Politics of The Mask

[GURPS]

An important and long-overdue study published in the prestigious British Medical Journal on December 2nd titled, “Child mask mandates for COVID-19: a systematic review.” The six authors, including the indefatigable Tracey Beth Høeg, who has been in the fight right from the start, carefully reviewed a whopping 597 available studies on the efficacy of face masks for kids.



The authors found a lot of problems with the studies. A large minority of studies appeared to have obvious bias, and clearly violated scientific norms while trying to force a desired result. None of the 597 studies were randomly-controlled trials, which in fairness might be hard to arrange. Finally, the researchers discovered that government masking recommendations were entirely based on “mechanistic and observational data” — not solid scientific evidence — and no systematic review of the evidence has ever been published.

Until now.

The authors boiled down the 597 studies into the top 22 best-quality ones. Among those 22 studies, sixteen found no correlation between mask wearing and lower infection rates. In other words: masking kids doesn’t work. The remaining six studies showed a “critical risk of bias.” Worse, two of the biased studies only found a mask benefit by making simple math errors. The cited benefits disappeared after the studies’ own data was re-analyzed.

Thanks, “experts.” (Ex-spurts.)

So, back when all those “expert” doctors and scientists were gravely informing school boards they should “follow the science” and mask the kids, those so-called experts were talking out of their aft blowholes. In other words, the experts lied. They weren’t thinking. They were just mouthpieces for government agencies that weren’t following the science. And a lot of kids were hurt. Maybe millions.

It only took three years to straighten out the mess the experts made, but we finally got here.

I linked the new mask study above, but here’s a printable PDF version.

☕️ GRIM VERMIN ☙ Tuesday, December 5, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Good news about free speech; great news about mask science; bad news for Ukraine (good for us); and the most terrifying pandemic we've ever faced, which media has been hiding from you.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

Child Masking Is Ineffective, New Study Finds
​

“Trust the science,” “follow the data,” “listen to the experts.”

Starting in 2020, those phrases became a relentless mantra of an oppressive government/pharma/media playbook. Instead of examining the actual evidence, data, and pre-COVID consensus, politicians, administrators and huge swaths of the public put their faith and trust in a few unreliable, self-interested individuals. And with disastrous results.

Following the actual evidence would, in theory, have meant using evidence-based methods as espoused by experts in that field, such as Carl Heneghan from Oxford University. Primarily, that means using a hierarchy of studies, based on quality, to create systematic reviews of well conducted research.

Instead, we were fed the CDC’s reporting of non-statistically significant results based on phone surveys, and we watched as those results were included in pro-masking reviews designed to promote an ineffective policy.

But a new systematic review from Tracy Beth Høeg and a number of other researchers has just been released on mask mandates for children. And unlike the pro-mask propaganda, it actually attempts to use high quality evidence to come to its conclusion.

Background Mask mandates for children during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in different locations. A risk-benefit analysis of this intervention has not yet been performed. In this study, we performed a systematic review to assess research on the effectiveness of mask wearing in children.

They even used independent reviewers to ensure that there was no bias involved in the study selection criteria.

Methods We performed database searches up to February 2023. The studies were screened by title and abstract, and included studies were further screened as full-text references. A risk-of-bias analysis was performed by two independent reviewers and adjudicated by a third reviewer.

That meant that out of 597 studies screened, just 22 were included after meeting the criteria. And in a sign of how the CDC abdicated their responsibility, none were randomized controlled trials. Sure enough, when filtering out information at a risk of serious bias or confounding, there was no association between forcing kids to wear masks and infection or transmission.

Results There were no randomised controlled trials in children assessing the benefits of mask wearing to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission. The six observational studies reporting an association between child masking and lower infection rate or antibody seropositivity had critical (n=5) or serious (n=1) risk of bias; all six were potentially confounded by important differences between masked and unmasked groups and two were shown to have non-significant results when reanalysed. Sixteen other observational studies found no association between mask wearing and infection or transmission.

As every intellectually honest scientist, researcher or expert would admit, their inescapable conclusion is that the “current body of scientific data does not support masking children for protection against COVID-19.”

Conclusions Real-world effectiveness of child mask mandates against SARS-CoV-2 transmission or infection has not been demonstrated with high-quality evidence. The current body of scientific data does not support masking children for protection against COVID-19.

Who would have guessed?

 

[GURPS]

After All This Time, It’s Becoming Increasingly Possible That Masks May Have Actually Made Things Worse​

Masks Linked To Higher Rates Of Infection
​

We have learned of a new cross-sectional study out of Norway on the association between individual mask use and infection rates. And the results are, unsurprisingly, not favorable for the pro-mask fanatics.

Cross-sectional describes observational studies that take data from a given population or subset at a specific point in time. The specific point in time chosen by the researchers here was early 2022, around the end of the Omicron wave through most of the United States and Europe.

Interestingly, the study authors pulled the data from a randomized trial that explored “the effectiveness of glasses in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” That trial had 3,209 participants, making for a fairly large sample.

