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%.
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.
Americans summed up in a sentence.
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".