There's evidence that suggests it doesn't do much. (acpjournals.org)
[There's evidence that suggests it doesn't do much.](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817)
Nice source, bud:
Study in Danish.
Randomized
It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.
Results came from Surveys LOL.
gj
Nice source, bud:
Study in Danish.
Randomized
It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.
Results came from Surveys LOL.
gj
You don't like the Danish?
Randomized Control Trials are considered reliable.
Yeah, people can lie on surveys, but in a study of this magnitude, it's not an uncommon method.
It's peer reviewed and published.
What's your justification for enforcing it on all people? Common sense?
You don't like the Danish?
Randomized Control Trials are considered reliable.
Yeah, people can lie on surveys, but in a study of this magnitude, it's not an uncommon method.
It's peer reviewed and published.
What's your justification for enforcing it on all people? Common sense?
(post is archived)