Invite your colleagues and friends interested in investing to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thank you (and their larger pockets!) later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 7
hclasvegas: Is RFK crazy?
Yes.
hclasvegas: WHO is the greatest threat to free speech?
If, by "WHO," you're referring to the interrogative pronoun, why have you changed your claim from democracy to free speech?
And if you're referring to the interrogative pronoun, then the answer is: a second Trump administration.
Bannon, just this week said that during a second Trump administration promises to go after a free press were “not just rhetoric” and that they are “absolutely dead serious” about seeking revenge against journalists. Kash Patel, who is rumored to be at the top of the list for Attorney General in a second Trump administration, told Bannon that a re-empowered Trump would indeed “come after” the press.
As for Bhattacharya, his co-authored paper, advancing the theory that people could achieve herd immunity against COVID-19 without vaccines, was widely criticized for statistical and methodological errors. In the law suit he joined, Murthy v. Missouri, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a range of government agencies, including the Health and Human Services Department, the State Department, and cybersecurity officials, were prohibited from influencing social media companies’ content-moderation policies and is now on the U.S. Supreme Court docket.
At the time, Google, a private company, wrote: “We have strict publisher policies that prohibit content promoting anti-vaccine theories, Covid-19 misinformation, and false claims about the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections.”
Stay tuned. We'll see the court's ruling this summer.
But yeah, for most dangerous to democracy, freedom of speech, and the world at large, I still go with the finger rapist who is guilty of business fraud, encouraged Russia to invade the EU, stole and refused to return top secret military intelligence, quotes Hitler, and says that Jews who don't vote for him hate Israel and their religion.
No. of Recommendations: 3
" hclasvegas: Is RFK crazy?"
Good morning common, it's my pleasure to give you an opportunity to offer your daily trump rant, who shouldn't even be on the ballot. WHO is the greatest threat to free speech and democracy ? The guy who will be held accountable by 80 % of the press and our govt agencies OR the party led by the guy who will get a free pass by 80 % of the press and our govt agencies? Have you been censored yet by any of the social media titans ? Thanks, I think you can answer that question without mentioning trump ?
No. of Recommendations: 2
" At the time, Google, a private company, wrote: “We have strict publisher policies that prohibit content promoting anti-vaccine theories, Covid-19 misinformation, and false claims about the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections.”
Google went public in 2004. goog, twitter, fb, cnn, etc have all admitted they made many errors with respect to what they censored and blocked.
No. of Recommendations: 3
LOL
Illiterate old nut job drinks the kool-aid and shouts at the clouds!
Tune in tomorrow for more of the same...
America what has happened to you?
No. of Recommendations: 6
Google went public in 2004. goog, twitter, fb, cnn, etc have all admitted they made many errors with respect to what they censored and blocked.
The mask/vaccine mistakes were, for the most part, honest errors made as a result of a rapidly changing biological dilemma during which millions of people were dying. The goal was the greater public good.
The false claims -misinformation/lies- that led up to an attempted insurrection, and continue to be spread by Trump and his sycophants are malicious lies intended to foil legitimate elections.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The mask/vaccine mistakes were, for the most part, honest errors made as a result of a rapidly changing biological dilemma during which millions of people were dying. The goal was the greater public good. - sano
--------------------
How very forgiving of you. There were many examples of the people making the rules for the rest of us, not following those rules themselves. That fact doesn't comport with your benign interpretation of intent.
Cue up the infamous video of a maskless Fauci enjoying ballgame, or Newsom at the French Laundry, or Pelosi at the hairdressers, and hundreds more. Some of the most obscene examples were those big gala receptions where the rich and powerful gathered to give themsolves some inane recognition, the guests were maskless while the staff serving them all had to mask up.
Much of emergency was based on speculation which the experts presented it as fact. Get the shot and you can't be infected, get it now!!!. If you work for the government, get the shot now or loose your job. Not mentioned is the exemption provided to congress and their staffs. Nice of them to make more vaccine available for the rest of us.
