New covid-denial single from Eric Clapton and Van Morrison

Many thanks for this 'expose' - Thought Clapton had made amends to some extent for his notoriety with past nationalist and racist comments, obviously wrong - two good musicians using their talents for the enemy. I've seen some comments from even erstwhile ultra-lefts succumbing to notions of a potential common cause between them and these kind of fake rebels so this text is right on the ball. And never let the 'libertarian' in 'libertarian communism' politics become detached. There is hysteria around but it's mostly attached to right wing conspiracy nuts. Front page material for libcom.

By the way, I think that as a non-UK commenter you may have missed the significance of the "Magna Carta" bit, I was trying to think of a US equivalent for the specific brainrot you get around the Freeman of the Land/Magna Carta stuff but I suppose Posse Comitatus is probably pretty similar from what I understand of it. If you've not encountered it before, here's a bit of background:
Magna Carta offers no way to get out of lockdown
A Medieval Historian Explains Why The Magna Carta Has Nothing To Do With COVID-19

Thanks Spikymike and R Totale for these comments. I was expecting that maybe people would ignore this given the current pain of lockdown done wrong and all the horrible supply chain problems looming. I hope folks are ok!

On the Magna Carta, I wasn't aware that people were citing article 61 specifically, but I did know the basic outline that in 1215 it established a very limited check on the King's power, and this is held up as a precedent which partially explains British expectations against an "Absolute" monarch vs. other countries in Europe, like France and Austria. I seem to recall Ellen Meiksins Wood using the Magna Carta model of "democracy" as sharing power between a monarch and nobles as also partially explaining the limited scope of a lot of current Western democracy, which she contrasts to the direct democracy of Athens in ancient Greece. So the "Republic" model of indirect democracy has a filter of "representatives" who are in some ways nobles (that last part is more in my own words but I think what she was getting at). With the House of Lords and the House of Commons, after the Enclosures and then the Industrial Revolution, the Rising Bourgeoisie become the new Barons, surpassing today the power even of great kings, one could argue. So the bourgeoisie is in the House of Commons and legislates to legalize all their enclosing and business, and criminalizing the poor which leads to the harsh penalties for vagrancy of Linebaugh's _London's Hanged_ (still waiting to read on my bookshelf, but I know some of the content from other sources).

And "charters" as agreements, granting of rights, or a set of rules for a club, can also be the grant to a person to govern in a colony, as with the US charter colonies, or the Charter companies like the British East India Company which eventually became the actual government of India for about a hundred years.

Ok, sorry the world history intro class adjunct prof came out for maybe no reason there, ha ha.

I am quite curious as to how much it's a specifically British thing and whether there's equivalents in other countries - do some people elsewhere have this weird belief that one specific historical document means that they can just ignore all contemporary laws? Oh, thinking about it I suppose there's the Sovereign Citizen movement in the US, that's probably the closest thing.

Regarding the USA I recall this left-wing text had a reference to the constitution and the Qur'an that caught my eye being pretty ignorant as I am of supposedly radical deferring to aspects of the USA constitution See here:
https://cosmonaut.blog/2020/09/29/us-constitution-hiding-in-plain-sight/
But then most on that site would lack any clear communist critique of 'democracy' as such.

Surprised they didn't rope in Rod Stewart;

Nice piece Motopu, and shit song from Clapton. I'm not really a fan of the apolitical flavor of blues that focuses on individual "misfortune/bad luck" rather than things actually responsible for people's conditions, which seems common with a lot of the later blues stuff especially. Clapton's lamenting wearing a mask seems pretty remote from the post-slavery conditions of African Americans from which the blues developed. I'm not sure for example Memphis Slim would really appreciate Clapton covering songs like "Mother Earth" (with Slim referencing the civil rights era there) with the things he's said. Anyway the fact that safety measures against coronavirus, businesses shutting down etc., might impose capitalist hardships is more an issue of capitalism than anything else.

Clapton’s music, especially his guitar solos, have always turned my thoughts to measuring him for his lampost. This only makes the act all the more appealing!
What a wanker.

- here: https://dialectical-delinquents.com/covid1984-latest/

Glad you posted all this here instead of your utterly unnavigable site where I'd never read it anyway. Thanks for the French sources also (from experts? -- like I don't speak French but "conservative editorial stance" I think should raise an eyebrow) in your English review -- really helps drive home how pointless and "alienating" masks are, while also demonstrating an audience awareness. Was it really necessary writing up this petty review of Motopu's review of an anti-lockdown Eric Clapton single?

