> Goes to show there has to better ways for judging the viability of something without resorting to a strict binary of “do or do not”
It's not just a question of how to judge but who makes the judgment. Part of the point of the article is that wearing a mask seems like something you should be able to conclude is a good idea based on common sense; you shouldn't need to wait for an expert to tell you, and if the expert is telling you something that seems to conflict with common sense, you shouldn't automatically disregard common sense.
Not necessarily. Doctors are exposed to a different set of risks while on the job than ordinary people going about their business. And common sense already tells you that it's a good idea to take precautions when working with sick people, so the fact that doctors wear masks while ordinary people going about their business don't have to should not come as a surprise.
That's not to say that doctors (and others) can't have reasons other than "masks don't work" for recommending that people (other than other doctors) don't wear masks. Just that doctors wearing masks themselves, by itself, is not enough to know that their recommendation for ordinary people not to wear masks is unreliable. You need more information.
It's not just a question of how to judge but who makes the judgment. Part of the point of the article is that wearing a mask seems like something you should be able to conclude is a good idea based on common sense; you shouldn't need to wait for an expert to tell you, and if the expert is telling you something that seems to conflict with common sense, you shouldn't automatically disregard common sense.