Then there was pulling kids out of school with zero regard for other childhood development consequences, the stay indoors rules, don't run at the beach rule, don't attend church even parked in the church parking lots, close the mom and pops but keep the big box stores going, what science supported the six foot separation rule with all those stupid white circles for people to set in like trained seals, exercise is good - just don't go to the gym to do it, test you dinner guests as they arrive and reject them for non compliance, set limits on the number of people you could entertain in your own home, and one of the worst abuses in my estimation - denying family members visitation rights to see their loved ones, in a nursing home or hospice situations when the bewildered patient doesn't know why their family abandoned them or worse dying alone when they could have been surrounded by their loving family.
No, the abuses were many, and went way beyond masks and vaccines, and you let them off too easily. The scariest thing about this was how quickly and easily all this was accomplished.
No. of Recommendations: 3
How very forgiving of you. There were many examples of the people making the rules for the rest of us, not following those rules themselves. That fact doesn't comport with your benign interpretation of intent.
"Honest errors"? That may be the most dishonest thing ever written on this board.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Cue up the infamous video of a maskless Fauci enjoying ballgame
Nothing wrong with what he did. He and his friend were off by themselves and it's hard to catch Covid outside in the sunlight.
Then there was pulling kids out of school with zero regard for other childhood development consequences,
"Zero regard" is not true. Lots of countries did this with kids, they all assessed it. Kids were transmitters. Other countries faced the same problems and all made mistakes - no matter which way they went.
No, the abuses were many, and went way beyond masks and vaccines, and you let them off too easily
Hogwash. I was in the Philippines, a couple came through and one died in Manila. I spent two months at home at the direction of the Gov. Then people wore masks badly except for my wife - and me because she got on me if I goofed. They were pulling motorcycles and trucks over and washing their tires. "Why?" we asked, scratching our heads. Turned out in the past there was a farm animal virus that might be transmitted from farm muck from one farm to another on tires - so they revived it. Everybody wore masks, even outside in the sun. I had to outside because of my wife.
I had one expat whose kid came over to our island for school threatening to come over and kill me after I explained to him that we were indefinitely closed down. It definitely put some kids behind because the internet isn't good enough for school. People were out of work and had to rely on family. They gave out sacks of rice to everyone and my wife gave ours to some poor people. It hurt but most Filipinos cooperated. American expats were famous for being jerks and not cooperating.
No. of Recommendations: 3
There were many examples of the people making the rules for the rest of us, not following those rules themselves.
There were a few examples of no consequence except for the imagined value of those examples as talking points.
The overall effort was well-intentioned; not the absurd conspiracy theory you seem to believe.
Enough time wasted responding to your continued misunderstanding and misinformation.
Ciao.
No. of Recommendations: 3
No, the abuses were many, and went way beyond masks and vaccines, and you let them off too easily. The scariest thing about this was how quickly and easily all this was accomplished.
There were several lessons from the pandemic:
*All jobs are essential
*NEVER surrender your freedom to the "expert class"
*Accountability is not a thing with the bureaucratic class
The worst part of it is is that none of them - not Birx, not Fauci, none of them - ever apologized. They got drunk on their power and far too many Americans went along with it.
No. of Recommendations: 8
The worst part of it is is that none of them - not Birx, not Fauci, none of them - ever apologized. They got drunk on their power and far too many Americans went along with it. Why would they apologize. The death rate from Covid decreased by almost 90% once people started following the prescriptions of the medical community (not those from people listening to Laura Ingram or similar quacks.) Distancing, vaccines, and the like were responsible for shortening and making the pandemic significantly, gigantically, astronomically less deadly than previous pandemics.
There is a chart here. I understand you probably won’t look at it because it goes against your cherished - and false - beliefs, but *actual deaths* were averted once the medical community recommendations were followed.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why would they apologize.
For sucking at their jobs and ignoring available data (the cruise ship, Sweden's excess deaths and the school experience in Europe to name a few. You're likely unaware of any of that). Again, it's a nuanced topic not for this board and posters who are just here for drive-by shootings.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I suppose I should be surprised that we have people on here defending the government's response to Covid, but that's consistent with a cadre of posters who only consume data from approved liberal sources. I remember the debates we had on TMF about Covid and one particularly panicked eurodude saying that THIS WAS THE APOCALYPSE or some such thing.