I have nothing else to really go off other than what experts say (and you too apparently?), and there seems to be consensus (dominant science?) that masks are helpful in preventing the spread of covid, not to say governments couldn't and haven't abused covid measures. There hasn't really been much in the way of "covid1984" in the U.S. (not sure if you've been following here the last couple months). It's mostly just right-wing idiots upset they can't enter stores without masks and social distancing (the "Liberate Minnesota Rally" crowd and others), along with small/large businesses who have an interest in opening things up. The fact the pandemic has caused layoffs and other disruptions is again just capitalism's inability to cope with such situations (recall the mass food destruction which coincided with increased visits to foodbanks); people are made to want to put themselves and others at risk in order to "sustain themselves." I'm also sure Motopu wouldn't be posting here if they were nothing more than some American liberal.

Hi NA,

The “recent scientific research” you posted was not a controlled study or really “research” so much as a professor of economics and professor of physics and chemistry taking a look at some stats and trying to tie mask policies and death rate reports (not Covid specific death rates) to that and then saying the one “caused” the other. If you have any scientific studies showing that increased masking causes rises in infection, transmission, and death from Covid-19, I’d be glad to look at them as a layman, but this article is not an example of that.

And yes, I’m counterposing the scientific consensus to the sources like rock stars, Spiked, Anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers. That doesn’t mean I think science is a God, or infallible “In Science We Trust” as you have me believing in your very excited straw man.

I wrote a review of Angela Mitropoulos _Pandemonium_ book and in it she talks about “catastrophe bonds” and countless other ways that nationalism, capitalism, and white supremacist views categorize populations in an essentially Malthusian way, and using those categories, make calculations as to who is worthy of protection and who it is more cost efficient to let die. So yeah, science is embedded in these factors too, of course. None of that changes my focus on the ideology and logic of these rock stars and how their rebellious posing is reactionary and anti-scientific as well as that their song acts as a popular mobilization for the absolute worst capitalist “herd immunity” lies. Lies that kill. That’s not in contention.

My article isn’t pro-lock down vs. anti-lock down. I say in a response that this is lockdown done wrong. To understand why lockdown alone is not enough, you have to place it in the greater picture of migration, nationalism, how aid depends on casino logic like “catastrophe bonds” and how that helps justify governments doing less and being unprepared, and also how capitalist borders exacerbate plague situations.

Forgive me for my “uncritical pro-vaccination position.” I’m for vaccines because they are the only basis for herd immunity. The other capitalist herd immunity that Spiked, Boris Johnson, Trump, and other misanthropes promote means letting the virus rip through populations leaving only the strong. The half-assed “we must protect the vulnerable” provisions are non-provisions, or worse, because if you have everyone going out into the plague, contracting, and spreading it, they will deliver it to the old, the sick, those with “pre-existing conditions” etc. Aside from that, those who are deemed as not at risk, also get this virus and the long term effects are now understood as extremely serious for many who “get over” it. You refer to the vaccine as a magic wand, but it’s not, it’s the only actual possible basis for herd immunity unless you support mass death, and it really sounds like you do.

Then you imply that states have been paying people to stay home but your main objection is that this isn’t socialist enough. Please explain to me my situation in the US where people have lost jobs, been evicted, been laid off, lost most of their pay, healthcare, union representation, etc. how this is a good example of a sustaining payment to stay home while jobs, food, shelter, and general social security are maintained. This is just a nutty thing to insist and is completely not what is happening. And if you're saying that states have fully funded people to stay home without losing money, wages, jobs, basic services, over the last 9 months, I find that very hard to believe.

If you can’t see the difference between my critiquing the ways the state distorts healthcare and emergency responses, and on the other hand, peoples' demands on capitalists that they not let people die, you arrive at your weird non-rebuttal to my article. And let's face it, capitalists are not just "letting" people die, they planned for it as an externality, and are now _demanding_ it in a sacrifice to markets.

I don’t know. I won’t respond to the rest of this, which mostly seems like dressing up standard MAGA talking points in Situationist sounding lingo. I happen to like the Situationists as far as I can understand them, but you seem to fall more into this current trend of talking left to push right, if you know what I mean.

Whilst I agree with you about attributing a very scary Malthusian project on the part of capital's use of this virus, what you say has nothing to do with the quote (not from something I wrote, by the way) - eg:

Why would I have such a study? The bit I quoted doesn't claim that "increased masking causes rises in infection" etc. so I doubt it does. It merely says that it makes no difference wearing them outside. Are you so illiterate that you don't understand the difference between "wearing a mask outside makes no difference" and "increased masking causes rises in infection"?

