The widespread use of face coverings indoors was mandated from 8 August, following a more limited mandate from 24 July. Since then, we have seen a consistent upward drift in positive test results...(1/4)

Quant methods 101 - Correlation does not imply causation. However, this is pretty much what the evidence of zero to minimal benefit from face coverings would predict. There is a case to answer. Advocates of face coverings owe the rest of us an explanation...(2/4)

"It would have been worse without..." is not acceptable since there was no specific prediction of benefit to test this against. It was only ever saloon bar science. Neither is "people have not been doing it right" because many of us predicted that. (3/4)

Before we start hearing campaigns to double down on the mandate by requiring face covering in more settings, increasing fines, demanding proof of exemptions, etc., can we see some solid evidence of benefit - or an acknowledgement that this rule was a mistake (4/4)