This is not the point I was trying to make. Of course it is important to monitor new scientific evidence that arises and to update the measures and recommendations accordingly. I believe that most functional governments are trying to do exactly that in the current situation.
The issue is that politicians usually don't have the luxury of having lots of high-quality studies available. At the same time, it is impossible not to communicate. Not recommending masks sends the message "masks don't work", for which there is not much evidence either. Unlike scientists, politicians constantly have to make best guesses using the limited information that is available to them.
There is also the question as to whether people can safely use masks without infecting themselves. If masks help at the margin they can also hurt at the margin. They can also cause the public to neglect physical distancing and hand washing based on a false sense of security.
It's puzzling why many have assumed a positive or neutral effect for something so untested. It's clear physical distancing has had the most effect as evidenced by Google mobility reports.
The idea that people might infect themselves by handling their own masks sounds very far-fetched to me. What mechanism is supposed to do that?
The risk of people neglecting other measures sounds more reasonable, but most politicians seem to believe that the positive effect of not spitting at each other wins. Again, they have to make educated guesses based on the limited information that is available.
I don't think one can conclude from mobility reports being somehow correlated with infection numbers that physical distancing has had the most effect. Human behavior is much more complicated than that and one surely needs a more complex model.
> The idea that people might infect themselves by handling their own masks sounds very far-fetched to me. What mechanism is supposed to do that?
The article I linked discusses the only study on cloth masks from 2015. The study has some limitations but showed that cloth masks had a higher rate of infection.
In the general population it's not hard to imagine compliance will not be perfect. That is why we need controlled trials.
There have also been assumptions that homeopathy doesn't harm. Scientists did a survey and discovered that therapists were recommending that their patients didn't vaccinate. This is from the book Trick or Treatment.
TLDR: Testing assumptions is very important. Lives depend on it.
> TLDR: Testing assumptions is very important. Lives depend on it.
100% this! Masks are one of those "obvious" things. But scientific inquiry has repeatedly shown we need to test obvious things. Preferably before making legally binding policies.
The issue is that politicians usually don't have the luxury of having lots of high-quality studies available. At the same time, it is impossible not to communicate. Not recommending masks sends the message "masks don't work", for which there is not much evidence either. Unlike scientists, politicians constantly have to make best guesses using the limited information that is available to them.