Let's look at these sources.A review with further reviews included.
There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol...www.rcreader.comOxford University's Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson said there had been 'a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19'.www.dailymail.co.ukAnd I'll throw in my ENT doctor who firmly believes masks don't prevent the Corona virus.At a briefing today, WHO officials said they recommend that masks be worn by those with coronavirus or those in close contact with people infected.www.weforum.org
1.) You have an article from the Daily Mail; a famously terrible source for science. If you don't believe me, the opening from the wikipedia on the Daily mail reads: "The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticized for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement." In fact, wikipedia won't allow editors to use the Daily Mail as a source; that's how bad it's science journalism is. The article you have posted from the Daily Mail is about a study on how masks don't stop you from getting Covid. Of course, the point of wearing a mask is prevent you from spreading it, not to prevent you from getting it, so it's a moot point regardless and the Daily Mail has taken the results of that study and misrepresented them in the fashion that's it's famous for.
The idea that this study proves masks don't work is easily debunked: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/danish-study-doesnt-prove-masks-dont-work-against-the-coronavirus/
And the people that made the study don't think that masks don't work. That's literally not their argument.
2.) You cite an article from The River Cities Reader, which is tabloid that I've never heard of, with the title "Masks Don't Work". It is written by climate change denier and disgraced (and fired) U of Ottawa Professor Denis Rancourt, a man who has a PhD in Physics and has no background or formal training in infectious disease, and who cannot get published in peer reviewed journals. As proof of his idea that the literature on masks indicate they don't work, Rancourt has a list of studies that include abstracts that say things like the following: There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. So, basically, the conclusion of this study being used as "evidence" in this article about how masks don't work is that, yes, actually, masks do work. That article also cites studies that are simply comparing N95 versus surgical masks as evidence that masks don't work, when the study in question doesn't make that claim at all; it just states that it can't find a difference between N95s and more common surgical masks. What is happening here? Did you look at the studies Rancourt was using as proof of his claims? It's genuinely bizarre.
And lo and behold, Rancourt has been busted for what took me five minutes of actually reading his sources to find:
When my colleague asked for scientific evidence to back this denial, the poster directed her to an article by Denis Rancourt, entitled “Masks Don’t Work.” And, indeed, Rancourt’s paper cited eight peer-reviewed essays, all from reputable journals. But when she actually clicked on the links provided, she found something very curious. None of the studies cited concluded what Rancourt says they did. For example, six of the eight studies measured the effectiveness of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks—not, as Rancourt implied, the effectiveness of wearing a mask vs. not wearing a mask.
Of the eight studies Rancourt cites, none of them provides any evidence to support his claim that masks do not work in reducing the spread of viruses, and several of them provide evidence that they do. And all that happens just in the first section of his article.
That's... pretty bad.
The full article debunking Rancourt is here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/logical-take/202007/yes-masks-work-debunking-the-pseudoscience
Serious scientific publications won't publish Rancourt's work anymore because he can't pass peer review, meaning other scientists find it too easy to find the same massive holes in his work that I just did. Just three hours ago, Denis Rancourt posted the following on Twitter: Regarding so called peer review, the only secret readers, unknown to the authors, should be after publication. Period. Peer review is establishment censorship by design. That's literally a quote from the physics PhD you are using as a source on the subject of infectious diseases that he just posted to Twitter. He's transparently a fraud.
3.) You've cited the WHO's outdated statement on masks from well over a year ago. When more data came in and masks became more readily available, the WHO changed its suggested policies because that's what scientists do. This is as easy as pointing to the current policy and the WHO's retraction of this former statement.
4.) You've gestured toward your ENT, for some reason. To be honest, this is a hard one to respond to, because I'm not sure what you're going for here.
And some people think the world is flat, that climate change isn't real and that evolution is a lie. They're wrong though. It's not a shrug your shoulders "who knows?!" kind of situation. It's also not "some experts think A and some experts think B", the overwhelming scientific consensus at the moment is that masks significantly help mitigate the spread of Covid.Proof is there for all sides. Because different people have different views. Some experts are against face masks. They think they do nothing at all. Others are for them. Think their claim is it lowers the risk of infection to at least 50%. What about the other 50%? Bit like a toss of a coin. Heads you get Covid. Tails, you don't. Those studies were done in China and other Asian countries. Places were they wear face masks most of the time as a rule and have always done so. So the odds are the exact same both ways. So nobody actually wins.
Have been a few doctors here in Ireland who refused to give people the vaccine. Instead of been asked to explain why, they were struck off the medical list. Again medical experts with different opinions than others. You will never get everybody to agree 100% of the time. That has never happened with anything. This is no different at all.