As for vaccines - check out this on Pfizer - https://labourheartlands.com/coronavirus-what-do-we-know-about-pfizer-an...

And this - https://medium.com/@gautamtejasganeshan/is-there-an-intelligible-anti-vaxx-position-52c530b1d518

Nor does the quote talk left or right - it's you who's trapped in the false choices of left and right, MAGA shit v Democrat (or whatever) shit, etc., incapable of thinking critically outside of these repulsive choices - eg "it...mostly seems like dressing up standard MAGA talking points in Situationist sounding lingo" - seems to you but not to anyone who can read. Since you clearly are incapable of reading what's written here I too won’t respond to the rest of this.

In fact, the article from the far right wing le figaro you posted, is not "scientific research" as you called it, and they do state that masking measures had "the opposite result of that expected," of the hoped for lowering of infections and deaths:

"What was the effect of the imposition of the mask on August 28 in Paris and the inner suburbs? The comparison only relates to the wearing of the mask outdoors because it was already compulsory everywhere in closed public spaces. Let's compare weeks 35, just before the measurement, and 39, at the end of this experiment. The departments where the mask was imposed outdoors at the end of August saw their deaths increase by 129.2% against the pile + 100% in the peripheral departments of the region: the opposite result of that expected, failure of the measure."

And yes, that a source is far right is context for any kind of media analysis. Everyone knows that it's almost entirely far right wing parties, street fighting groups, and media companies, who have been pushing bogus reports on how masks supposedly don't lessen transmission of the virus, and holding mass anti-masker rallies. It's you who lack any kind of media literacy here. You also post sources you may not have read, but certainly don't understand.

From the wikipedia page on le Figaro: In February 2012, a general assembly of the newspaper's journalists adopted a motion accusing the paper's managing editor, Étienne Mougeotte, of having made Le Figaro into the "bulletin" of the governing party, the Union for a Popular Movement, of the government and of President Nicolas Sarkozy. They requested more pluralism and "honesty" and accused the paper of one-sided political reporting. Mougeotte had previously said that Le Figaro would do nothing to embarrass the government and the right. Mougeotte publicly replied: "Our editorial line pleases our readers as it is, it works. I don't see why I should change it. [...] We are a right-wing newspaper and we express it clearly, by the way. Our readers know it, our journalists too. There's nothing new to that!"]

To claim that ;

is over generalising. Even the article cited in defence of that claim acknowledges masks are worthwhile on crowded streets. Nor does the article show if it took into account various factors - eg, relative population density, housing density, transport hubs - when comparing different regions.
If one is on, eg, a shopping trip, and going in and out of buildings, it's also worth 'wearing a mask outside' rather than keep taking a mask on and off and so risking infection by hand contact with the face.

And this is a vague claim;

"Your own bacteria" is what is breathed out of you so is already in you;

I don't imagine Comrade Motopu is suggesting any open ended acceptance of all the states 'lockdown' measures and border controls irrespective of the circumstances and is supportive of many of the strikes and protests by workers in defence of our working and living conditions that inevitably have to contest those restrictions to be effective, but that doesn't deny the reality of the threat from this virus and the need for us to take sensible precautions based on the best available scientific knowledge available at the time. Don't get too fixated on the benefits or otherwise of waring masks in public or the propagandist displays of those in organised displays of refusal in some misplaced idea of protecting civil rights.

I think that if you're interested in questions around social control, it's a bit inadequate and one-sided to just say that masks "intensify dominant separation and the alienation of the streets". Where's the consideration of how generalised mask-wearing affects the powers of CCTV and facial recognition? At this point there's been decades of debate around the black bloc tactic, with militants urging the need for people to protect their identities versus critics arguing that the advantages in terms of hiding a given individual's identity are undermined by the dangers of setting up the mask-wearers as a separate collective identity, the black bloc, antifa, casseurs or whatever. At one stroke that whole distinction has been erased, meaning that it's now much harder to spot the difference between a group of people leaving the house with the specific purpose of keeping their identities hidden while carrying out property destruction and any other mask-wearer on the streets. I don't want to be reductionist about this, obviously it's not as simple as "everyone masks up -> we get a massive social uprising", but I think there is an interesting question to be discussed there.
To say nothing of other social benefits, e.g. I'm aware that some people who are expected to perform conventional femininity have expressed relief that normalised mask-wearing frees them of social expectations from the nose down at least. You can say that this is reformist or whatever, and it'd be better to get rid of those expectations altogether, and that's true enough, but in the mean time we are where we are and I'm not going to scorn anyone who finds that mask-wearing gives them more freedom in that area.
Obviously, that's just one side of the argument, I'm sure there are plenty of negatives to discuss as well, but if you're interested in discussing state and capitalist impositions of social control, then I think there's a bit more to say on this subject than just "you breathe in your own bacteria".

