>>12271791you didnt read the study properly, did you?
>... mask use averaged 5 hours or less per day or that 50% of participants or less reported regular use>... individuals could therefore get infected outside work, while not wearing a mask, influencing the overall resultslol, sounds solid!
this definitely is good material to quote as an argument to not use a mask!
>There are many potential reasons why RCTs of masks have historically struggled to find statistically significant differenceshere they explain the source of error
good that out of the points give you quote only one, the one that fits your narrative the best
now in the conclusion part :
>Our systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections>limited evidencethats a bit more than the
>no such evidenceyou choose to nitpick
furthermore :
>... but found a possible reduction on the risk of influenzalike illness when masks are used at least a few hours a day by a population in a specific areahmmm, that sounds a bit different from your narrative
>Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial>limited to 1 trialbwahaha! now thats a strong foundation to build a bullshit mountain on
tldr:
you didnt read and nitpicked lines that fit your narrative, the conclusion doesnt support it, also the scientific practices and credibility of this article is questionable.
you didnt went out with the intent to inform yourself but to "prove others wrong".
