If masks were effective, we should see a significant effect between places that mandated masks and those that didn't. There is no discernable difference.

LA and Orange counties are right nextdoor to each other. Orange County dropped mask requirements for indoor dining and shopping long before L.A. County. Did everyone in OC die?

There are no peer reviewed randomized controled studies that show masks proving to be effective in preventing the spread of a respiratory virus in a population. None.

@BDair
For obvious reasons. You can’t knowingly risk the lives of human beings by exposing them to a deadly virus.

But if the ethically available evidence pointed to a benefit in mask-wearing, would you happily wear one?

If you believe your mask works, you can wear one to protect yourself. Knowing full well that there was very little chance of this so called 'deadly virus' having any serious consequences for me, I will take my chances. There have always been effective protocols for prevention and treatment.

@BDair
That we each do our own thing is fair and understandable. But wherever I see people propagating what I think is dangerous misinformation, I'm likely to engage... for the purpose of either finding out that I have been wrong, or that the other person has been. There can happily be many different responses to reality, but there is only one reality. If I'm seeing it incorrectly, I'd like to find out. But I'm more swayed by evidence than by opinion.

So my question stands. If hard, irrefutable, scientific evidence from sources you trust said mask wearing was effective, would you wear one?

@BDair
Why are you happy to take advantage of the respected reputation of medical authorities in name-dropping "the CDC's own data" but then pretend you have no respect for the CDC by acting as if their experienced professional interpretation of the data is less reliable than your inexperienced amateur interpretation of it? Why not just collect your own data? Why not deny that the CDC is even competent to collect data? Is the CDC reliable or is it not? Are you a credentialed medical professional or are you not? You and I both depend for our information on sources we deem more capable than ourselves. You - the CDC when convenient, and otherwise conspiracy-slinging rightwing propaganda outlets on rando internet sites. Me - I realize no authority is perfect. They are made of humans. But I understand the psychology behind the appeal of conspiracy psychosis. I'll take my chances with the trained, experienced, medical professional individuals and institutions, who are most likely doing the best they know how under difficult circumstances, and whose data AND interpretations actually seem to add up when I examine them.

Every source you disagree with is a 'Right Wing Conspiracy' site. That is objectivity. I actually cite from credentialed sources and experts that are able to scour the medical and scientific literature and distill it down and offer an interpretation that I can understand. I have many sources of information. They are not all in total agreement on every aspect, so certainly I follow my personal bias at times, as everyone does.

@BDair
Maybe elsewhere you do. In this post you reference TownHall or some such. It is a 'Right Wing Conspiracy' site. Where you reference other sources, you take what you find supportive of your narrative and deny the legitimacy otherwise. Be well, friend.