You missed the point, again.

Posted on: December 10, 2020 at 12:41:36 CT

Neither I nor the article (which you obviously didn't read) argue that lockdowns should be avoided because they're ineffective. If strict enough, and if strictly enforced, they would be quite effective. You don't need "firm scientific evidence" to tell you that. The reason to oppose them is because even if effective, they cost too much. They are not worth the high price.

On the other hand, no one, certainly not I, has argued that masks are fully effective. They are not. But there is plenty of evidence that they are effective at inhibiting, though not eliminating, the spread of the virus. The difference is that the cost of wearing them is minimal, at least to normal people.

I don't need "firm scientific evidence" that masks work in order to know that. All I need is to cough, or sneeze, or exhale sharply into my mask, and then see what is there.

This is simple cost benefit analysis. The costs of lockdowns are too great to justify even the substantial potential benefit. The costs of masks are so low and the benefit so obvious, though admittedly limited, that mandates make perfect sense.