that's the whole point of the CDC article, if you actually read it,
it is entirely inconclusive regarding effectiveness of masks.
The "negative/control group" were people who showed symptoms, but were not covid-19 positive. so, that 74% just got some other bug
![Laughing2 :lmao: :lmao:](https://data.irate4x4.com/assets/smilies/laughing2.gif)
it isn't like they were just random people off the street who tested negative.
that is what makes the claim that "CDC says masks do fuckall" equally baseless (the claim I made above), but by consuming any sort of news, those thin threads are what the vast majority of people are accepting as true/hard/real.
I would say that wearing it at work but not in public would count as sometimes or often, but certainly not always. yet, that is the Joy of the thing, there is no real standard and it is a wholly subjective determination. All we can say for sure, is what we've known all along; masks offer anywhere from no to some protection, depending on a whole host of things. that is the root of the argument that states; Therefore, we can soundly proclaim indiscriminate and punitive face covering mandates are unjust.
of course, we could say that if we were reasonable people. the SCOTUS has said "we aren't scientists and therefore cannot examine a case during an emergency" so, thar she be. Checks and balances? interesting concept....
edit: I would also question the notion "they all contracted it outside work". how is that derived? We well know that it presents at different timelines with different people, are they only contracting the virus while on vacation for a couple weeks at a time?