As to Chris's question - I'm not sure I understand it. More evidence is always better. However the "evidence" with masks seems very variable and non-concise.
I don't think it is. I specifically asked in my last post whether your reference to "the statistics" consisted of that one self-reported survey you posted earlier, but you didn't respond. You also didn't respond when I asked you how much evidence I would have to provide showing differently to be believed. So I guess I'll ask again, same thing, about this reference to the evidence being "very variable."
See, a lot of times people treat evidence/numbers/polls/whatever like a standoff: they've got theirs pointed at me, so all I need to do is find something to point back at them so that we've neutralized each other, and I can believe what I want. But that, of course, is not how evidence works (and nobody with that posture will ever find the truth, except by accident).
Who should we believe when the statistics are still being debated?
See, now you're treating it as established that the "statistics are still being debated." Again, based on what? The link you posted earlier? This is a common rhetorical maneuver, too: cite any dissenting evidence and then make vague references to "controversy" or "debate." Debate something, then say it's being debated! Granted with a very shallow definition of "debate." Because "here's my link, no I don't want to really talk about or defend it" is not exactly debate.
The goal of all these maneuvers is to muddy the waters enough to make two things seem roughly equal in probability, even while they have very different levels of evidence to support them.
Politicians who refuse to follow their own mandates? Medical specialists who keep changing their advice or tweak it for whatever party wins an election?
Easy: you ignore hypocrisy for purposes of scientific evaluation, because it has no bearing on it, and therefore no bearing on this discussion.
Hypocrisy only matters in situations where you have no means of examining the evidence yourself (and thus need to simply trust someone), or possibly as an anecdote to argue that a prescribed behavior is not plausible.