A long time ago, in a reality far, far away, the CDC, NIH, and others knew that mass masking couldn’t reduce viral spread. They also knew masking had downsides. But the mask became a symbol of compliance and they ignored their own research. They even invented some to justify masks. But that’s falling apart, again.
Ambarish Chandra and Tracy Beth Høeg recreated the CDC Study that claimed to prove school mask mandates lowered covid cases but did it bigger and better.
We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods [as the CDC] but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”
Inconclusive. No measurable benefit.
Related: Counties With Facemask Mandates Had 85% More “COVID Case Death.”
If the researchers don’t end up dead in the bathtub of some DC hotel, this might move the needle, but with the pandemic-policy ideologues? That seems unlikely. Masking is not a public health policy. It is the picture of Hitler in your home or office in 1940s Germany. The Mao Suit. A personal shrine to Lenin (VI not John). A sign that you have blindly accepted the cold embrace of authoritarianism.
We will not resist.
As for the research, this is a preprint and not yet peer-reviewed, so the Maskers have been beating that drum like Animal from the Muppet Show. It’s Hunter Biden’s Laptop circa Summer/Fall 2000. Misinformation or disinformation. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. A statement whose value will depend on politics and nothing else because that is the only master to which they answer and the politics is the science.
Some say it is unfair to criticize public health for messaging flip-flops—whether about cloth masks, herd immunity, natural immunity, or the vaccines’ effects on transmissibility—because they were just “following the science” as it changed. But in many cases, what evolved was politics, not science. The critics of public health messaging do not begrudge scientific progress—indeed, most of them want more research. Rather, people are upset by unjustified dogmatic certainty in one direction, followed by an immediate swoop to utter confidence in the opposite course of action. The pandemic produced a headfirst leap into a series of unprecedented interventions, from masks to lockdowns to school closures. In the first weeks of the pandemic, speed was necessary, and mistakes were inevitable. What was not necessary or inevitable was the suppression of healthy skepticism and discussion.
We see the same thing here. Someone took the CDC’s mask research and duplicated it as a randomized control trial. They didn’t search for a way to justify the preferred political policy; they replicated the process to arrive at an accurate scientific result.
They claim that pediatric masking does not reduce COVID19 cases. I’ll admit that I like that result. It comports with my view and the product of nearly two years of writing and sharing research on the topic from both armchair and credentialed experts. Add to that personal observation, crunching state data, and a basic understanding of the mechanics of masks and human nature.
Cloth masks are useless. Even with training and control, medical masks are ineffective against a virus. N95 or K95 masks require specialized training, or they fail. And they all have physical, mental, and cultural downsides, especially for children.
Just like the so-called COVID19 vaccine. Low potential for good with a high potential for harm. Which, now that I think about it, is an excellent description of the Democrat Party.