That is, as usual, a basket of low-quality studies that suggest that surgical masks may(!) decrease infection.
In other words, scant evidence, just like I said. The difference is in the branding.
In other words, scant evidence, just like I said. The difference is in the branding.
In what way are they low-quality? They are basically as good of a quality as the ethical considerations allow any studies to be made in this area (it's not like you can make an RCT that actively tries to infect participants to study how well the virus does).
In what context are you using the word "scant" here? What kind of practical (realistic) evidence would even satisfy your judgement here as "non-scant"?