An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

[khalwat]

Great article from PNAS on the effectiveness of masks against COVID-19:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22

It is a research-based, neutral look at the documented efficacy of cloth and other types of masks, and includes a very large References section for the studies it cites. The studies and the article were both conducted and written by scientists who specialize in infectious diseases.

Excerpts:

Do cloth masks work?

There are many designs of cloth masks, with widely varying levels of fit. There have been few tests of different designs. A simple mask cut from a t-shirt achieved a fit score of 67, offering substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showing good fit with minimal leakage (90). One study looked at unfitted surgical masks, and used three rubber bands and a paper clip to improve their fit (91). All 11 subjects in the test passed the N95 fit test using this approach

Masks prevent touching of the mouth and nose

One possible additional benefit of masks as PPE is that they do not allow hands to directly touch the nose and mouth, which may be a transmission vector. The lipid barrier that protects viruses is destroyed within 5 min of touching the hands (95), and wearing a mask during that period could be protective. However, there are no case reports or laboratory evidence to suggest that touching the mask can cause infection.

What about Risk Compensation Behavior (the bike helmet argument)?

One concern around public health messaging promoting the use of face covering has been that members of the public may use risk compensation behavior. This involves fear that the public would neglect other measures like physical distancing and hand hygiene, based on overvaluing the protection a mask may offer due to an exaggerated or false sense of security (96). Similar arguments have previously been made for HIV prevention strategies (97, 98), motorcycle helmet laws (99), seat belts (100), and alpine skiing helmets (101). However, contrary to predictions, risk compensation behaviors have not been significant at a population level, being outweighed by increased safety in each case (100, 102⇓⇓–105). These findings strongly suggest that, instead of withholding a preventative tool, accompanying it with accurate messaging that combines different preventative measures would display trust in the general public’s ability to act responsibly and empower citizens.

What about mask mandates?

Modeling suggests (38, 39) that population-level compliance with public mask wearing of 70% combined with contact tracing would be critical to halt epidemic growth. Population-level uptake of an intervention to benefit the whole population is similar to vaccinations. A common policy response to this conundrum is to ensure compliance by using laws and regulations, such as widespread state laws in the United States which require that students have vaccinations to attend school. Research shows that the strength of the mandate to vaccinate greatly influences compliance rates for vaccines and that policies that set a higher bar for vaccine exemptions result in higher vaccination rates (136). The same approach is now being used in many jurisdictions to increase mask wearing compliance, by mandating mask use in a variety of settings (such as public transportation or grocery stores or even at all times outside the home). Population analysis suggests that these laws are effective at increasing compliance and slowing the spread of COVID-19 (29, 31, 32).

Conclusion:

Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).

Models suggest that public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high (39). We recommend that mask use requirements are implemented by governments, or, when governments do not, by organizations that provide public-facing services. Such mandates must be accompanied by measures to ensure access to masks, possibly including distribution and rationing mechanisms so that they do not become discriminatory. Given the value of the source control principle, especially for presymptomatic people, it is not sufficient for only employees to wear masks; customers must wear masks as well.

It is also important for health authorities to provide clear guidelines for the production, use, and sanitization or reuse of face masks, and consider their distribution as shortages allow. Clear and implementable guidelines can help increase compliance, and bring communities closer to the goal of reducing and ultimately stopping the spread of COVID-19.

When used in conjunction with widespread testing, contact tracing, quarantining of anyone that may be infected, hand washing, and physical distancing, face masks are a valuable tool to reduce community transmission. All of these measures, through their effect on Re, have the potential to reduce the number of infections. As governments exit lockdowns, keeping transmissions low enough to preserve health care capacity will be critical until a vaccine can be developed.

You may not like wearing masks (I personally hate it), but they are not merely "performative".

They also are not 100% effective, but they have efficacy, just like vaccines., seatbelts, etc.

There is a reason why masks are recommended by every credible medical and governmental institution across the world.

Changing your mind based on evidence is the basis for science.

My favorite rant on the subject from UFC MMA commentator Luke Thomas:



Bonus videos:

[Dan Druff]

What about Risk Compensation Behavior (the bike helmet argument)?

