@KeepTakingTheSoma @lain @EvolLove @bonifartius

"Limited evidence" is meant literally, not as a negative. It's basically one step above "no evidence." To quote your own first source:

> In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users.
> In observational studies, wearing masks is associated with a lower risk of contracting viral respiratory infections.

The disclaimer on the mask box could simply be to ward off complaints.

Given that wearing a mask causes barely any inconvenience at all, I don't see an issue with mandating their use in enclosed spaces, based on *potential* benefits despite lack of clear evidence.

It's a bit like the seat belt mandate. Maybe you only ever drive very carefully at max. 20 Mph / 30 Kmh to the grocery store down two blocks, but you still have to wear the seat belt every time because it's easier to just mandate it for everyone in all cases than to figure out the exact scenarios in which it's really beneficial and try to encode that into precise rules.

> I believe that mask wearing was chosen as an easily identifiable marker of compliance.

Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by that?