- https://dialectical-delinquents.com/leftist-bollocks-from-the-usual-suspects/

Yes, my glasses also fog up when breathing into masks, which makes me feel incredibly sad and alienated, as well as making it even more difficult to see people's smiles or frowns. On the other hand, I actually kind of like the hierarchical powers my masters have given to me with respect to telling people not to sneeze or cough in my direction, even though, as you say, it does intensify my alienation, despair and irritability. I am now convinced we should break free of this dominant capitalist pseudo-science of mask-wearing, so that it will lead to even more deaths and more of a strain on health care workers.

Re Khouri (Catholic MP and close friend of Lebanese President) and his anti-mask quote;
1. He talks of "the masks on the market"; but there are 1000s of mask suppliers of various designs and materials.
2. He says they "do nothing to protect people from the virus." The consensus has long been that masks mainly protect others from droplets that may come from the wearer's mouth & nose; their reach is greatly reduced by masks. That has been repeatedly illustrated by research. Anyone who doesn't even grasp that has no business talking about masks.
3. "They’re not sterile, unlike the ones you find in hospitals and you shouldn’t wear one for longer than 15 or 20 minutes, otherwise they are transformed into incubators for bacteria." There are many jobs where people wear masks for hours every day, have done so for 100s of years or more and AFAIK there is no known history of medical conditions or outbreaks caused by regular mask wearing. Of course masks should be washed regularly, like any piece of clothing.
4. He doesn't explain what bacteria he's referring to or its source.
So again, unconvincing claims. Where are all the people made ill by mask wearing - surely we'd be seeing a clear pattern of such illness by now?

The 2nd 'michel' link is dead.

There is a wealth of recent evidence to dispute that claim so to baldly state it as fact is highly misleading. In fact the quotation you gave which cites the Nature article distorts what it actually says – it finds that asymptomatics are less infectious but it doesn’t conclude “that asymptomatic people are largely not otherwise infectious”;

Just how does that process work? So many thousands of medics and scientists of the world are in league with governments to doctor and distort scientific evidence constantly? And the governments of the world needed to do something on this massive scale to repress us with a tactic that has wrecked economies at enormous cost? They haven’t faced any massive class struggles in, eg, the UK that necessitated such a conspiracy.

Try to keep this short just so people can judge for themselves on what they think about Nymphalis Antiopa's sources:

Nymphalis Antiopa wrote

Here is an article on this guy NA uses as an expert source. I link to the google translate from French to English.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F...

Re. RM:

As the quote says "Well, maybe." And continues later on by saying " given the enormous contradictory “facts” spewed out by scientists and other experts,.... each individual, regardless of the precise extent of their precise knowledge, is forced back onto their own opinion, in much the same way as if what you accept and don’t accept amongst all the questions thrown up by this permanent crisis is just a matter of taste. In other words, people are cherry-picking information that confirms their previously held opinions, leaving understanding down to a purely arbitrary question of subjective choice or to your own prejudices. Almost invariably people will find some “scientific fact” to provide ‘objective’ proof for these tastes and prejudices." - which may or may not apply to the author of these quotes, but at least he later on says "Selection of facts is inevitable, but selection that achieves progress towards clarity has to look at contradictory ‘facts’ as well as strive to unravel the reasons for these contradictions rather than be based on notions of objectivity or prejudiced taste or fatalistic resignation to confusion. Questioning everything is a major aspect of the struggle to free oneself of received ideas, unconscious taste, and the fog of contradictory information. It’s a major aspect of breaking with excessive reliance on experts and science" .

No point in continuing - just to say that there are plenty of other articles about masks which are also critical of their use, just as there are an overwhelming amount that support them.

As for CM's continued avoidance of the main point of the quote against him/her - " “When you take the opposite point of view of the Right you end up utterly defined by them and can’t assert a single independent point of view…”. ... even if Le Figaro were nazis that wouldn’t in itself negate what it says. Hitler’s scientists did research showing the link between smoking cigarettes and cancer, some 10 years or more before the American Cancer Society and thousands of US doctors and scientists reversed their previous notion that smoking was fine. If CM’s stupid reactive logic were consistent, s/he’d be recommending smoking along with all those pre-1953 American scientists and doctors. Even our worst enemies sometimes get it right. For example, the other day Marine Le Pen said the sky was blue."

