First they work then they don’t work lol I’ll just take my chances and live my life the way I always did 

Oh this is a new way for fashion industry pharma to make money. It's just so obvious. Now it's trendy to have butterflies on your mask instead of a free face.

We can expect an entire generation of people permanently disabled by prolonged mask usage, or shortened lifespans. Expect increased cases of stress, anxiety, depression, and suicide, at least.

They want us dead. This is just more evidence for anyone with eyes and ears to see and hear.

I was thinking a black balaclava. That counts as a "cloth face covering", and doesn't violate any laws. I'll keep it in my bag or pocket, and if somebody confronts me, I'll slip it on and say "better?"

People should not get divided in mask-wearer and mask-hater because in the end we are fighting the wrong fight. Now already you hear that bus drivers get hurt or even killed because of asking people to wear a mask in the bus. 

 Posted using [Dapplr](https://app.dapplr.in/jf93cn2o4jZoEe4v7)

https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/iflagtrash/uI8mYtNq-innerhive-warning.gif

Hello @krnel,

I agree with you that there is no conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of the use of the mask. However, it is a reality in almost the entire world, the imposition of its use. There is such effective indoctrination by propaganda means that it affects the collective unconscious. In such a way, that if you do not use it, you will be condemned by your own neighbors and even denied access to establishments.

It's so ironic that you started your post saying people like to use science to defend their positions and that's pretty much what you just did in your post. 

Don't cut a quote to fit your narrative.
***(However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.)***

Don't even include misinformation
***(RCTs) conclude there is no significant efficacy, even for N95 masks.***

As the study clearly states they didn't consider respirators.

Put the full quote in for you, don't want people accusing you of cherry picking...

We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility **However, as with hand hygiene, face masks might be able to reduce the transmission of other infections and therefore have value in an influenza pandemic when healthcare resources are stretched.**

Here's the answer to your questions: The Masks Speak (I call it conspiracy practice)

https://images.hive.blog/0x0/https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/mariuszkarowski/5ljkHXPK-maski.png


Not wearing the mask? Hmmm... you must be a "conspiracy theorist" , whatever that means

From the cited study:

>We did not consider the use of respirators (... such as N95 and P2 masks...) in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn

Interesting how you skipped that part out of your quotes.

What Swann failed to point out - the presumed source of your conspiracies here - is that a few weeks later, this was published:

>Xiao et al. concluded that masks did not support a substantial effect on the transmission of influenza from 7 studies [6]. On the contrary, Jefferson et al. suggested that wearing masks significantly decreased the spread of SARS (OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.25–0.40; I2 = 58.4%) [9]. Up to date, existing evidence on the effectiveness of the use of masks to prevent respiratory viral transmission contradicts each other. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of masks to prevent laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus transmission.

>Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80%

[Source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/)

Science is messier than you want to believe. When some new, unheard of situation happens, it takes time and effort to get to an ultimate consensus. Some studies find one answer, others find another. That's why there have been *23,000* papers published on CoViD-19 since its inception until mid-May, a number that continues to double every 20 days from that point. 

Stop expecting a single paper to be the final nail in a given coffin. And, read the actual paper properly