]
Masks reduce transmission if worn by all. Period.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
There's an example. Why would I bother reading that when I agree with it?
I said that I didn't read the link because I agree with the caption that proceeded the link. I then said why should I read it when I agree with it. That's what I posted and you ignored it and are bringing this up again.
Here it is again. I agree that masks reduce transmission so why should I read a link that reinforces what I already believe and agree with? That's why I say I'm wasting my time reading a link I know that I agree with. And then you twist what I say to make it sound like I don't care at all.
Jim - you clearly didn't read my post.
The problem is that you assume that the link says what the post author says it does.
In this thread, it is obvious that whenever zricky post a link, it is virtually guaranteed that the link is either bullshit or actually contradicts what he said in the body of the post. The same holds true for the other anti-vaxxers in this thread.
Oddly enough, most of the links provided by others (including GTIfan with whom I've butted head) are accurate, support whatever it says in the text and are almost always from mainstream sources. None (and I use that term as meaning "virtually none") are from whack-a-doodle conspiracy sites.
Of course, we will always include a link that bolsters whatever we are saying, so one needs to look at motivations carefully and - especially if it is a controversial subject - look at the motivations of the link author.
It is clear that none of you have never done actual research. I'll give you a few pointers:
Is the source credible?
Does the provided data support the conclusion?
Is the information still valid or is there newer data?
What are the motivations of the author?