I got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell...

No, actually, it doesn't unequivocally. It details specific risk factors, scenarios, and conditions, as well as caveating it all because the scientific evidence is itself in need of additional study.

I'm sure you probably read 3 sentences in and found the subject matter too advanced. It happens.

I'll take it under advisement...

Now we can add liar to your resume.

You've completely ignored all but the first couple of paragraphs, just like you routinely do when consuming news media, jump to some conclusion that isn't what is actually stated, then get proven to be an idiot when called out on it. You never bother reading the entire thing. The emphasis in this guidance is on *risk-based* approaches and on understanding that the data isn't confirmed. This document is intended for governments, health care workers, and public policy advisors, which is why the caveats and recommendations. *They*, unlike you, are expected to read the whole thing and make determinations holistically. No one expects the public to read the full thing, understand the limitations and caveats, and then perform a risk-based assessment - which is why the upfront with the data and methodology later on.

"Decision makers should apply a risk-based approach when considering the use of masks for the general public.
- In areas of known or suspected community or cluster SARS-CoV-2 transmission...
- In any transmission scenarios: Caregivers or those sharing living space with people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, regardless of symptoms, should wear a medical mask when in the same room."

This is referring to where you *actually* have outbreaks that are increasing vs when you aren't in an active increase in transmission situation - they aren't all "COVID is coming! COVID is coming" panics. Local, County, and State health departments are supposed to actually do their jobs and track whether or not any infectious disease is breaking out and what the trends are. Newsflash - COVID *isn't* widespread in every locale. The "any transmission scenario" applies to "we have no confirmed widespread outbreak in this locale." Some places currently have an Rt below 1, others above 1, and some stable at 1 (which really means it could be just below to just above). Where I'm at, its below 1. There is zero reason to wear a mask outside of a health care setting or in the midst of suspected or confirmed infected people here. Arizona is estimated to have an Rt of 1.1. Brazil's Rt is 0.87, despite the panicked reporting by the news of people dying in the streets.

When they talk about methods of transmission, the words "can" repeatedly appear - in a scientific context this is a "anything is possible" word. It is not the same as a "shall," "should," or "may." It has specific scientific meaning rather than its use in the vernacular.

They specifically state they have no actual proof that it spreads via aerosol in community settings:

"High quality research is required to address the knowledge gaps related to modes of transmission, infectious dose and settings in which transmission can be amplified. Currently, studies are underway to better understand the conditions in which aerosol transmission or superspreading events may occur."

They specifically break out mask usage into health care settings separately from community settings. The obvious reason for doing so is *completely* based upon a scientific risk assessment.

On masks in community settings:

"At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI."

"A number of studies, some peer reviewed (82-86) but most published as pre-prints (87-104), reported a decline in the COVID-19 cases associated with face mask usage by the public, using country- or region-level data. One study reported an association between community mask wearing policy adoption and increased movement (less time at home, increased visits to commercial locations) (105). These studies differed in setting, data sources and statistical methods and have important limitations to consider (106), notably the lack of information about actual exposure risk among individuals, adherence to mask wearing and the enforcement of other preventive measures (107, 108)."

They *specifically* are indicating that mask studies aren't high-quality enough to support a scientific finding of fact - they best they have showed no difference.

They *specifically* state that in the "any transmission" scenario, you are concerned with only those who are suspected or lab confirmed as having COVID with the purpose of source control:

"Anyone suspected or confirmed of having COVID-19, regardless of whether they have symptoms or not, or anyone awaiting viral test results, when in the presence of others - Purpose of Mask Use: Source Control"

This is all context that you either don't understand or are willfully ignoring. *YOU* don't get to decide whether or not other people should be wearing masks or social distancing in the absence of clusters of transmission. Your county health department should be maintaining statistics on rate of change of cases - in almost *all* areas of the country, that trend has been downward after the end of cold/flu season.