One concern around public health messaging promoting the use of face covering has been that members of the public may use risk compensation behavior. This involves fear that the public would neglect other measures like physical distancing and hand hygiene, based on overvaluing the protection a mask may offer due to an exaggerated or false sense of security (96). Similar arguments have previously been made for HIV prevention strategies (97, 98), motorcycle helmet laws (99), seat belts (100), and alpine skiing helmets (101). However, contrary to predictions, risk compensation behaviors have not been significant at a population level, being outweighed by increased safety in each case (100, 102⇓⇓–105). These findings strongly suggest that, instead of withholding a preventative tool, accompanying it with accurate messaging that combines different preventative measures would display trust in the general public’s ability to act responsibly and empower citizens.

Sorry, but this is where you (and the article) lost me.

While the "bicycle helmet argument" may fail for other preventative measures, it's very clear that indeed this has happened with COVID and mask wearing.

Much of this is the media's fault. Due to the politicization of masks, the left-leaning (aka mainstream) media has been terrified to cast masks as anything but the end-all, be-all of safety and responsible behavior.

In 2020 (before vaccinations), I had the following conversation TONS of times with "COVID responsible" people my age, some of whom aren't even political:

Them: So I was at this bar the other night, and...

Me: Wait, you were at a bar? I thought you're really worried about COVID.

Them: Oh, I am. But I wore a mask, everyone was really good about masking, and I was washing my hands like crazy.

Me: Um, no, that's not how it works. Being in a small enclosed space like that with a bunch of people like that is very dangerous for COVID, mask or no mask.

Them: Not true. I'm following all the safety guidelines provided by the experts, and so was everyone else. Anyway, so check out what happened that night...

Anecdotal? Sure. But I had some form of this conversation a LOT, and I'm sure you also talked to tons of people who felt they were safe because they were in a mask. In fact, many were convinced that masking versus non masking was the difference between those who caught COVID and those who didn't.

Want something not anecdotal? Norway. They didn't wear masks at all until August 2020. A survey in July 2020 found that only 2% of the population wore masks regularly. However, they had one of the best COVID outcomes, even in highly populated areas like Oslo. When their COVID problem got a bit worse, they started to wear masks more, but the masking did not appear to make a difference in transmission rates. One thing observed during their non-masking period was that people were more cautious about going into public indoor spaces, and were better about giving each other space.

While I'm willing to concede that masks have a little utility in preventing COVID transmission, they unfortuantely give people the illusion of safety, and discourage the best prevention method of all -- staying home when not necessary to go to indoor spaces.

What about mask mandates?

Modeling suggests (38, 39) that population-level compliance with public mask wearing of 70% combined with contact tracing would be critical to halt epidemic growth. Population-level uptake of an intervention to benefit the whole population is similar to vaccinations. A common policy response to this conundrum is to ensure compliance by using laws and regulations, such as widespread state laws in the United States which require that students have vaccinations to attend school. Research shows that the strength of the mandate to vaccinate greatly influences compliance rates for vaccines and that policies that set a higher bar for vaccine exemptions result in higher vaccination rates (136). The same approach is now being used in many jurisdictions to increase mask wearing compliance, by mandating mask use in a variety of settings (such as public transportation or grocery stores or even at all times outside the home). Population analysis suggests that these laws are effective at increasing compliance and slowing the spread of COVID-19 (29, 31, 32).

This "modeling" is nonsense, and there has never been a connection drawn between mask mandates and COVID outcomes.

In fact, there is some belief that mask mandates make matters worse, because it pushes many people to socialize in more dangerous private indoor spaces where they feel they can go maskless without consequence.

Furthermore, again we have the bicycle helmet problem, as described above. If you feel an indoor space is "safe" because of a mask mandate, you're more willing to enter.

Finally -- and this can't be understated -- it disincentivizes vaccination. The message for vaccination should be, "Do this, and your life will be back to normal", as opposed to, "Do this, and you're still going to be under all kinds of restrictions, because this doesn't really work that well."


