Even the pro-mask "science" (actually just statistics) suggest that 21 days after a mask mandate the cases are only 2% lower than they would be without*. Since 21 days is a couple of transmissions it's safe to say that masks are only at best 1ish percent effective. I really don't understand people that thinks 99% danger is fine but 100% danger is unacceptable.
*and while it could be argued that this only measures the mandate which people may not follow, I'm in a very red area and compliance is near 100%.
"It's super dangerous and lethal... But, you know, not SO lethal that we can't keep operating a THEME PARK."
Even the pro-mask "science" (actually just statistics) suggest that 21 days after a mask mandate the cases are only 2% lower than they would be without*. Since 21 days is a couple of transmissions it's safe to say that masks are only at best 1ish percent effective. I really don't understand people that thinks 99% danger is fine but 100% danger is unacceptable.
*and while it could be argued that this only measures the mandate which people may not follow, I'm in a very red area and compliance is near 100%.
Yeah. Masks add to depression, muscle weakness, body development issues, increased risk of stroke, heart attack, pneumonia.
All for a 1-2% decrease in transmisson in something not all that dangerous.
" not all that dangerous"
What about all the people that died?
What about them? They were old, weak and unhealthy. They would have died to anything.
Vending machines are not all that dangerous, and yet cause hundreds of deaths a year despite not being in nearly as much contact with people.
"Not all that dangerous" does not mean "perfectly 100% safe".