I don't understand why this story was removed: "It turns out the six-feet social-distancing rule had no scientific basis", >>39200511
On a forum with an overwhelmingly science-minded audience, it bothers me that an important topic like that is deemed untouchable.
If you demand precise scientific rigor in all aspects of everyday life, public health is probably not the career field for you.
Put a water hose on mist and spray someone with it. Then put a cloth over the nozzle and try to spray them. It's self evident yet people just could not grasp it.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abs...
When the medical field phases out masks because they "have no benefit" I will believe that masking was useless. Also keep in the mind that the primary reason for studies showing masks not working is that people don't wear it correctly or at all.
That's just one RCT. The Cochrane meta-analysis looked at a bunch of them.
>When the medical field phases out masks because they "have no benefit" I will believe that masking was useless.
You're putting the cart before the horse. In an ideal world, guidelines for the medical field are based on scientific evidence. But there's always a delay.
You better consult the scientific evidence to make up your mind.
When it comes to covid and masking, policymakers will wait as long as possible before aknowledging the evidence, because they know the public hasn't forgotten the draconian masking of school kids yet.