The problem is that there's a lot of politically-motivated COVID "research" on both sides, both of which seem to make great (but opposite) cases for their points. However, upon careful scrutiny, none of this biased research holds up.

We cannot find one concrete example of mask mandates leading to better COVID outcomes for any state or country.

We cannot explain how Norway had such a minor COVID problem for the first 6-7 months of the disease, despite the entire country refusing masks at the time.


In general, I am very anti-mask-mandate, but pro-vaccine.

[limitles]

---

Sep 27th 2021

Although covid-19 vaccines are still scarce in poor countries, rich ones enjoy a plentiful supply. In the European Union, nearly three-quarters of adults have been fully vaccinated. In Britain the figure exceeds 80%. And as vaccination rates have climbed, deaths have fallen. In the EU, daily deaths in excess of those in normal years have tumbled by more than 90% since their peak in November. In Britain, they are down by 95% since January, to just less than one per 1m people.

There is, however, one big exception to this story. America is recording nearly 2,000 covid-19 deaths a day, according to a seven-day average compiled by Johns Hopkins University. That is only 40% below the country’s January peak. But the true death toll is even worse. The Economist’s excess-deaths model, which estimates the difference between the actual and the expected number of deaths recorded in a given period, suggests that America is suffering 2,800 pandemic deaths per day, with a plausible range of 900 to 3,300, compared with 1,000 (150 to 3,000) in all other high-income countries, as defined by the World Bank. Adjusting for population, the death rate is now about eight times higher in America than in the rest of the rich world.

[limitles]

What about Risk Compensation Behavior (the bike helmet argument)?

Sorry, but this is where you (and the article) lost me.

While the "bicycle helmet argument" may fail for other preventative measures, it's very clear that indeed this has happened with COVID and mask wearing.

Much of this is the media's fault. Due to the politicization of masks, the left-leaning (aka mainstream) media has been terrified to cast masks as anything but the end-all, be-all of safety and responsible behavior.

In 2020 (before vaccinations), I had the following conversation TONS of times with "COVID responsible" people my age, some of whom aren't even political:

Them: So I was at this bar the other night, and...

Me: Wait, you were at a bar? I thought you're really worried about COVID.

Them: Oh, I am. But I wore a mask, everyone was really good about masking, and I was washing my hands like crazy.

Me: Um, no, that's not how it works. Being in a small enclosed space like that with a bunch of people like that is very dangerous for COVID, mask or no mask.

Them: Not true. I'm following all the safety guidelines provided by the experts, and so was everyone else. Anyway, so check out what happened that night...

Anecdotal? Sure. But I had some form of this conversation a LOT, and I'm sure you also talked to tons of people who felt they were safe because they were in a mask. In fact, many were convinced that masking versus non masking was the difference between those who caught COVID and those who didn't.

Want something not anecdotal? Norway. They didn't wear masks at all until August 2020. A survey in July 2020 found that only 2% of the population wore masks regularly. However, they had one of the best COVID outcomes, even in highly populated areas like Oslo. When their COVID problem got a bit worse, they started to wear masks more, but the masking did not appear to make a difference in transmission rates. One thing observed during their non-masking period was that people were more cautious about going into public indoor spaces, and were better about giving each other space.

While I'm willing to concede that masks have a little utility in preventing COVID transmission, they unfortuantely give people the illusion of safety, and discourage the best prevention method of all -- staying home when not necessary to go to indoor spaces.

What about mask mandates?

Modeling suggests (38, 39) that population-level compliance with public mask wearing of 70% combined with contact tracing would be critical to halt epidemic growth. Population-level uptake of an intervention to benefit the whole population is similar to vaccinations. A common policy response to this conundrum is to ensure compliance by using laws and regulations, such as widespread state laws in the United States which require that students have vaccinations to attend school. Research shows that the strength of the mandate to vaccinate greatly influences compliance rates for vaccines and that policies that set a higher bar for vaccine exemptions result in higher vaccination rates (136). The same approach is now being used in many jurisdictions to increase mask wearing compliance, by mandating mask use in a variety of settings (such as public transportation or grocery stores or even at all times outside the home). Population analysis suggests that these laws are effective at increasing compliance and slowing the spread of COVID-19 (29, 31, 32).

