New Study on Masks Shows...That NO ONE Knows What They're Talking About...NO ONE.
Well, we have a new study on mask-wearing in the time of COVID, and it once again shows that the so-called experts have been peddling information that might not be true. Of course, on a commonsense scale, wearing a mask to prevent spreading the virus makes sense. It does not make you immune. And with the back-and-forth on masks, the credibility of this recommendation has been shot up like a piece of swiss cheese. The best part is that the study undermines the mask regime the COVID Nazis want us to abide by on a daily basis. Look, I won’t lie, folks, I can’t shop for groceries without a mask, so I have been wearing one. Also, I don’t want to waste time being mobbed by the "COVID Karens," but the headline in The New York Times piece says it all about the media and when their narrative gets blown up.
"A New Study Questions Whether Masks Protect Wearers. You Need to Wear Them Anyway." That’s the headline. So, now what? We shouldn’t trust the experts? (via NYT) [emphasis mine]:
Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial. But the findings conflict with those from a number of other studies, experts said, and is not likely to alter public health recommendations in the United States.
The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Critics were quick to note the study’s limitations, among them that the design depended heavily on participants reporting their own test results and behavior, at a time when both mask-wearing and infection were rare in Denmark.
[…]
From early April to early June, researchers at the University of Copenhagen recruited 6,024 participants who had been tested beforehand to be sure they were not infected with the coronavirus.
Half were given surgical masks and told to wear them when leaving their homes; the others were told not to wear masks in public.
At that time, 2 percent of the Danish population was infected — a rate lower than that in many places in the United States and Europe today. Social distancing and frequent hand-washing were common, but masks were not.
About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.
[…]
Dr. Mette Kalager, a researcher at Telemark Hospital in Norway and the Harvard School of Public Health, was persuaded. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.
[…]
Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, described the previous evidence that masks protect wearers as weak. “These studies cannot differentiate between source control and personal protection of the mask wearer,” she said.
Dr. Laine said the new study underscored the need for adherence to other precautions, like social distancing. Masks “are not a magic bullet,” she said. “There are people who say, ‘I’m fine, I’m wearing a mask.’ They need to realize they are not invulnerable to infection.”
Of course, continue to practice social distancing and wash your hands for 20-seconds as often as possible, but this mask stuff has again taken a hit. With that, I don’t know who to trust. It changes, almost like the number of glasses of water one should drink a day. First, they said eight glasses, and then they said that’s too much; we’re pissing away proper nutrients. All I know is that when you don’t know, you can’t issue mask mandates, nor can you issue lockdowns. This is an era where information abounds. People are going to find out over 180-degree reversals like this—and when they do, they are bound not to listen to these people anymore. Any credibility is shattered. It’s already been shattered. You cannot protest or, in the case of Notre Dame, storm a football field when your team beats a #1-ranked opponent in Clemson, but celebrating in the streets and sharing bottles of champagne post-Election Day is okay in the cities. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom was forced to eat crap when he issued his "you have to stay inside" order, only to abscond to Napa Valley for a dinner with multiple friends. The lawmakers from this state also backed lockdowns before going to Maui. Yeah, and people wonder why there’s so much opposition to lockdowns. The experts don’t know anything. The Democrats are getting off on the lockdown authority harder than Jeffrey Toobin on a Zoom call. A lockdown that’s not based on solid scientific evidence, or at the very least evidence where the jury is indeed still out, like masks, isn’t a public safety measure—it’s a power grab. And the American people have caught on to it