Anyways, here's one of the 'heroes' of Covid in action:
https://archive.ph/xk3QM#selection-2413.0-2415.184Deborah Birx’s Guide to Destroying A Country From Within
BY MICHAEL SENGER JULY 14, 2022 A real savior, Birx:
Virtually every page of Birx’s monstrosity of a book, Silent Invasion, reads like a how-to guide in subverting a democratic superpower from within, as could only be told through the personal account of someone who was on the front lines doing just that.
Notably, though Birx’s memoir has earned relatively few reviews on Amazon, it’s earned rave reviews from Chinese state media, a feat not shared even by far-more-popular pro-lockdown books such as those by Michael Lewis and Lawrence Wright.Hey, even the incompetent have fans. How on top of things was she?
So just to recap, here we have Deborah Birx—the woman who did more than almost any other person in the United States to promote and prolong Covid lockdowns, silencing anyone who disagreed with her, to the incessant praise of mainstream media outlets—telling us she’d been inspired by all those images of Wuhan residents falling dead and constructing a hospital in 10 days, and still didn’t realize they were fake two years after they’d been proven fake.
And that’s just Chapter 1.Swell. Here's Birx on the "dangerous" Dr. Atlas:
That schools could open everywhere without any precautions (neither masking nor testing), regardless of the status of the spread in the community.
That children did not transmit the virus.
That children didn’t get ill. That there was no risk to anyone young.
That long Covid-19 was being overplayed.
That heart-damage findings were incidental.
That comorbidities did not play a critical role in communities, especially among teachers.
That merely employing some physical distance overcame the virus’s ill effects.
That masks were overrated and not needed.
That the Coronavirus Task Force had gotten the country into this situation by promoting testing.
That testing falsely increased case counts in the United States in comparison with other countries.
That targeted testing and isolation constituted a lockdown, plain and simple, and weren’t needed.Huh. Pretty much all of that turned out to be true.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Absolutely true. Once the actual experts (there's that word!) stepped in, deaths plummeted in those areas that listened to them. Those areas that didn't experienced higher rates of death. (Yeah, I'm looking at YOU, Red States...red states experienced much higher rates of death from COVID because they thought masks were useless and dewormers were effective.)
They are experts for a reason. Doesn't mean they are perfect. But they are better-informed and more knowledgeable about their subject than the average citizen.
Refresh my memory...what happened in Jan/Feb of 2021? I'm pretty sure a new variant, but was there also "fatigue" from all the precautions? We were still sequestered at that time. I would go to the lab on weekends when no one was there, and on weekdays I worked from home (writing reports, gathering info via email for lab work I would need to do, etc). That's about the time the vaccine was available for older folks. We got our first shots in April, I think (of 2021).
No. of Recommendations: 0
Absolutely true. Once the actual experts (there's that word!) stepped in, deaths plummeted in those areas that listened to them. Those areas that didn't experienced higher rates of death. (Yeah, I'm looking at YOU, Red States...red states experienced much higher rates of death from COVID because they thought masks were useless and dewormers were effective.)No.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/covid19_...What does 1 glance at the map tell you?
No. of Recommendations: 8
What does 1 glance at the map tell you?
That vociferously red states in the South and lower Midwest had the absolutely highest death rates, and that red states in the upper Midwest, which coincidentally have the least population (and therefore least problem with urban crowding) had among the lowest.
Why, what does it tell you?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why, what does it tell you?That you can't read maps, don't know anything about COVID, what we did, how we responded, or what peole were doing during the pandemic. You didn't even look at it based on the nonsense you just typed.
That's okay. You here to feed your narcissism, not discuss stuff.
I'll also leave this here for you:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/01/10/no-lockdown-s...Kindly get back in the hooptie and drive it someplace else while hanging out of the window. You don't know anything about this subject.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That most of dark blue states (in the map, not political leanings) were "red" states. Including AZ, where I am. Ranking them, the bottom 11 states are all red.