This "modeling" is nonsense, and there has never been a connection drawn between mask mandates and COVID outcomes.

In fact, there is some belief that mask mandates make matters worse, because it pushes many people to socialize in more dangerous private indoor spaces where they feel they can go maskless without consequence.

Furthermore, again we have the bicycle helmet problem, as described above. If you feel an indoor space is "safe" because of a mask mandate, you're more willing to enter.

Finally -- and this can't be understated -- it disincentivizes vaccination. The message for vaccination should be, "Do this, and your life will be back to normal", as opposed to, "Do this, and you're still going to be under all kinds of restrictions, because this doesn't really work that well."


The problem is that there's a lot of politically-motivated COVID "research" on both sides, both of which seem to make great (but opposite) cases for their points. However, upon careful scrutiny, none of this biased research holds up.

We cannot find one concrete example of mask mandates leading to better COVID outcomes for any state or country.

We cannot explain how Norway had such a minor COVID problem for the first 6-7 months of the disease, despite the entire country refusing masks at the time.


In general, I am very anti-mask-mandate, but pro-vaccine.

You're not that smart

[khalwat]

Much of this is the media's fault. Due to the politicization of masks, the left-leaning (aka mainstream) media has been terrified to cast masks as anything but the end-all, be-all of safety and responsible behavior.

I agree that basic healthcare being politicized is absolutely tragic, as it is causing otherwise rational people to take entrenched positions.

Many of the arguments I see against the wearing of masks are eerily similar to the arguments I saw about global warming either being untrue, or not man-made, etc.

Both are equally counter-productive, imo.

Furthermore, again we have the bicycle helmet problem, as described above. If you feel an indoor space is "safe" because of a mask mandate, you're more willing to enter.

You're likely referring to a single study where it was _inconclusive_ whether wearing a bike helmet helped or not.

I don't know about you, but when I send my kids out on a bike, I make sure they are wearing a helmet.

In general, I am very anti-mask-mandate, but pro-vaccine.

I'm pro listening to people who have devoted their lives to the study of a particular area of expertise. The current world-wide consensus is wearing masks has value, and is not merely "performative"

If the data changes, and the expert consensus opinion changes, so will mine.

[Dan Druff]

The problem is that the scientific community has become intimidated by the forces of groupthink.

Remember when "scientists" and "experts" agreed that the Lab Leak Theory was conspiratorial, racist nonsense, to the point where expressing curiosity about that theory would result in bans from Twitter?

All of a sudden, with absolutely no new data to change the situation, that became a viable theory in that same scientific community in 2021.

That wasn't a matter of a breakthrough discovering changing scientific consensus. It was a willingness to engage in groupthink in order to oust the bogeyman (one Donald Trump), and then a relaxation of that groupthink once that task was accomplished.

Politics has entered science, and that's a really bad thing. Any scientist coming down on the anti-mask side -- or even away from the pro-mask side -- could face career ramifications that he/she probably wouldn't want to deal with. The few who have spoken out against left-wing COVID dogma have been basically shamed out of existence.

Keep in mind that I am no happier with some of the right wing antics which have both denied COVID's seriousness and opposed the well-established reasoning for vaccination.

However, never have I had such little trust in the "experts" as I do today, and that's a really bad thing.

[limitles]

The problem is that the scientific community has become intimidated by the forces of groupthink.

Remember when "scientists" and "experts" agreed that the Lab Leak Theory was conspiratorial, racist nonsense, to the point where expressing curiosity about that theory would result in bans from Twitter?

All of a sudden, with absolutely no new data to change the situation, that became a viable theory in that same scientific community in 2021.

That wasn't a matter of a breakthrough discovering changing scientific consensus. It was a willingness to engage in groupthink in order to oust the bogeyman (one Donald Trump), and then a relaxation of that groupthink once that task was accomplished.

Politics has entered science, and that's a really bad thing. Any scientist coming down on the anti-mask side -- or even away from the pro-mask side -- could face career ramifications that he/she probably wouldn't want to deal with. The few who have spoken out against left-wing COVID dogma have been basically shamed out of existence.

