COVID has really taught me the limitations of data journalism and data science. Both presume trust in the data collectors and data communicators, and many people simply do not.
I think it would be much better to let people "test it" for themselves. Let them be the scientists, ask them basic questions. You can do this with a kid:
1) Where is the virus in our body? (answer: in the lungs)
2) What does it feel like to wear a mask? (answer: hot/stuffy)
3) Why does it feel hot/stuffy? (answer: the mask is keeping your exhalation closer to you)
4) If masks block your breath, and your breath has the virus, does that not then mean that masks block the virus? (answer: yes)
Bonus) Suppose masks don't actually block the virus that well, say by only 10%. Will they still affect the chain of transmission (yes, its "multiplicative": 90-> 81%->72%->...)
This "psuedo-experiment" would not be up to snuff for a journal, but conversations are not publications. Its better to make assumptions and make deductive arguments, because then you don't need to rely on trust in scientific institutions.
I think it would be much better to let people "test it" for themselves. Let them be the scientists, ask them basic questions. You can do this with a kid:
1) Where is the virus in our body? (answer: in the lungs)
2) What does it feel like to wear a mask? (answer: hot/stuffy)
3) Why does it feel hot/stuffy? (answer: the mask is keeping your exhalation closer to you)
4) If masks block your breath, and your breath has the virus, does that not then mean that masks block the virus? (answer: yes)
Bonus) Suppose masks don't actually block the virus that well, say by only 10%. Will they still affect the chain of transmission (yes, its "multiplicative": 90-> 81%->72%->...)
This "psuedo-experiment" would not be up to snuff for a journal, but conversations are not publications. Its better to make assumptions and make deductive arguments, because then you don't need to rely on trust in scientific institutions.