’m the same. Woke up yesterday with a scratchy throat, didn’t really think much of it but took a flow test in case, then another, and another, just to make sure  All came back positive. Got positive PCR test back this morning.  

 

Just need to get every fecker out the house today so I can enjoy the footy with a couple of beers this afternoon in peace.  
 

 

[Farrington fox]

Only 61% of over 12’s so far taken the booster, and uptake on a fairly steep downward trajectory. 

[SpacedX]

42 minutes ago, danny. said:

Seems bonkers we don’t have an N94/N95 mandate then!? Why allow “face coverings” where there is a mask mandate if there is no proof they do anything. 

Because as our libertarian back benchers are continually bleating on about, the British public are suitably informed to know this and can be relied upon to make their own decisions - which is why you won't ever actually see improvised pieces of cloth or hankerch...hang on, oh well. 

 

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Anyhow, to allay the last couple of pages of discussion, something of a list for those who might be watching but not actively participating in discussion here:

 

1.) There is a marked difference between society taking measures to protect itself from unvaccinated people and "mandatory vaccinations".

 

What is happening is measures based on the former, not the latter. Freedom of choice cuts both ways.

 

2.) A surgical mask helps prevent the spread of Covid, N94 masks vastly help prevent spread of Covid, cloth masks may or may not help.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293

 

These are peer-reviewed, real-world studies - there's not much more to say.

 

3.) The words of a single expert, no matter how eminent, is not worth more in terms of scientific "fact" than that of peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

 

There is an awful lot of "cherry-picking" that goes on when it comes to people choosing to believe those "going against the narrative". The simple truth is that these people might be right, but until such time that their peers agree with them and prove them to be so, their words should be taken at face value - interesting viewpoints, but not matters of scientific fact in the same way that peer-reviewed and verified study is.

 

Which leads to...

 

4.) The lack of trust in expertise and the scientific consensus has consequences that extend far beyond Covid.

 

There are individuals and small groups within science who look to subvert scientific findings for their own personal, political or financial gain. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that these people are then found out and discredited by the system of peer review and scientific consensus that is self-correcting. What disproves science? Better science.

 

The problem is that people use the example of these rogues in order to cast doubt on the scientific method itself as corrupt while not considering that it is the very same method that catches and neutralises these rogues. And that has consequences beyond Covid because if enough people buy into that, and disregard scientific fact (as we know it now) as arrived at by the scientific method, then policymakers will do the same (albeit they may do so anyway). And that, when faced with a natural crisis that doesn't indulge anything but facts, could be devastating for human future. I have no doubt that a significant proportion of Covid deaths and long-term illnesses are a direct result of the people involved disregarding scientific fact in this case and paying dearly for it - both themselves and those around them (sometimes). And Covid, for all the disruption it has caused, is (comparatively) mild compared to what the Earth can deliver to us - and what it may already be delivering to us in the form of climate change. Enough people disregarding that in the same way as Covid, and we may well end up with a billion people either dead or homeless refugees because of lack of food and potable water.

 

Trust in the scientific method and the collective (rather than individual) actions of those who work on it is, quite frankly, critical to future human survival and I would ask everyone here, please, pretty please with fvcking sugar on top, to take the findings it comes up with as people trying to help you and the future, not harm you.

 

A related find:

 

 

I think that's about it, really, but one last thing.

 

The virus (and by extension the natural world) is our main enemy here, not other parts of humanity (as malevolent as some might be), scientific fact and knowing as much about it as possible to take action against it is our best weapon against it, and in matters of natural disaster we either take them on united, or they pick us off piece by piece divided.

 

We are the only species that we know of to have the intellectual capacity to identify the difference between the two. History is full of fossil records of animals that chose the latter.

 

So, please...let humanity be smart enough to be the former.

Is it possible to pin this post and close the thread? It won't then be necessary to go over points three and four in particular, on a thrice weekly basis to largely the same few people for another 22 ****ing months. 

 

Points 1 and 2...I give up. And if wearing a properly fitted approved facemask at the very least in a confined or poorly ventilated shared space offends anyone that much, may I suggest that you make a radical stand - perhaps "cut them up with a pair of scissors", (don't forget to triumphantly declare it on here) and where necessary fashion an impromptu covering out of a serviette at such time that it is mandated by hospitality. 