Meanwhile, top 9 states were all blue (political leaning).
The only red states that did comparable to CA (with a high population density) were very rural (like Iowa).
It takes more than a glance to get an accurate picture.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Despite his "drive by" style, he is correct. The deep red south and midwest did the worst (rank the states...the bottom 11 are all red). The map is simplistic in that it doesn't account for population density, even if they normalized it to deaths per 100K. Of course less urban states would do better, given how the virus was transmitted (no fomites, just airborne). Big cities means more transmission, all else being equal. But it wasn't equal. Red states eschewed masks. Some actually banned them, or tried to ban them. I note WA did really well (you must be proud of your governor at that time!).
No. of Recommendations: 0
That most of dark blue states (in the map, not political leanings) were "red" states. Including AZ, where I am. Ranking them, the bottom 11 states are all red.
Meanwhile, top 9 states were all blue (political leaning).
The only red states that did comparable to CA (with a high population density) were very rural (like Iowa).
It takes more than a glance to get an accurate picture.
Sure. Does the location tell you anything?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Despite his "drive by" style, he is correct.No. He's engaging in a drive by to score points. I don't know who thinks that someone appearing out of nowhere to insult people on the internet is cool and all, but they can do whatever. But no one who claims to want to debate would find what he has to say enlightening. It's all partisan nonsense.
Why is Florida not as bad as Arizona or New Mexico? Remember "Ron DeathSantis"? He was going to kill everyone, remember? Why's his death rate close to the Big Gretch up in Michigan? Why is no mandate South Dakota essentially at the same level as megalockdown Oregon?
Drive by posters like him and ChatNPC want to score political points. They don't know enough about a topic to engage in an actual discussion and if they tried they embarrass themselves.
Red states eschewed masks. Some actually banned them, or tried to ban them. I note WA did really well (you must be proud of your governor at that time!).LOL @ masks.
Spoiler alert: They didn't work.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask...The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous.
“There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”
But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?
“Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson.
What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?
“They were convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies.”
What about the utility of masks in conjunction with other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene, physical distancing or air filtration?
“There’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference.”Boom. That's my foot going up the arse of the drive-by's posts.
So I'll ask again. Where's the apology for being really, really wrong on just about everything wrt Covid?
Don't get me started on Jay Inslee. He's an absolute joke of a governor.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Location of what? Not sure what you're asking about.
Here's a boatload of data and charts for your reading pleasure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10684....
The various charts for 2021 show a distinct separation between red and blue, and blue was doing better. They also state the limitations near the conclusion paragraph at the bottom.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Kindly go look at the NYT article.
No. of Recommendations: 5
You posted that after I asked the question, but OK. It's an opinion piece. As I've said many times, I prefer factual pieces to opinion pieces. That said, looking at the time of COVID, they were encouraging numerous measures to protect from infection because we didn't know, initially. Wipe down your shopping carts, leave your mail in the sun, wear masks. As we learned more, most of the fomite precautions were abandoned because that wasn't how it was transmitted. We didn't know that in March of 2020. The respiratory measures (masks) made logical sense. It's easier to look back and say that it was (or wasn't) effective. At the time, we had to use the best information we had.
In that opinion piece was a link to a meta analysis. I highlight part of the conclusion:
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks.
They go on to say there was no clear benefit. Not that there was no benefit. Basically, they said they didn't know one way or the other, but they couldn't declare a positive result.
Even if there was clear evidence of lack of efficacy, this is in 2024. We now have data about mask-wearing, who died and who didn't, who got sick and who didn't, etc. Hindsight is 20/20. You have to do the best you can with the knowledge you have at any given time. At the absolute worst, masks did no harm (in terms of the virus). It did not make things worse, and was a logical precaution given the nature of the virus.
I do not begrudge them advising me to wipe down shopping carts, or put my mail in the sun for an hour, or wear a mask. Those bits of advice were the best they had at the time. Today, they wouldn't bother with the wipe-down or leaving the mail out in the sun. Four years (and a lot of learning) later. Anyone that claimed they knew better at the time is full of it. They didn't know. They couldn't have known. Nobody knew.