Keep in mind that I am no happier with some of the right wing antics which have both denied COVID's seriousness and opposed the well-established reasoning for vaccination.

However, never have I had such little trust in the "experts" as I do today, and that's a really bad thing.

The problem is that many like you believe the highlighted sentence above. Who are the the scientific community? Are they twitter followers who work in a single complex? No they are people worldwide who have spent many years studying particular subjects which you no nothing of and they would want you to define "group think" influences

[khalwat]

The problem is that the scientific community has become intimidated by the forces of groupthink.

Remember when "scientists" and "experts" agreed that the Lab Leak Theory was conspiratorial, racist nonsense, to the point where expressing curiosity about that theory would result in bans from Twitter?

All of a sudden, with absolutely no new data to change the situation, that became a viable theory in that same scientific community in 2021.

This is exactly how science and critical thinking works. You re-evaluate your position based on the evidence; and the evidence is _there_ for mask wearing to the best of our current knowledge.

I don't care who you blame for the politicization of the issue, politicizing basic healthcare is bad.

It's called a public health crisis because we collectively need to deal with it. Adhering to the best expert advice isn't a matter of freedom as in "I get to choose what food I eat", it's a matter of public concern as in "You aren't allowed to drive drunk and endanger others."

Wear a mask where and when asked, and follow other best-practices as they become available.

Just as with social distancing, obviously the best thing you can do is just not drive to stay safe. But if you must drive, wear a seatbelt. It doesn't make you "take more risks, because you have a seatbelt on" -- it protects you. Not 100%, but certainly enough to warrant doing it. Same with wearing a mask.

As for the "lab leak" theory, I've heard a number of in-depth investigations into the situation, and I'm all for investigating the theory. Latest one I heard a scientist interviewed on BBC World, where they discounted the lab leak theory because the signature of the virus didn't match any that the laboratory had on hand.

Listen here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1m88

[khalwat]

However, never have I had such little trust in the "experts" as I do today, and that's a really bad thing.

If we're not going to trust the collective wisdom of people around the world who have devoted their lives to becoming experts in a given area, who are we going to listen to?

If you have a problem with your car, do you distrust the diagnosis from your local mechanic? How about the collective diagnosis from 1000 mechanics? 100,000? 1,000,000?

I will take the collective wisdom scientists the world over, who have devoted their lives to learning a particular subject, over politically motivated suspicion or what some guy posts on Facebook.

Scientists in Japan don't GAF about politics in the USA, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

Scientists in Singapore don't GAF whether Trump wins the election or not, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

and on and on...

[v12cl]

"One possible benefit...."

"Models suggest....."

Wow, the science is clearly settled! MASKS WORK, LITTLE BUDDY!

Time to triple vax and triple mask outdoors to save Grandma.

Masks are primarily used to reduce asymptomatic spread, yet:



If mask lovers love masks so much, why don't they buy a gasmask and stop relying on people's cloth masks and their 10% efficacy to save them?

If me not being sick, not wearing a mask and breathing freely is a threat to you, that is your problem.

Still waiting on one of these blue anons at the grocery store to step, but they only threaten women.

[sonatine]

thank god someone devoted an entire thread to something intellectually obvious so the dumbest people from high school and spend a dozen pages picking it apart like a scab.

[v12cl]

thank god someone devoted an entire thread to something intellectually obvious so the dumbest people from high school and spend a dozen pages picking it apart like a scab.

The fattest kid from High School has weighed in.

[Sanlmar]

However, never have I had such little trust in the "experts" as I do today, and that's a really bad thing.

If we're not going to trust the collective wisdom of people around the world who have devoted their lives to becoming experts in a given area, who are we going to listen to?

If you have a problem with your car, do you distrust the diagnosis from your local mechanic? How about the collective diagnosis from 1000 mechanics? 100,000? 1,000,000?

I will take the collective wisdom scientists the world over, who have devoted their lives to learning a particular subject, over politically motivated suspicion or what some guy posts on Facebook.