[shade]

40 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Because as our libertarian back benchers are continually bleating on about, the British public are suitably informed to know this and can be relied upon to make their own decisions - which is why you won't ever actually see improvised pieces of cloth or hankerch...hang on, oh well. 

 

Is it possible to pin this post and close the thread? It won't then be necessary to go over points three and four in particular, on a thrice weekly basis to largely the same few people for another 22 ****ing months. 

 

Points 1 and 2...I give up. And if wearing a properly fitted approved facemask at the very least in a confined or poorly ventilated shared space offends anyone that much, may I suggest that you make a radical stand - perhaps "cut them up with a pair of scissors", (don't forget to triumphantly declare it on here) and where necessary fashion an impromptu covering out of a serviette at such time that it is mandated by hospitality. 

With regards point 3 and point 2 about scientific consensus and not cherry picking, remember when the governments experts on immunisation the JCVI said they didn't recommend injecting 12-15 years olds but they got overruled, follow the science, except when we don't. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-vaccine-teenagers-rejected-jcvi-b1913850.html

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

With regards point 3 and point 2 about scientific consensus and not cherry picking, remember when the governments experts on immunisation the JCVI said they didn't recommend injecting 12-15 years olds but they got overruled, follow the science, except when we don't. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-vaccine-teenagers-rejected-jcvi-b1913850.html

I seem to recall that the science was under review. As in this:

 

1 hour ago, shade said:

The problem with just "trusting" is that the science changes quickly in situations like this. The experts were obviously telling the government that masks weren't necessary at the start, but that soon changed. The experts said the spike protein stayed in the muscle at the injection site and ridiculed conspiracy theorists who said it travelled through the body, that changed. The experts said the vaccines would more or less stop you catching covid, but new variants soon changed that. The problem is that the situation is so fluid, the science will change quickly.

For precisely the reason of this:

 

4 hours ago, shade said:

Again I don't really disagree with this. You'll struggle to find many experts in their field who think that the earth is flat, but the fact is I have listened to many, many experts in their field (some amongst the very best), who have legitimate questions on topics surrounding this issue.

 

[danny.]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

On matters of science, yes. Or, more accurately, the scientific consensus that experts produce (which isn't exactly conclusive on health and weight btw).

 

 

 

Because, in the case of cloth masks,  precautionary principle.

There isn’t conclusive evidence being obese is really unhealthy and means there is far more chance of a multitude of serious conditions including dying from Covid?

 

What do you mean precautionary principle? If they do nothing but give a false sense of security and lead to people touching their face more - then that’s just a negative 

 

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

They are obviously better than nothing and I suspect one of the main reasons for their mandate is to remind you to try and keep your distance from the person near you. It’s human nature to be social - our reflex is generally not to keep away from people. Seeing a mask on them reminds us that we are amidst a pandemic.  I know that there is evidence that some people think a mask protects them and they can get close to others but I’m pretty sure that the first outweighs the second by some distance. 

Not according to the studies posted. And there are negatives to mask wearing as I mentioned above, so it the mask itself has no positives then there is a net negative. We have a mask mandate, why not a masks that work mandate?

[BertFill]

2 hours ago, shade said:

The problem with just "trusting" is that the science changes quickly in situations like this. The experts were obviously telling the government that masks weren't necessary at the start, but that soon changed. The experts said the spike protein stayed in the muscle at the injection site and ridiculed conspiracy theorists who said it travelled through the body, that changed. The experts said the vaccines would more or less stop you catching covid, but new variants soon changed that. The problem is that the situation is so fluid, the science will change quickly.

But that isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a problem. Of course the experts will change what they say as new evidence emerges. That’s exactly how science works, and how it should work. What was said a year ago was the best interpretation of the situation then, based on the evidence then available, what is said now is the best interpretation of the situation now, based on the evidence now available. If there are differences between them it doesn’t necessarily mean that either is wrong (although it is possible that either or both could be), because the situation now was not the situation then.