The RCT sarcasm is wearing thin. They're better than observational studies on average and much better when run well - nobody, not even Doidge (who has run zero clinical trials) disagrees with that - they're nowhere near infallible though, especially if poorly designed, as any expert would agree.
Also, your post betrays your lack of understanding of basic science (I know, you're a patent lawyer - not the same, sorry). There are no randomized controlled trials we could even run for masks and transmission prevention of COVID, since it's universally agreed that exposing volunteers to a deadly virus on purpose is highly unethical. And unfortunately, only such trials would provide very close to incontrovertible "proof" in mask efficacy.
Until then we have to rely on inferential evidence from mask wearing vs. non-mask wearing comparisons and RCTs in animals, both of which strongly support the efficacy of masks in reducing (not eliminating) spread of COVID, as per the posts below (and I could post several more if you like). In addition, there's a vast amount of epidemiological evidence supporting masks for reducing transmissions at location, area, and country-wide levels.
I read it wrong?? “All of the vaccinated monkeys treated with the Oxford vaccine became infected when challenged.” What does that mean to you? More on the Oxford Testing. Still has promise. Asked whether results in macaques will likely translate to results in humans, he added: “No we don’t...
rutgers.forums.rivals.com
Yea because people aren't thinking about the "herd protection" of masks just their own protection. But even in that sense, something is better than nothing is my view. Whatever the percent protection for yourself...it can reduce the viral load that infects you and maybe you can fight that off...
rutgers.forums.rivals.com