Scientists in Japan don't GAF about politics in the USA, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

Scientists in Singapore don't GAF whether Trump wins the election or not, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

and on and on...

George Bush this past Sept 11th:
“So much of our politics has become a naked appeal to anger, fear and resentment”

Druff is just weaponozing the mask issue out of his own resentment. It’s just a reaction to the other side. If they are for it we are against it.

Facebook will supply him with enough ammo for a debate. Druff has more stamina than most but he is not immune to a feeling that has overwhelmed our country.

Once again, I contend you rarely see Druff commenting on Republicans or conservatism. Heck we have Bush going after Trump as in my example yet Druff is not going to touch that. He knows what he is against though.

Druff is just a product of our times and social media which he dearly loves. We still love him. The algorithms are killing him though.

[Sanlmar]

I’ve recently fallen under the spell of George Will. He has arisen from the dead. So I’m hardly the lefty lib but I’m not a victim of the “shirts vs skins” nonsense that plagues the public

[v12cl]

If we're not going to trust the collective wisdom of people around the world who have devoted their lives to becoming experts in a given area, who are we going to listen to?

If you have a problem with your car, do you distrust the diagnosis from your local mechanic? How about the collective diagnosis from 1000 mechanics? 100,000? 1,000,000?

I will take the collective wisdom scientists the world over, who have devoted their lives to learning a particular subject, over politically motivated suspicion or what some guy posts on Facebook.

Scientists in Japan don't GAF about politics in the USA, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

Scientists in Singapore don't GAF whether Trump wins the election or not, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

and on and on...

George Bush this past Sept 11th:
“So much of our politics has become a naked appeal to anger, fear and resentment”

Druff is just weaponozing the mask issue out of his own resentment. It’s just a reaction to the other side. If they are for it we are against it.

Facebook will supply him with enough ammo for a debate. Druff has more stamina than most but he is not immune to a feeling that has overwhelmed our country.

Once again, I contend you rarely see Druff commenting on Republicans or conservatism. Heck we have Bush going after Trump as in my example yet Druff is not going to touch that. He knows what he is against though.

Druff is just a product of our times and social media which he dearly loves. We still love him. The algorithms are killing him though.

"If they are for it we are against it"

I completely agree with this assessment, that is absolutely where we are it.

Vaccinated people wear masks outside in 90 degree weather for fear of looking like a Republican, and get triple jabbed when they already had Covid once, and don't fit the profile to even require a booster, to signal their virtue and commitment to "science"

Democratic governors pass orders 18 months into this to require masks for 2 year olds. The left cheers!

Everyone ignores that more children die in a month from car accidents than from covid, all the while screaming "think of the children" as they pump fear and compliance into them.

Who is reacting to who exactly?

[nightmarefish]

George Bush this past Sept 11th:
“So much of our politics has become a naked appeal to anger, fear and resentment”

Druff is just weaponozing the mask issue out of his own resentment. It’s just a reaction to the other side. If they are for it we are against it.

Facebook will supply him with enough ammo for a debate. Druff has more stamina than most but he is not immune to a feeling that has overwhelmed our country.

Once again, I contend you rarely see Druff commenting on Republicans or conservatism. Heck we have Bush going after Trump as in my example yet Druff is not going to touch that. He knows what he is against though.

Druff is just a product of our times and social media which he dearly loves. We still love him. The algorithms are killing him though.

"If they are for it we are against it"

I completely agree with this assessment, that is absolutely where we are it.

Vaccinated people wear masks outside in 90 degree weather for fear of looking like a Republican, and get triple jabbed when they already had Covid once, and don't fit the profile to even require a booster, to signal their virtue and commitment to "science"

Democratic governors pass orders 18 months into this to require masks for 2 year olds. The left cheers!

Everyone ignores that more children die in a month from car accidents than from covid, all the while screaming "think of the children" as they pump fear and compliance into them.

Who is reacting to who exactly?

Where are masks required for 2 year olds? I happen to have a kid that's 2 and masks have never been required for him.

[v12cl]

"If they are for it we are against it"

I completely agree with this assessment, that is absolutely where we are it.

