PerunaPunch wrote:
The CDC has been all over the map, and they have changed their position over time on issues such as mask wearing. The fact that CDC guidance has changed from "no evidence that masks will protect from COVID", to wear a mask, to various other mask(s) + vaccine combinations, demonstrates that "science" isn't always correct
Sorry to bring this old one back but the mask communication was never "If you wear a mask you are protected from disease" because masks were built with the #1 priority to catch water droplets coming out ya face. It can catch negligible amounts going in, a nonzero amount, but it's not the primary purpose. Masks were for if you were pre or asymptomatic it will catch your rona spitballs.
Example: let's say if left unchecked it would be a hypothetical 100% infection rate. If hypothetically a mask would catch 80% of someone's water drops going out and prevent 5% going into your own mouth or nose then the masks have an effectiveness of:
100% x .2 x .95 = 19%
1 mask only on infected person is:
100% x .2 = 20%
All psuedo random numbers but the idea is that as long as the unknowing infected person had theirs on then you'd be less likely to catch it but if only you had one on then you're still getting it pretty much.
The last point of """"""""science""""""" being incorrect is actually an apt conclusion to make. If new evidence rears its head and the knowledgebase and responses were not adjusted then it wouldn't be science. It would be ritual. If you want to speak against science then that's not the homerun you think it is.