The most embarrassing part is that it started off by declaring that the science was against masks, and silencing all dissenters; then moved to declaring the effectiveness of masks, demanding their universal use, and silencing all dissenters.
The problem is with the official silencing, not with masks. You can't even figure out whether masks work when you can't trust any of the sources of information to not be some sort of partisan religious police. The hydroxychloroquine fraud being published in the Lancet is something that political, wedge issue science will never recover from. It was like an awful sequel to the Wakefield incident, and a one-two death blow to the general acceptance of vaccines writ large. Now people will just believe the studies that their political party tells them to believe.
Yes, these are all valid points. One question would be, given that masks likely have little effect, what should governments do? My view would be they should not encourage such an intervention, as it lowers faith in institutions, which is most of what your second paragraph is pointing out.
The problem is with the official silencing, not with masks. You can't even figure out whether masks work when you can't trust any of the sources of information to not be some sort of partisan religious police. The hydroxychloroquine fraud being published in the Lancet is something that political, wedge issue science will never recover from. It was like an awful sequel to the Wakefield incident, and a one-two death blow to the general acceptance of vaccines writ large. Now people will just believe the studies that their political party tells them to believe.