You may think that the results are striking, Maggie, but even yer man admits that his study wasn't exactly scientific. Interesting, definitely, but, in terms of science, no more than a hypothesis that masks may be effective. The null hypothesis, which needs to be debunked, but which he hasn't managed to do, is that masks are ineffective. His evidence is vulnerable to lots of confounding factors. Philosophically, I'm wary about leaving it like that, as similar but fake arguments have been used to deny anthropogenic climate change. The difference is that, on that score, climate change science is far more settled. Sorry if I come across as Mr Spock.

My view about masks is that I'm a bit puzzled as to why our exalted leader has decided, after months of no mask-wearing culture, that masks are useful in shops. He didn't make that edict a couple of months ago when the death rate was about ten times what it is now. The fact is that the death rate, bad though it still is, plummeted before the mask edict kicked in. My feeling is that the mask edict has been used to replace the social distancing edict, which nearly everyone will tell you is now widely ignored. Masks make us wary, even though they probably don't do much good (and are actually quite likely harmful) in terms of protecting us from disease. Grand if there is no mask abuse. But, as any casual observer can tell you, mask abuse is rife. Masks are the government's way of telling us not to forget that there's a pandemic on. Maybe that's a good thing, but I'm not sure. However, I'm not a anti-mask zealot and I have a goodly stash of the things that I take with me wherever I go.