Resisting the "New Normal" of Forever Masks: An Examination of the Evidence
Are masks the latest tool of social control imposed by government officials, much like “enhanced” security measures at airports after 9/11? We must understand the evidence and resolve to resist.
About three weeks ago, I shared an article that anticipated a “new normal” where everyone would still be wearing masks *even after* everyone who wanted a vaccine had received one. I stated firmly in that post that this is not a new normal I will accept because of the tremendously harmful effects such a “normal” would have on our society, especially our children. Lord-willing I hope to finish a post on these harmful effects soon, but in light of the CDC’s recommendation last week that we now wear not just one but *two* masks, I wanted to explain further why I question the efficacy of masks and why I oppose government mask mandates.
Before setting forth additional evidence, I want to reiterate that one of the reasons I initially questioned the effectiveness of masks was the almost overnight reversal of mask recommendations last spring (see my post from Dec. 30th for more on that: https://www.facebook.com/josh.styles.31/posts/10157506106177096 ). In very short, I explained that the CDC, WHO, surgeon general, et al. initially recommended *against* masks based on years and years of studies that showed they do not work to control viral spread in the general population; what’s more, I showed that most of the recent studies that the CDC and other officials relied upon to recommend universal masking did *not* examine the effectiveness of masks in the real world under real world conditions but examined the effectiveness of masks and mask materials in laboratory settings. Some evidence that I did not share in my prior post, though, relates to observational studies that the CDC and others have relied on to make their recommendations. It’s this observational data I want to address now.
At the outset, it must be said that observational studies can have great value and are sometimes the only type of study that can explore certain questions. However, researchers rightly note that “the results of observational studies are, by their nature, open to dispute [because] [t]hey run the risk of containing confounding biases.” The potential for uncontrolled biases or variables to skew the results of observational studies is a primary reason that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are “still considered the ‘gold standard’ for producing reliable evidence because little is left to chance” (https://www.iwh.on.ca/.../observational-vs-experimental...). Significantly, while the CDC and WHO have at times referenced observational studies in their public communications in support of universal masking, they have either downplayed or ignored the results of numerous RCTs that conflict with the observational studies they promote. As just one example, consider this policy review from May 2020 *on the CDC’s own website*:
“Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza” (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article).
But despite the evidence-based conclusions of many RCTs, is it still possible that observational studies relied upon by the CDC and others have shown what RCTs could not? To judge the evidence of any observational data in the best light possible, one could grant that in some circumstances there is a *correlation* between mask mandates or universal mask-wearing and reduced viral spread; however, it would be nearly impossible to say that masks *caused* a reduction in viral spread because of so many confounding variables. Nevertheless, let’s assume for the sake of argument that correlation *equals* causation without any further examination. Does the observational data show a clear correlation between mask mandates / universal masking and a reduction in the spread of covid-19?
If masks were truly effective at reducing the spread of covid-19, we would expect to see a fairly strong correlation between mask mandates / universal mask compliance and a reduction in the spread of covid-19 (to clarify, universal mask compliance that would presumably be high enough to substantially reduce the spread of viral illness is considered anything over 80%). If you select certain cities, states, or countries, you could understandably conclude that there is a correlation between mask-wearing and reduced spread. However, when you zoom out and look at all jurisdictions (cities, states, nations, etc.), the data is really all over the place. There is no discernible decrease in viral spread in places with mask mandates when compared to those that do not have mandates; in fact, some places without mandates have fared significantly better than jurisdictions that have mask mandates. Consider the following examples:
(1) This link shows many charts that track daily cases and the imposition of mask mandates:
https://rationalground.com/post-thanksgiving-mask-charts.../
(2) This link shows more international charts of cases and the implementation of mask mandates:
(3) This article contains even more charts and additional information (some charts overlap from the previous links):
https://thefederalist.com/.../these-12-graphs-show-mask.../
(4) And this article shows that mask compliance in America’s largest metro areas is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the 80% said to substantially reduce the spread of covid-19 (between 94% and 97% in many areas); nevertheless, many of these areas continue to see record “cases”:
https://dossier.substack.com/.../everyone-is-already...
I could share more articles and many more charts, but for the sake of length I want to briefly address the picture attached to this post. Ingles began requiring masks in their stores on July 21st and was actually one of the last grocery stores nationwide to impose such a requirement (within a week last summer, virtually every major retailer in the country had imposed a mask requirement). And ever since that time, if you walk into Ingles, Target, or most other stores, you will see well over 80% of people wearing masks, which is more than enough to achieve the alleged benefits of universal masking. This is true even in the small town of Greer, SC, where no local mask mandate exists and where no state mandate exists. Even without government mandates, private businesses have followed the CDC’s guidelines and have continued to achieve significant compliance without much enforcement other than social pressure (e.g., probably 95% compliance if not more when I was at Target this past weekend). Nevertheless, there is still not even a correlation between such mask compliance and reduced viral spread.
I’ll end with this: Perhaps the fact that one mask has not worked to slow the spread is a reason the CDC now recommends wearing two masks. But CDC Director Robert Redfield said last summer (July 14) that “if we can get everyone to wear masks right now, we can bring this under control within four, six, eight weeks.” He then said later in the fall (Sept 16) that “this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%. . . . And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will." He later added in the same Senate hearing that “[t]hese face masks are the most important, powerful public health tool we have. . . . I’ve said if we did it for 6, 8, 10, 12 weeks, we'd bring this pandemic under control.” Sadly, most Americans were wearing masks before the CDC Director’s September comments, and the vast majority of the nation (and arguably the world) has been wearing masks at least since he made this assertion last fall. What was the result? Ongoing announcements of record cases.
So what are we to make of all this? Do we now follow the CDC’s recommendation to wear two masks that is based on almost no scientific research (and certainly no meaningful scientific evidence)? Or do we begin to understand that the CDC’s recommendations are influenced, at least in part, by something other than the evidence? To be clear, my aim here is not to blast the CDC or to attribute any sort of ill motives to any specific public health official; rather, my aim is simply to show that universal masking and mask mandates cannot rightly be said to have reduced the spread of covid-19. The observational data shows us masks have not worked, and the RCTs the CDC and others largely ignored told us that they wouldn’t. So why the continued recommendations for wearing masks? Why not acknowledge what the evidence actually shows? (To be fair, in some sense I suppose the CDC’s recommendation of two masks is at least an indirect admission that one mask does not work well, but a more explicit acknowledgement they were wrong would be helpful and could help to restore public trust).
I don’t have all the answers to these questions, but I will end with this: Masks may simply be the latest tool of social control imposed by government officials. Much like “enhanced” security measures at airports after 9/11, mask mandates (and lockdowns, etc.) have given governments greater control over people’s lives. And once governments implement any sort of control—regardless what it is or why it was imposed—they do not typically give up that control, at least not willingly or easily. Just consider the fact that we are nearing the one year anniversary of “two weeks to flatten curve.” And on top of the CDC’s call for two masks instead of one, President Biden seems to have already moved on from “100 days of masks" to “masks through next year.” When does it end? Unless enough people stand up to the perpetual moving of the goalposts, I’m not sure it will ever end. That’s why I want people to see the evidence so that they can understand what’s happening, and that’s why I’m sincerely praying that God grants us wisdom and boldness to insist that health recommendations be based on evidence and that covid no longer be used as a means of social control.