If regression analyses on peer reviewed papers are the only standard, good luck justifying NPI for upper respiratory virus pandemic control measures. Those studies don't exist, because the math doesn't work to support them.
You can question any number of papers as having not been reviewed by people whose opinion you agree with, but the data is there, and asserts what I indicated (also note discussion at link/image below);
If the stringency of lockdowns/NPI's aren't impacting deaths...then everything else being argued about/supporting them is an absurdity/distraction.
The latter articles I referenced (in the post) are pertaining to the flu (influenza). If cloth masks don't work in a healthcare environment...they probably don't work well amongst the public, is the simple/logical conclusion one can draw, though I didn't think I needed to spell it out. The authors of any paper/study/article discussing the lack of efficacy of such public masking will of course be under immense pressure to recant, so their later comments are...unsurprising, as academia is highly political on this point now (as is research funding).
But, the science behind the pre-2020 pandemic management guidelines was much more sound, and less politically driven than the present hysteria. Ultimately, we know the lockdowns have net cost lives, globally via the economic calamities they have directly caused. The impact on hunger alone, has been incredible, yet is wholly ignored in the popular press (something about racism/attitude toward poor africans comes to mind).
There's a great number of reasons why NPI's like lockdowns, contact tracing and masks aren't recommended to control epidemic influenza. It's irresponsible to argue otherwise, given the data (and there are books easily available to understand this, and the seasonality of influenza spread). If the simple application of NPI's doesn't work for influenza mitigation, it's surely less likely to have an impact on a coronavirus' spread.
You can question any number of papers as having not been reviewed by people whose opinion you agree with, but the data is there, and asserts what I indicated (also note discussion at link/image below);
If the stringency of lockdowns/NPI's aren't impacting deaths...then everything else being argued about/supporting them is an absurdity/distraction.
The latter articles I referenced (in the post) are pertaining to the flu (influenza). If cloth masks don't work in a healthcare environment...they probably don't work well amongst the public, is the simple/logical conclusion one can draw, though I didn't think I needed to spell it out. The authors of any paper/study/article discussing the lack of efficacy of such public masking will of course be under immense pressure to recant, so their later comments are...unsurprising, as academia is highly political on this point now (as is research funding).
But, the science behind the pre-2020 pandemic management guidelines was much more sound, and less politically driven than the present hysteria. Ultimately, we know the lockdowns have net cost lives, globally via the economic calamities they have directly caused. The impact on hunger alone, has been incredible, yet is wholly ignored in the popular press (something about racism/attitude toward poor africans comes to mind).
There's a great number of reasons why NPI's like lockdowns, contact tracing and masks aren't recommended to control epidemic influenza. It's irresponsible to argue otherwise, given the data (and there are books easily available to understand this, and the seasonality of influenza spread). If the simple application of NPI's doesn't work for influenza mitigation, it's surely less likely to have an impact on a coronavirus' spread.