Those participants reported mask usage as well, which allowed for the comparison of those who reported that they wore face masks and those who then reported an ensuing SARS-CoV-2 infection. So what were the results?

Well, unsurprisingly there was a 33% higher risk of infection for those who reported wearing face masks “often or sometimes,” and a 40% higher risk of infection in those who wore face masks “almost always or always” compared to respondents who said they never wore masks or “almost never” wore them.

We examined the association between face masks and risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 using cross-sectional data from 3,209 participants in a randomized trial of using glasses to reduce the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Face mask use was based on participants’ response to the end-of-follow-up survey. We found that the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 – 1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08 – 1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.

Even more incredibly, the crude rates showed that the likelihood of testing positive increased directly proportionate to the frequency of masking. Simply meaning that the more frequently a participant wore masks, the more likely they were to test positive.

The crude estimates show a higher incidence of testing positive for COVID-19 in the groups that used face masks more frequently, with 8.6% of participants who never or almost never used masks, 15.0% of participants who sometimes used masks, and 15.1% of participants who almost always or always used masks reporting a positive test result. The risk was 1.74 (1.38 to 2.18) times higher in those who wore face masks often or sometimes and 1.75 (1.39 to 2.21) times higher in those who wore face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported never or almost never wore masks.

Quite literally, those who never wore masks were substantially less likely to test positive, those who sometimes wore masks were next, and those who always wore masks tested positive the most.



Well that’s not very encouraging for the reputation of the CDC, is it? Especially considering that the nation’s leading public health agency is still refusing to back off on masking toddlers, let alone adults.

Now to be fair, these are self-reported results, meaning that the data is dependent on the participants detailing their own mask usage and COVID test results. This same type of self reporting has been heavily criticized before, specifically with the disastrous phone survey study in California which claimed, without statistical significance, that wearing cloth masks would lead to a reduction in COVID incidence.

 

[Sneakers]

After All This Time, It’s Becoming Increasingly Possible That Masks May Have Actually Made Things Worse​

No shite Sherlock.

 

[TPD]

Tell me what I’m not seeing in the chart. I see 9.8% of never maskers getting Covid vs 3.3% of always maskers getting Covid. If I’m reading it correctly, the story doesn’t align with the chart. Please educate me.

 

[Sneakers]

Please educate me.

I'll call your girlfriend at the health dept and have her 'splain it to you.

 

[GURPS]

St. Louis Set To Harm Thousands Of People For Nothing
​

Somehow, nearly four years after the start of most COVID restrictions, there's still a committed faction of COVID extremists who won't let go of the most visible symbol of their ideological virtue.

City employees in the city of St. Louis are now required to wear masks starting Friday. And in case there's any doubt about how purposefully ignorant and uninformed city leadership is, their justification for the new mandate is riddled with inaccuracies and ignorant explanations.

According to the letter, the mandate is due to an increase in "flu cases" and "RSV positive tests." They also toss in some inaccurate fear mongering about surging COVID metrics, claiming that the masks will help reduce “rapidly increasing viral activity,” while also referencing wastewater surveillance.




But this explanation is, of course, totally disconnected from the evidence base on masks. As well as the situation in St. Louis and Missouri in particular.

St. Louis Mask Mandate Based On Politics, Not Science
​

In 2023, the Cochrane Library, one of the most well respected institutions in evidence based science, published a review of the studies on masking to prevent respiratory viruses. And they found, unsurprisingly, that there was no evidence whatsoever that masks were effective at stopping flu, RSV or COVID.


That reality has been repeatedly confirmed by observational evidence from around the world. Except now, nearly a year later, delusional, vindictive city officials continue to mandate masks by referencing all three respiratory viruses. That we already know can't be prevented by universal masking.

St. Louis in particular is one of the best examples against mask mandates. According to the county's own data dashboard, the highest period of COVID related deaths in the region took place while they were under a mask mandate. And in the nearly two years after the mandate was finally lifted, deaths have remained low to nonexistent.



Even comparisons in the St. Louis region showed no difference whatsoever in case rates despite diverging policies.




Counties with and without mask mandates showed little noticeable difference, with St. Charles county remaining lower than both St. Louis and Jefferson throughout the winter of 2020-2021 with no mask mandate or dining closure.

Hospitalizations across Missouri have risen, as you'd expect during respiratory virus season, but remain far, far below previous highs. Without the kind of exponential increase during the winter periods in 2021 and 2022.




Growth has also tapered off, and of course, there’s no data on what percentage of these hospitalizations are actually related to COVID complications or whether they’re incidental positives in patients that are there for other reasons.

But none of this matters to the politicians and health officials of St. Louis or other blue areas. An inexcusable devotion to pseudoscience propagated by their ideological allies is what matters.

 

[Hijinx]

Why look at St. Louis. Masks have been mandated for all ambulance technicians and masks are ordered to be used at the hospital right here in St. Mary's County.

 

[GURPS]

Masks effectiveness were fake