And I still don't have the answer to "location of what?". That opinion piece had nothing to do with geography.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I do not begrudge them advising me to wipe down shopping carts, or put my mail in the sun for an hour, or wear a mask. Those bits of advice were the best they had at the time. Today, they wouldn't bother with the wipe-down or leaving the mail out in the sun. Four years (and a lot of learning) later. Anyone that claimed they knew better at the time is full of it. They didn't know. They couldn't have known. Nobody knew.
It wasn't unknown knowledge that
*UV rays kill bateria and viruses
*Wiping down surfaces with disinfectant kills 99% of viruses (Don't think there is a virus yet that can get past even Lysol, which is diluted ammonimum)
*Masks have particulate ratings
That last point is the big one. Masks have specification ratings and guidelines on how to use them. There was/is nothing more comical than watching some doof with a full beard wear his mask outside in the sun smugly thinking he's protected from anything. Masks are great for stopping you from sneezing all over someone else; they are not and never have been the panacea of disease protection.
All this was known before Covid.
As far as location, take a look at the latitude of most of the states with the worst COVID. What's the average temperature there compared to northern states? Do you think that might have had something to do with it? Might that explain why deep-blue New Mexico has similar rates as neighboring Arizona?
COVID wasn't partisan. The response was, as was the damage done due to misguided policies.
In 20 years you're going to wonder why so many blue state kids are lagging behind their cohorts in red states.
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 3
Masks are great for stopping you from sneezing all over someone else; they are not and never have been the panacea of disease protection.
I don't think anyone said they were. And, in fact, you stated their utility. They weren't meant to protect the wearer from everyone else. They were meant to protect everyone else from the wearer. But if you wear one also, you're protecting me (and everyone else) from you. And if everyone in a room is wearing them, they are all protecting each other. But I don't think anyone seriously said it was a panacea. It was a measure that could be taken against a virus that was airborne.
I agree, a lot of mask wearers sucked at wearing masks. I saw one woman who cut a hole in hers for her mouth. Others would only wear it over the mouth (or, more uselessly, on their chin). A lot of people simply refused.**
Now I see what you were saying about "location". For the record, New Mexico isn't that hot. Not compared to Arizona. Not even close, actually. We may be the same latitude, but AZ is routinely 10F (or more) hotter, at least the southern half of the state is (where most of the people are...Phoenix and Tucson). We are very hot, and very dry. Contrast with pretty much any other state in the sunbelt...not as hot, and more humid. Transmission via fomite in Phoenix in the spring and summer?? Probably not gonna happen. At least not outdoors. Our heat and UV kills almost everything that isn't protected. Including people (probably a few dozen every year).
The larger effect appears to be density. Urban areas have more people per square mile (or whatever unit you choose) than rural areas, and therefore a greater likelihood of spread. Lessening contact ("stay at home", "distancing", etc) probably had the biggest effect. It's how NYC was able to get control long before there was a vaccine available, and send the refrigerator trucks away. There may have been a climate contribution as well. I've seen speculation about that, but nothing really definitive.
**1poorkid was working in a sandwich shop at the time. The corporate policy was nobody allowed inside without a mask. But customers would argue with the employees about it as if the employees had any say in the matter. The employees weren't allowed to serve anyone not wearing a mask, even if they had to take them off to actually eat the food...yeah, that was a flaw in that plan.
No. of Recommendations: 3
True. Asia has a culture of mask wearing, and generally higher population densities than the US.
And Sweden admits they messed up, and least partially. I read that they conceded that they should have done a better job of protecting the elderly. Their elderly were really hammered because there were almost no precautions enacted. (Oh...and Sweden is a lot cooler than AZ or AL, to Dope's other point about climate.)
No. of Recommendations: 3
Masks are great for stopping you from sneezing all over someone else; they are not and never have been the panacea of disease protection.
When you misstate the advice given, you may think this is sheer hyperbole, but it falls under the over arching simple term of lies.
