This reasoning is implicit in the apologists for our early pandemic public health incompetence, but it's incredible to see it concretely articulated.
How do you add absence of high-quality, narrow evidence for effectiveness + strong prior for effectiveness + ~zero-cost intervention and land at "don't recommend cloth face covering"?
All the other examples you gave fail one of these criteria: there's no prior suggesting that Crystal healing is valuable, HCQ has side effects and presents costs/supply chain challenges that _cloth_ doesn't, etc.
An example from the other side is vitamin D: there's been enough weak evidence that anyone scientifically literate has been keeping an eye on their vitamin D since the early pandemic, given that: there's moderate evidence it's protective + there's a high chance you're deficient anyway + D toxicity is pretty hard to achieve.
One side effect that was mentioned at the time was people engaging in risky behaviour thinking they'll be protected by the mask.
Medicine also isn't in the "we recommend it because there aren't many reasons against it" business. They neither recommended masks nor warned against them, but laid out the facts: "we don't (didn't) know. We're scrambling to get data. We'll let you know"
I'm honestly baffled that the concept of a trial is so alien to people, and that nobody seems to be capable of the tiny transference of recognising that masks are no different than a pill. I could come up with a possible reason Aspirin might work: maybe it's the fever that kills, Aspirin lowers it. The risk is known and rather small. Should medical science recommend everyone to take Aspirin? Does it seem entirely implausible that a significant number of people would say/think "It's not the best time for a wedding, but everyone has taken triple doses of Aspirin so it should be fine"
> Medicine also isn't in the "we recommend it because there aren't many reasons against it" business. They neither recommended masks nor warned against them, but laid out the facts: "we don't (didn't) know. We're scrambling to get data. We'll let you know"
This is false.
> Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
> They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
http://bit.ly/37Ay6Cm
Moving the goalposts. I didn't say general population, I said masks. Efficacy will be tested where it can be observed. I.e. very unlikely that a trial with high confidence will ever work on the public.
Also, given your arguments, what is your position on the efficacy of lockdowns vs. their negative effects?
How do you add absence of high-quality, narrow evidence for effectiveness + strong prior for effectiveness + ~zero-cost intervention and land at "don't recommend cloth face covering"?
All the other examples you gave fail one of these criteria: there's no prior suggesting that Crystal healing is valuable, HCQ has side effects and presents costs/supply chain challenges that _cloth_ doesn't, etc.
An example from the other side is vitamin D: there's been enough weak evidence that anyone scientifically literate has been keeping an eye on their vitamin D since the early pandemic, given that: there's moderate evidence it's protective + there's a high chance you're deficient anyway + D toxicity is pretty hard to achieve.