Yeah, I read the thread earlier today, and it seemed like there was some causality fallacy. At one point in the thread he says the cases dropped the weak masks were reinstated...but that doesn't really make sense, because viruses have incubation lags. That's not to say it had -no- effect or that it wouldn't have a larger effect in COVID19, but the evidence in the thread seemed pretty weak to me outside of pure anecdote and headline/timeline cherry picking.
> “On Jan 17, the day the masking ordinance went into effect, the # of new cases/deaths declined, the first decline in quite some time.
>
> This continued until the epidemic faded, a signal that the mask ordinance had helped wipe out the Spanish Flu in San Francisco”
Why on earth would anybody believe it was the masks that helped when reading the “evidence” in the first paragraph? The cases dropped the very same day the law was passed! So I’m supposed to believe that in just a few hours, the law had a measurable effect?! I don’t think so.
My guess is that people had already seen the cases and deaths rising again in newspaper reports and had stopped going out as much again. Perhaps they had even started wearing masks again.
I’m not trying to say masks are pointless. I’m trying to say that this narrative is absurd.
