freedomcm said:
Why is it so difficult for you to understand levels of evidence?
Fauci said it was 'likely' to be more efficacious to double up.
Fauci said the data is not definitive (ie not rigorously proven).
Makes perfect sense to anyone not a conspiracy winger
Or...it really was all for naught...
Was mask-wearing pointless after all? Fauci must be forced to answer
Did we ever need masks?
It?s a touchy, complex question. People may not want to learn that millions of us covered our faces for 15 months for no good reason after all. But asking the questions is exactly what we must do.
Last week, a trove of Dr. Anthony Fauci?s emails were released to the public. In a Feb. 5, 2020, email to a Team Obama health official, the ?virus guru wrote that masks were for infected people, and that ?the typical mask you buy in a drug store is not really effective in keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.?
Fauci now claims that new information emerged in the time since that email proving the efficacy of masks. But did it? What was that new information?
Did the virus magically grow in size, so that the masks could contain it? When he referred to masks in the drug store at that point, he meant medical masks. But most Americans spent more than a year wearing cloth masks. If medical masks couldn?t contain the tiny ?virus, how could the cloth ones? Can Fauci point to any studies showing that masks made a significant difference in containing the coronavirus?
https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/was-mask-wearing-pointless-after-all-fauci-must-answer/