Installation of a gas heating system in new construction 2023/2024

How does one methodically show that masks "in reality" do not work when they definitely do under controlled conditions?

Specifically: What is the test group, what is the control group?

There are peer-reviewed studies on flat earth too – they now even have their own journals around the world.

I am probably demanding the impossible right now: nuanced thinking.

Because there is peer-reviewed bad science, the inverse conclusion does not apply: that peer review cannot ensure quality.

Again specifically: Because some sociological statistical analyses are contradictory, even though all peer-reviewed, non-statistical physics does not have to face the same problem of ambivalence!

NO!

Sometimes a thought experiment helps, for the third and last time very concretely:
If masks do not work, then we could have expected identical infection dynamics in full schools with 30 children per room at 0.5m distance in case A (all wear masks) vs. case B (no one wears masks).
Do we know this? Not really, since the control group is missing.
Would that be a plausible assumption? No, completely implausible, because we know for sure that masks work under controlled conditions. So why not in the real but still controlled condition of school. Or nursing home? Or train? Or waiting room?

Anyone who says that something "in reality" does not work, which has been proven to work under controlled conditions, MUST answer this question. Even "in reality" we had islands of controlled conditions, they were simply part of reality.
By the way, I have not found this answer, because this quality of counter-evidence simply does not exist. And I have really looked.

So much for the alleged proofs of the ineffectiveness of masks.

Yeah, healthy common sense already tells you that two people wearing masks exchange fewer aerosols/droplets/germs/viruses than two people without masks. I don't need studies for that, do I? How much, that can be debated. "Nothing" is simply wrong.

It really seems to be difficult to understand. It's not just about the effect of not wearing it properly (by the way, the wrong face shape or the clip not being pressed is enough), so apparently 90% do not wear it correctly and the mask is almost ineffective. In addition, people with masks keep less distance or ventilate less because they think they are protected.

The evaluations on this are clear. We had federal states with and without. There were no differences in infection or disease progression. There is also data from Asia, Sweden, and other countries on this.

You can waffle a lot about it now, but the fact is, masks were useless as a measure in the field.

Just be specific: Science says that due to human CO2 emissions, the temperature is rising historically fast. Right? Wrong?

The evidence comes from knowledge about the properties of the CO2 molecule, direct temperature measurements, and spectroscopy of the atmosphere both from the ground and from above (weather balloons, satellites).

Up to this point, just measurements, no models yet.

And then simply the belief that the 1st law of thermodynamics must be correct…

The models are then for something else: to show IF-THEN scenarios for the future - with uncertainty ranges.

Regarding dissenting opinions within science: They are not heard because they partly keep repeating things that were refuted partly 100 years ago.
It is again the fallacy that freedom of opinion has lost something in science: NO. Cleanly refuted stuff gets thrown out. That is why they have no weight: They have no evidence for themselves, but a bunch against them.

Nice that you can measure that it is getting warmer. Nevertheless, you still don't know why.

Recently, there was a report about the fall of the Romans. In a side remark, it was said that it was 2 degrees warmer back then.

are you claiming the mask nonsense because you misunderstood the Cochrane analysis? And again, what does that have to do with heating systems?

It makes sense that for climate change deniers an argument against gas heaters falls away. Even though I can't understand how anyone can still manage to deny it nowadays. What remains then with the argument of dependence on other countries?

It really seems hard to understand. It’s not just about the effect of not wearing it properly (by the way, the wrong face shape or not pressing the clip is enough), so apparently 90% do not wear it correctly and the mask is almost ineffective. In addition, people with masks keep less distance or ventilate less because they think they are protected.

The evaluations on this are clear. We had federal states with and without. There were no differences in infection or disease progression. There are also data from Asia, Sweden, and other countries on this.

You can waffle on about it all you want, the fact is, masks were useless as a measure in the field.

Regarding your post, the following should be said:

a) There were no federal states with and without. Controlled environments with mask mandates, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, existed nationwide. Very real and simultaneous.

b) What is a "fact," you do not know. The studies clearly state that the question to be examined cannot be answered due to various factors. How do I know this? By reading studies instead of simply believing the digested (social) media version.

c) There are studies that clearly show that masks slow the infection progression under controlled conditions. Controlled conditions were accordingly attempted to be established in the facilities mentioned in a). Is the success here methodologically verifiable? No, because there is no test group, it was done everywhere.

-> From a) - c) it logically follows that your statement "the fact is..." is factually false. This fact is simply not known. That it could be so is not impossible, but completely implausible. You claim nothing else than that it doesn’t matter, in a room with 30 people who talk, laugh, etc. and about 0.5 m distance, whether you wear a mask or not, referring to droplet infections.

If you hint at that and at the same time call others “nutjobs”… in my opinion, you have already strongly fenced in your own thinking so that it just doesn’t lead you anywhere.