That you say that only underscores that you're trying to confidently argue about terms that you don't even understand the definitions of.
Mechanisms aren't "nice to have" nor are they things that "don't automatically translate to the real word". When we talk about mechanics and mechanisms in this context it literally means "How and why the thing works",
it's literally the physical explanation of the observed phenomenon.
And more to the point: They are
precisely the point of contention under discussion when someone argues that there's "no evidence that they work", as you have been doing. You're basically arguing "gravity’s just a mechanism; there's no evidence it actually works, so we should do a real-world trial to see if things actually fall."
You're making genuinely nonsensical arguments.
Again:
Per Cochrane itself:
"Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
It would be accurate to say that
the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence,
the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses."
This is not a negotiable point.
And bluntly, I'm done. Even after being told time and again that you clearly haven't even understood the very source you're invoking - much less the broader topic that it's a part of - you're still insisting on the very interpretation that that source went out of its way to say was a misreading.
You blatantly
aren't even trying to understand the topic, you're just trying to poach your source's credibility by falsely attributing your own opinions to it.