You completely don't understand the difference between 90-year old COPD sufferers in nursing homes vs. healthy adults not in the presence of someone visibly ill. The risks are *vastly* different and this WHO guidance states as much, in determining what to consider regarding masks. Of course they are going to recommend masks be worn by everyone, if all you are concerned with is trying to achieve a zero risk situation. Zero risk situations don't naturally occur. "A mask alone, even when it is used correctly, is insufficient to provide adequate protection or source control." *In those situations where you have a higher risk.* Indoors with no ventilation next to someone who lives with someone who has lab-confirmed COVID? Sure, wear a mask. Outdoors amongst people who *aren't* sick and who aren't first contact exposures to someone who is? The risk is so low that mask wearing makes zero difference.

The guidance talks about mask usage - you continue to ignore the caveats and the limits to the scientific evidence. They're saying "we think you should, but we have no proof; in fact, the only scientific evidence that we *do* have that has been confirmed as bias-free shows that they make no difference." This is a "in health care settings, wear all kinds of protective gear, but for the public going about their business, this is really just psychological peace of mind."

Lastly,

Are you doing the following, all the time, every time? If not, your mask usage will actually be more dangerous than not:

-Perform hand hygiene before putting on the mask.
-Inspect the mask for tears or holes, and do not use a damaged mask.
-Place the mask carefully, ensuring it covers the mouth and nose, adjust to the nose bridge and tie it securely to minimize any gaps between the face and the mask. If using ear loops, ensure these do not cross over as this widens the gap between the face and the mask.
-Avoid touching the mask while wearing it. If the mask is accidently touched, perform hand hygiene.
-Remove the mask using the appropriate technique. Do not touch the front of the mask, but rather untie it from behind.
-Replace the mask as soon as it becomes damp with a new clean, dry mask.
-Either discard the mask or place it in a clean plastic resealable bag where it is kept until it can be washed and cleaned. Do not store the mask around the arm or wrist or pull it down to rest around the chin or neck.
-Perform hand hygiene immediately afterward discarding a mask.
-Do not re-use single-use mask.
-Discard single-use masks after each use and properly dispose of them immediately upon removal.
-Do not remove the mask to speak.
-Do not share your mask with others.
-Wash fabric masks in soap or detergent and preferably hot water (at least 60° Centigrade/140° Fahrenheit) at least once a day. If it is not possible to wash the masks in hot water, then wash the mask in soap/detergent and room temperature water, followed by boiling the mask for 1 minute.

Community/cluster transmission is *not* the whole world - it is only where Rt >= 1.

You also completely ignore, in the text you quote, the part where the person is infected. Mask wearing by healthy people is not the same as being around people who are infected.

Lastly - the Beijing study? It's a retrospective on people in extremely close living conditions with people who are infected. Have you ever been to China? Do you know the cramped living conditions in a typical Beijing apartment? 60 square meters and three generations of the family living there. Vastly different dynamics than the typical American home which is 2-3x the size with a single generation. When you have three or more people sleeping in the same bedroom and communally in a single front room or kitchen, it's different than being able to isolate someone who is sick in their own bedroom.

More dumbfuckery by you.  I didn't ignore anything.  Since the vast majority of people are asymptomatic, nobody can be assumed to be healthy, so everyone needs to wear the fucking mask.  Shit.  Do you try to be this dumb?   You also ignored a nearly identical result from Thailand and just focused on China, because you have a pathological need to selectively read only that which you fool yourself into thinking supports your idiocy.

Yes, let's examine your idiocy.  

"If the vast majority are allegedly asymptomatic, it follows that the number of infections is many times over the number of official cases counted, thus it follows that the number of deaths is a much smaller percentage, thus it follows that the percentage is irrelevant since the only thing that really matters is the massive increase in the number of deaths."

Fixed that for you.  You can keep repeating the lie that it's no worse than a flu season until you die of old age and you will still never be correct.  The facts refute you.

"Symptoms are the benchmark of infection and have been since the germ theory of disease, if not longer. By your changing of the definition of healthy, just go ahead and keep yourself quarantined because you might asymptomatically have ebola, HIV, or bubonic plague."

Wow!  The absolutely pure stupid in that Strawman are astounding, even for you.  Ebola, HIV, etc. don't progress in the same way as Covid 19.   Covid 19 is unique in that you are contagious both when asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic, AND is ridiculously contagious.  That unique combination is what requires the masks on healthy people. Most flus progress to the symptom stage before you become contagious, so it's relatively easy to control the spread.

The rest is just your anti-covid echo chamber where you convince yourself that reality is fiction.