lol

Well, if a meta-analysis of 6 studies that are totally incapable of estimating causal effects and found wildly heterogeneous results say that it's 53%, it has to be 53% and anyone who denies it hates science!

This is one of the 6 studies they used in the meta-analysis, and one of those for which they assessed the risk of bias as "moderate", as opposed to "critical". I just had a look at their model, and it doesn't even include covariates for mobility, lmao.

Differential impact of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions on COVID-19 epidemics in the United States - BMC Public Health

---

Background The widespread pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses an unprecedented global health ...

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral....

Confession: I do hate science and hating science is good actually, because this ☝️ is what most science is like 🤷‍♂️

What I love is that, after posting this ridiculous article and advertising this bullshit estimate, he still manages to castigate someone else for allegedly spreading disinformation on masks 😂