LogFAQs > #942048989

I actually don't think I'm as inconsistent as you're implying.

My position is NOT that "masks cannot provide any benefits." My position IS that there is no particular evidence that masks are the reason some locations have had more or less cases than others.

My theory is that there are multiple, currently unknown, factors that determine both how fast the disease spreads and how deadly it is to those who contract it. And that these "unknown factors" are far more important and move the needle much farther than mask adoption or social distancing (government enforced social distancing in particular). So it could simultaneously be true that "masks help" and also true that "masks have nothing to do with why location X did better or worse than location Y."

It's like if I asked you, "What should I do to avoid contracting hypothermia?" and you said "Wear a warm hat!" It's true that in general wearing a warm hat would help me from getting too cold. But it's also true that if I jumped in a frozen river, I would get hypothermia and die, regardless of whether I was wearing a hat or not. That doesn't mean "hats don't keep you warm," it just mean that hats are largely irrelevant in the presence of other, more critical, factors.

---

SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - https://imgur.com/W66HUUy
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/