SWWood wrote:
Fair enough. I was just pointing you in the right direction, just in case you wanted to correct your baseless statements such as "...the weak evidence of health benefits from public face coverings." (Post #25)
Anyway, how about the
World Health Organisation?
Or this article in
Nature.
Maybe the University of
Cambridge.
Yes, I understand you don't quite get it. Let me spell it out: you make a claim, then you substantiate it. You don't just use a search engine to 'point me in the right direction' (as you so condescendingly put it). Any fool can type 'masks' 'evidence' and 'support' or some such into Duck Duck Go and then simply pass on the links as though he's proved his claim. (If you're familiar with this forum, you'll know it's a common move in what passes as 'argument'.) Its a bit more difficult to read the articles, then read other counter-balancing articles, and then come to a reasoned judgement. If you've read them, it should be easy for you to tell me what type of study it is (literature review, RCT), and summarise its claims and conclusions. You've simply come down on the side that suits you, and the more you just fire links at me the more you demonstrate your ignorance and your inability to back up your assertion.
By the way, the bit about 'weak evidence' is directly from a government document, the link to which I already posted on the 'coronavirus' thread. Find it, if you can be bothered. As for your general claim that I've made 'baseless statements', oblige me by specifying exactly what they are, or withdraw the accusation.