I suggest people also look at articles like this:
https://enoughisenough14.org/2020/11/01/corona-state-measures-let-us-not... (sample quote "Anti-authoritarians have not much to gain in coalitions with the „Corona-conformable“ left.")
And there should be no problem with this link for CM since by his/her logic this site should be considered a good reference because the people involved supported the RAF and the USAF's bombing of Dresden in 1945. Good anti-fascists. Hitler opposed Stalin - we should support Stalin. Hitler opposed the British Empire - we should support the British Empire., etc.etc. ad nauseam .

Though I said "no point in continuing", I'll just say this re. RM's " the governments of the world needed to do something on this massive scale to repress us with a tactic that has wrecked economies at enormous cost?"

Since when has the use of masks wrecked economies?

And though certain economies have been wrecked by this permanent crisis, particularly for those at the lowest end of the hierarchy, since when has capital been concerned with particular economies as long as the economy as a whole (in particular the need for money) remains firmly in the hands of the rulers? Two world wars wrecked elements of the economy but reinforced it for the arms industry, for example - and massively reinforced state power. The pharmaceutical industry is raking in billions each month now, just as state power and the desperate need for money is being reinforced endlessly (and often with the tacit, though largely unconscious, support of so-called "libertarian" revolutionaries). Capital in the 19th century was subject to periodic crises that saw individual capitalists regularly "wrecked" but capital itself continued unabated. 1929 saw bankers jumping out of windows, but the Great Depression didn't wreck the economy as a whole - Roosevelt, Hitler testify to that.
So what's the relevance of saying " the governments of the world needed to do something on this massive scale to repress us with a tactic that has wrecked economies at enormous cost" other than to manipulate the reader (or maybe just to contribute to your own confusion) by implying that critiquing CM's post is landing in the same camp as simplistic conspiracy theorists ?

Despite media rhetoric this is not a war, it’s a health crisis, one largely caused by the capitalist mode of food production and distribution etc. Yes, some always make profits from any crisis but that doesn’t prove that this is a preferred or chosen strategy for the ruling class instituted to aid more repression.

So all the world’s governments, having co-ordinated a global conspiracy to securely falsify the scientific evidence; with all their resources they’ve used that to – MAKE US WEAR MASKS WHEN WE GO SHOPPING AND FOR MANY TO NOT WORK. If that’s all they have in their repressive arsenal we have little to worry about.

Your stated claims are based on sources that don’t hold up to scrutiny, as shown several times above. Before weighing in to try to show how superior your analysis is try basing it on credible cross-referenced, fact-checked sources. Seems like you’re the one swallowing the dodgy “force of propaganda” more than those you denounce.
For instance your recently quoted JD Michel source claims;

Which is wrong. Contagion and mortality from Covid19 are considerably higher than that from seasonal flu. These are the most basic factual errors or distortions, falsehoods known to be so by anyone who cared to find out since the start of Covid. That should make anyone think twice about using such sources.

Despite you denouncing others for an uncritical deference to Science the only ‘evidence’ you’ve presented has been, not actual scientific research, but the dubious personal opinions and articles of scientists and science journalists – as if their qualifications and status give automatic extra weight and validity to their claims above actual conducted material research. So it looks like you deferring to the authority of Science more than anyone else.

And again, where are all the millions of people made so sick by wearing masks that we could expect if your claims were true?

The presence of bacteria in the air was discovered by Pasteur in 1861. It was soon realized that some sick people could spread disease via expelled droplets and airborne transmission. (Amazing that some anti-maskers still dispute its relevance in a pandemic.) For a history of medical masks; https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/XwMmcBQAAGwR9GY8
Masks were used during the 1918 flu pandemic, though not without a minority opposition;
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/us/mask-protests-1918.html
Those wishing to get an idea of the recent science regarding masks with good visual illustration of airborne infection, see; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ4Epf8i1uk

I have to say I find it quite strange that various libcommers have such strong views on the mask related science as well as other covid health related topics. This really isn't basic stuff thats simple to understand. The libcom twitter account for instance as well as commenters in this thread are making it seem as if the knowledge about these issues are settled. I'm pretty sure knowledgeable and sincere researchers on these topics would be much less certain about various conclusions.