Vaccinated people wear masks outside in 90 degree weather for fear of looking like a Republican, and get triple jabbed when they already had Covid once, and don't fit the profile to even require a booster, to signal their virtue and commitment to "science"

Democratic governors pass orders 18 months into this to require masks for 2 year olds. The left cheers!

Everyone ignores that more children die in a month from car accidents than from covid, all the while screaming "think of the children" as they pump fear and compliance into them.

Who is reacting to who exactly?

Where are masks required for 2 year olds? I happen to have a kid that's 2 and masks have never been required for him.

New York

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/gov...kers-amid-rise

New Jersey

https://www.northjersey.com/story/ne...ts/5785351001/

[dwai]

masks don't work faggot die mad about it

[Dan Druff]

However, never have I had such little trust in the "experts" as I do today, and that's a really bad thing.

If we're not going to trust the collective wisdom of people around the world who have devoted their lives to becoming experts in a given area, who are we going to listen to?

If you have a problem with your car, do you distrust the diagnosis from your local mechanic? How about the collective diagnosis from 1000 mechanics? 100,000? 1,000,000?

I will take the collective wisdom scientists the world over, who have devoted their lives to learning a particular subject, over politically motivated suspicion or what some guy posts on Facebook.

Scientists in Japan don't GAF about politics in the USA, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

Scientists in Singapore don't GAF whether Trump wins the election or not, and they collectively believe that wearing masks is beneficial to help stop the spread of COVID-19

and on and on...

Here's the problem:

Scientist are not policymakers, and in fact they shouldn't be.

If they notice that masks bring a 1% reduction in COVID transmission, they can truthfully report that masks are "effective in reducing COVID transmission", and that they "recommend wearing them".

We've been aware of COVID for 20 months now. Somehow we are still seeing no consistent evidence that mask mandates work, or even that voluntary mass usage of masks work. In fact, we've seen cases like Norway in early-mid 2020 which indicate the opposite.

Scientists could also prove that everyone driving a maximum 25 MPH would greatly reduce auto deaths -- and they'd be correct. But should we? Obviously not, because the downsides and inconvenience to society wouldn't be worth the lives saved.

If mask mandates had a significant impact, we would have seen a stark difference in death rates between places with mask mandates, and those without. We didn't. That speaks louder than any so-called scientific consensus. I am not interested in any mandates in order to have a minimal or nonexistent positive impact.


Notice that we ARE seeing other stark differences, regarding behavioral elements with COVID. Populations with high vaccination rates are seeing far fewer deaths and hospitalizations than populations with low vaccination rates. We have seen no such difference with masking. It appears that masking is either mostly ineffective, or it brings on enough riskier behavior due to a false sense of security that its effectiveness is canceled out.

Regarding the Lab Leak Theory, even Joe Biden has come around to admitting that's a viable theory. There's still debate on it, but that's fine. There's no longer a scientific consensus on it like there was last year, even though we have received no new major information which changed any minds. The fact that it was actually a censored discussion topic on Twitter speaks volumes. What could possibly be gained from doing that, other than to suppress debate for political purposes?

I wish I could trust our scientists today. When it comes to apolitical scientific issues, I do. When it comes to anything politicized, I don't. Look at the situation with the explosion of transgender teens, and the life-altering therapies they demand. There have been attempts to do studies on whether this is healthy or justified. Anyone attempting such a study is ostracized from the scientific community for being "transphobic". A well-researched book on this topic, written by a lifelong Democrat, was banned from Target and other outlets.

"Experts" with an agenda -- or ones under tremendous pressure to validate an agenda -- are incredibly dangerous. If a study isn't being approached from a truly neutral standpoint, then I will pay it no mind.

[simpdog]

I'd rather listen to "experts" with an agenda than someone on Facebook who didn't finish high school but yet is an expert on science and human rights issues. Most of the people around here that are anti mask anti vax are high school drop outs that work minimum wage jobs.


Druff -> You can't compare Norway/Sweden in 2020 to anything in 2021. There's new strains, people are vaccinated and lots of other variables.