Masks were introduced in advice and one of the purposes was to slow down the spread of the virus. The idea was that by slowing the spread the hospitals would be less stressed and not overwhelmed. We don't want to get to the point where a hospital has to practice triage, but we did, at multiple points and times across the USA. The ability to administer good care suffers. Stressed out health care workers make more mistakes. So you could help out by wearing a mask.
For instance Japan: Avoid “Three Cs” (closed spaces, crowded places, and close-contact settings), and wear masks. They are a mask culture, along with S Korea and Singapore. If you take a look, Japan and S Korea are cold, with snow, not high humidity and a fair share of cloud cover - so it was good conditions for a spread, they slowed it way down. Singapore isn't cold, but lots of air conditioning and their advice covered masks, etc.
I wore N95s at first and then S Korean K95s. My wife wore N95s at first and then k95s with a copper mesh mask over that. (Filipina stars were wearing these copper mesh masks so it was stylish) :) Where we were people cooperated but some people didn't cover their nose with the mask. Elsewhere in the world, we could see some people let their egos and politics get in the way during a pandemic and that is not what you want to do.
P.S. Triage in the Philippines meant people sitting in their cars in the back of hospitals with oxygen tanks next to the cars and hoses going thru cracked and fully open windows. It meant poor people on cots or cushions on sidewalks back there with jury rigged leantos for any rain. Masks were worn, but not well.
No. of Recommendations: 12
That you can't read maps, don't know anything about COVID, what we did, how we responded, or what peole were doing during the pandemic. You didn't even look at it based on the nonsense you just typed
Really? Let’s go to the map:
States with the highest death rates:
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Ohio
Arkansas
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Texas
Arizona
Wyoming
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe those are all “red” states.
Also in the “worst” color:
New Mexico
Nevada
And here are the states with the lowest death rates:
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Vermont
Washington
Hawaii
Blue states, yes?
Here are the states with moderately low death rates, which also happen to be primarily agricultural and do not have many large urban areas:
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
And add Illinois, which obviously has one major city in Chicago, but is (surprising to some) a largely agricultural state except for that one city.
All the other states were in the middle of the pack, some a little better and some worse.
It’s clear that Red States which did not follow protocols did very badly. Blue States which did fared pretty well. And rural states, whether red or blue (mostly Red) also did fairly well, but for reasons of spacing and lack of high density conditions through most of their state.
I’m sure you have some other explanation for why New England got off scot-free, and the South got hammered. And I’m sure it will make as much sense as the rest of the drivel you post.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thanks, you just told us you can't read maps and haven't followed COVID much.
I suppose you think China did a bang up job, also.
Get back in the 'hooptie and drive off.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Thanks, you just told us you can't read maps and haven't followed COVID much.
I suppose you think China did a bang up job, also
Enlighten us. We're waiting.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Dope1:
Boom. That's my foot going up the arse of the drive-by's posts.
So I'll ask again. Where's the apology for being really, really wrong on just about everything wrt Covid?Umm, a Bret Stephens op-ed is your mic drop moment?
Sheesh.
Let's go to the study that Stephens claims proves masks were ineffective where you'll find these "Author's Conclusions:"
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.Huh.
A paper in the American Journal of Public Health analyzed the Cochrane paper and wrote a very detailed response (link below) explaining its deficiencies, noting:
The science of masking and its impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated. Observational studies present valuable data that warrant consideration in informing policy with a full understanding of the utility of mask use in a variety of settings. The Cochrane review did not include a large body of evidence, and that resulted in a biased conclusion. If all types of studies are considered, it is clear that well-fitting, properly used masks do have a measurable and significant effect on reducing transmission when properly worn by the vast majority of the population during times of high community transmission. Although the data in the two new studies included in the Cochrane update on masks are accurate, modeling studies correctly predict the small effect sizes that those studies observed; furthermore, the models predict that the effect size would be much larger with better masks more widely and correctly used. Taken together, these and other studies strongly indicate that masking is an effective intervention to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (source control) and should be considered to protect those most vulnerable from severe COVID-19 illness (wearer protection) as a general nonpharmaceutical intervention during times of high transmission. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484...https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-...