I think it's doing "our politics" a disservice to weigh in with certainty on these topics. The politics are to a certain extent entangled with the science but I think it's important to maintain separation as much as possible. Several opinions seem to stem, at least in part, from traditional political oppositions. Or are marshaled as arguments for other political reasons. Picked to suit the politics.

The pandemic has seen the rise of the amateur virologists etc and it's not pretty to be honest. There isn't clear evidence for anything making a critical difference as far as the spread is concerned. It's just very complex. The mental and physical health issues as well as secondary violence, poverty etc are also really difficult to grasp or compare to covid deaths.

edit: Countering the class targeted nature of the covid response without ending up in half baked policy suggestions is obviously difficult but nevertheless important.

Are you sure?

It's hardly controversial to say that airborne infection is a reality and that there is credible evidence that masks can help protect against that (and wearing them doesn’t make you ill). That has been known since the 1860s. Or that washing hands during a pandemic is sensible.

And, against the conspiraloons, certain things have to be stated as facts; eg, the virus does exist, Covid contagion rate and death rate are considerably higher than normal flu, there won’t be a microchip in the vaccine etc.

That some things are not absolutely proven doesn't mean evidence suggesting certain outcomes should be dismissed. There is nothing wrong in assessing critically in a sincere way research like this suggesting (in line with evidence from earlier epidemics) that mask-wearing resulted in a significant drop in infection; https://www.pnas.org/content/117/51/32293 - but equally no reason to dismiss it as useless or not credible if it doesn't give final absolute proof (something often hard to obtain under pandemic conditions). This article indicates also a protective effect; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55216518 In contrast, this earlier survey found only marginal protective effect from mask wearing; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.564280/full [Edit; see note in my later post below about this link]
But the predominant consensus from available evidence is overwhelmingly that mask-wearing is protective. That is consistent and logical with the evidence in the video I linked to earlier (based on recent research) showing how airborne infection occurs.

For myself I’ve only challenged here dubious claims presented as facts and blatant distortions such as the false interpretation of the Nature article.

Just to say I completely support everything being said here by Red, especially in response to NA/Samotnaf's conspiracy nonsense, which would be amusing if it were not actually extremely dangerous, and contributing towards tens of thousands of deaths, especially in the US where the extreme right has been propagating the exact same propaganda he is propagating here, leading to significant numbers of imbeciles refusing to wear masks and continuing to spread this deadly virus. Which has already killed one member of my family, as well as a friend of another member of the libcom group, a health worker.

Just wanted to add one small thing:

On this, authors of some studies on mask-wearing in non-medical settings, which have found similar results (i.e. that there was only a marginal protective effect), have warned against misunderstanding the results. Because these studies are mostly not looking at universal mask wearing, they are mostly looking at whether individuals wearing a mask are less likely to become infected. Whereas it is generally accepted scientifically that mask wearing by infected people helps reduce the spread, and universal mask wearing helps reduce it further. Hence the general projection now in the US that universal mask wearing help save around 50,000 lives in the next few months.

I put the link to the article finding only marginal effectiveness for mask-wearing to avoid accusations of imbalance; it was the only source easily found with that view and cos it has been often (mis)used by anti-maskers. Though it is dated on that site as Sep 2020 that is the date it was published on the site. But I should have mentioned that its findings are based on;

So it's based on a Feb 2020 overview of various studies of mask use in previous respiratory epidemics & pandemics and has little to do with what has been learned from the pattern of mask wearing during Covid that we've come to know since. Feb 2020, when this survey was made, was very early in the pandemic; before it was even officially declared a pandemic. That probably accounts for the different conclusions of this research compared with later research based on longer experience of this pandemic.

I'm certainly no covid denier nor pro or against masks. I firmly know that it's way outside my ability to reach good conclusions from a selection of articles and papers.

My main point is that handling the public health during a pandemic is about a lot more than blocking the virus. What Samotnaf/Nymphalis points out (with trademark hyperbole) has *some* merit. Mental health and other issues also kill, the long term behavioral consequences of masks on distancing and safe behaviour are uncertain and culturally dependent. Balancing this is waay beyond my knowledge and I'm therefore reluctant to cite a few papers or articles supporting either way.

As I said the issue is fighting the class skewed solutions but avoiding making conclusions about medical matters or elaborating whats beginning to look like home made policy proposals. Particularly when they are based on reports about small parts of the whole public health question.

Steven those projections about mask wearing saving 50,000 lives are projections and the US has huge issues with spread. It's just extremely difficult to judge the merit and complex interactions of all these things. The depth of knowledge, effort in popularising the information and research consensus just isn't at the level of say global warming. Yet