for those looking for a compendium of mask studies this set from swiss policy research looks useful and has some good links and discussion.

also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to

first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.

it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.

the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was published.

https://t.co/qY66ZaNnsn
also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.

ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same result

https://t.co/IBVypJbjPI
the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks

the good studies do not support use

https://t.co/viMzUDYm29
and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.

it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply penetrating.

https://t.co/nFD9onkjrn
is this the case and can it dominate droplet spread reduction? maybe. we don't really know. does it account for edge leaks and the benefits of coughing into a hand or handkerchief?

there are 1000 variables. this is why you need actual clinical outcomes studies not lab models
anyone trying to pass those lab models off as proof is essentially arguing "hey, it killed cancer in a petri dish, it will work in your body!" then you drink bleach. oops.

this is not the way actual science is done and it's embarrassing to watch it get passed off as such.
masks are a visible in-group talisman with little or no real scientific backing.

they are playing the role of tribal signifier rooted in superstition and superstition.

calling that science is just doubling down on the same.

i suspect this is why the debate is so rancorous.
no one likes having their holy talismans demeaned or demonstrated to be false and tribes rally around them when challenged.

attacking masks is attacking a religion, not a scientific practice.
such secular religions are tricky. the converts do not realize it's religious in nature. their very dogma is that "it's science"

but it's not. science asks questions and addresses data

this is self delusion about one's own superstitions reinforced by tribal virtue signaling.
the end result is that almost nobody can really convince anybody to change their mind.

but take a deep breath and take a dispassionate look at the data. it may help.

i began with the presumption that masks ought to work.

then i looked for data.

i presumed it was a slam dunk.
but it's not. at all. the data for masks is limited, sparse, situational, and mostly poorly gathered

many of the studies are outright junk

as i read through the literature, it seemed that the better the study design, the less efficacy it showed

ultimately, it changed my mind
and i came to the view that masks look to have no material effect and are likely causing more harm than good even before adding in the psychological factors.

try it yourself. there are lots of studies.

hold your priors loosely, be open to data, and read them.
if you are not willing to do that, (and let's face it, most are not) then you really need to stop claiming to be "on the side of science" because that's what science is.

it's open minded questioning, not regurgitation of dogma and submission to credentialism.

food for thought.

More from el gato malo

this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.

hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.

it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.

getting them is like pulling teeth.


we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:

this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.

that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that

this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.

"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.


90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.

staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.

and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.

the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.

61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.

can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
from the "make orwell fiction again" files:

google has memory holed the great barrington declaration

not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"

it's pure, simple propaganda

here's bing (who plays it straight)


simple, right? here's the declaration, here's the wiki page.

you can see the authors, kulldorf, gupta, bhattacharya's names and know this this was written by medical professors at harvard, stanford, and oxford.

there's no slant, not editorializing, it's primary source info.

now let's have a look at google.

pretty different looking results, huh? not only do they not lead with the declaration itself or its authors, they lead with dishonest hit pieces.

they try to tie it to climate denial and fake science.

um, no. this is "fake search."


the google results for "great barrington declaration" are simply not search results at all.

it's a propagandistic hit piece ducking the science, ignoring the credentials of the authors, failing to show the declaration, and spinning it as some kind of fringe cabal of "deniers."


it's staggeringly blatant once you see it, but will anyone?

or will they be fooled by this because it's subtle and you think google is a search engine, not a radicalized editorial column.

and it's now EVERYWHERE.

reddit will not allow users to see

More from Society

So, as the #MegaMillions jackpot reaches a record $1.6B and #Powerball reaches $620M, here's my advice about how to spend the money in a way that will truly set you, your children and their kids up for life.

Ready?

Create a private foundation and give it all away. 1/

Let's stipulate first that lottery winners often have a hard time. Being publicly identified makes you a target for "friends" and "family" who want your money, as well as for non-family grifters and con men. 2/

The stress can be damaging, even deadly, and Uncle Sam takes his huge cut. Plus, having a big pool of disposable income can be irresistible to people not accustomed to managing wealth.
https://t.co/fiHsuJyZwz 3/

Meanwhile, the private foundation is as close as we come to Downton Abbey and the landed aristocracy in this country. It's a largely untaxed pot of money that grows significantly over time, and those who control them tend to entrench their own privileges and those of their kin. 4

Here's how it works for a big lotto winner:

1. Win the prize.
2. Announce that you are donating it to the YOUR NAME HERE Family Foundation.
3. Receive massive plaudits in the press. You will be a folk hero for this decision.
4. Appoint only trusted friends/family to board. 5/
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like