I assure you that I do look things up, Maggie. I look for evidence that has to get over a very high bar. As I said, controlled experimental studies are not possible apropos of mask-wearing so the "evidence" is mostly observational and can't account for confounding factors. Laboratory testing of masks, for example, can't replicate the way people put them on, take them off, touch them, reuse them, wear them under their noses or chins or stuff them in their pockets alongside their ten-dollar bills, used tissues and loose change. On top of that, however strongly one wants to advocate mask-wearing, it is impossible to deny that huge numbers of masks are not only worn incorrectly, making many very likely insanitary and dangerous (not only because of Coronavirus), but they also give many people a false sense of security (sure, all observational, but very easy to observe). On that basis, it is not possible to make a good case for mandatory mask-wearing, and it is equally not possible to turn it into a valid moral issue, in my opinion. However, make disposable masks freely available everyone, alongside a public information campaign recommending face coverings, and you would very likely get most people wearing them and not abusing them, abuse which happens when you are forced to wear them and resent it. But I'm not a mask rebel and I never break the rules. I'm just saying what I think. A statement to the effect that "masks saves lives" simply can't be supported with sound evidence, which would clearly need to be numerical and would not need to be mere best-guesses or estimates. Only a controlled large-scale study could safely conclude that, and such a study would be unethical. Sorry if that makes me sound like Mr Spock.