I assume merpnderp understands perfectly well which article you were talking about.
You said:
>But reading further in the article they rise doubt about masks in general, which is something we know is highly effective (purely from a physics point of view). They don't say masking is effective, they continually question if it is.
There are five parts of the article that contain the word "mask":
1. On September 28, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky shared the results of a new study that appeared to confirm the need for mask mandates in schools. The study was conducted in Arizona over the summer, and published by the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: It found that schools in counties without mask mandates had 3.5 times more outbreaks than schools in counties with mask mandates.
2. "You can't learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study," Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me.
3. Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate.
4. For these and other reasons, Zweig argues that the study ought to be ignored entirely: Masking in schools may or may not be a good idea, but this study doesn't help answer the question. Any public official—including and especially Walensky—who purports to follow the science should toss this one in the trash.
5. Hopefully, we see something similar [death rate not rising in DC despite a spike in cases, as with delta] with omicron, though everyone should prepare for Democratic officials to bring back mask mandates (and maybe lockdowns) in response to rising cases. Mayor Muriel Bowser will probably reinstate D.C.'s mask mandate—just as soon as her own holiday parties are over.
None of these are, as you claimed, "continuously questioning if wearing masks is effective". (1) describes the study that is the subject of the article. (2), (3) and (4) are specifically saying, exactly as the submitted article describes, that they don't think wearing masks is ineffective, just that this study doesn't prove that they are effective. (5) is just saying people should expect masks to become mandatory again for everyone soon.
(And to be clear, the parts of the article that I didn't quote above don't question the effectiveness of masks either. In fact, the part about college campuses being closed due to omicron specifically points out that vaccines have not been sufficient to prevent that from happening.)
You're welcome to say that you think the article's title is suggestive of something the article doesn't claim. I happen to agree; I think it's clickbait. But your points about the content of the article are unfounded.
You said:
>But reading further in the article they rise doubt about masks in general, which is something we know is highly effective (purely from a physics point of view). They don't say masking is effective, they continually question if it is.
There are five parts of the article that contain the word "mask":
1. On September 28, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky shared the results of a new study that appeared to confirm the need for mask mandates in schools. The study was conducted in Arizona over the summer, and published by the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: It found that schools in counties without mask mandates had 3.5 times more outbreaks than schools in counties with mask mandates.
2. "You can't learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study," Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me.
3. Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate.
4. For these and other reasons, Zweig argues that the study ought to be ignored entirely: Masking in schools may or may not be a good idea, but this study doesn't help answer the question. Any public official—including and especially Walensky—who purports to follow the science should toss this one in the trash.
5. Hopefully, we see something similar [death rate not rising in DC despite a spike in cases, as with delta] with omicron, though everyone should prepare for Democratic officials to bring back mask mandates (and maybe lockdowns) in response to rising cases. Mayor Muriel Bowser will probably reinstate D.C.'s mask mandate—just as soon as her own holiday parties are over.
None of these are, as you claimed, "continuously questioning if wearing masks is effective". (1) describes the study that is the subject of the article. (2), (3) and (4) are specifically saying, exactly as the submitted article describes, that they don't think wearing masks is ineffective, just that this study doesn't prove that they are effective. (5) is just saying people should expect masks to become mandatory again for everyone soon.
(And to be clear, the parts of the article that I didn't quote above don't question the effectiveness of masks either. In fact, the part about college campuses being closed due to omicron specifically points out that vaccines have not been sufficient to prevent that from happening.)
You're welcome to say that you think the article's title is suggestive of something the article doesn't claim. I happen to agree; I think it's clickbait. But your points about the content of the article are unfounded.