The Face Mask Debate Reveals a Scientific Double Standard | WIRED

The Face Mask Debate Reveals a Scientific Double Standard | WIRED:

• No one complained about the lack of evidence for 20-second hand-washing. 
• So why did we treat face masks differently?

"THE RECENT BACK-AND-FORTH debate—and policy reversal—over the use of face masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19 reveals a glaring double standard. 
For some reason, we’ve been treating this one particular matter of public health differently.
We don’t see op-eds that ask whether people really need to keep 6 feet away from each other on the street, as opposed to 3 feet, or that cast doubt on whether it’s such a good idea to promote bouts of handwashing that are 20 seconds long.
...In recent weeks, experts have counseled caution—or rejected the use of masks by the general public outright—as they pleaded for better, more decisive evidence.
Why?
...There are no large-scale clinical trials proving that personal use of masks can prevent pandemic spread; and the ones that look at masks and influenza have produced equivocal results.
After all, there aren’t any clinical trials proving that a 6-foot social distance prevents infection, as far as we know. (The World Health Organization only recommends a 3-foot separation.)..."