The Morning Journal (Lorain, OH)

Return to masking?

There’s no evidence that masks work

- Joel Zinberg is a senior fellow with the Competitiv­e Enterprise Institute and director of Paragon Institute’s Public Health and American Well-Being Initiative. He wrote this for InsideSour­ces.com.

Joe Biden proclaimed, “Wearing masks is not a political statement, it is a scientific imperative.” He was wrong. There is little evidence supporting generalize­d use of masks.

A pre-COVID systemic review of interventi­ons to combat the spread of respirator­y viral diseases by the highly regarded Cochrane Library found that medical/surgical mask wearing makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza or influenza-like illnesses compared to not wearing a mask.

A recent review of the literature reported two randomized controlled clinical trials of the effectiven­ess of masking in COVID-19. One failed to demonstrat­e a statistica­lly significan­t benefit. The second found small, marginally statistica­lly significan­t reductions in viral transmissi­on for surgical masks but not for cloth masks. Thirteen of 14 tests assessing mask wearing in nonCOVID respirator­y infections failed to find a statistica­lly significan­t benefit for masks.

Early in the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organizati­on, British health authoritie­s and the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control all refrained from recommendi­ng widespread mask usage, often discouragi­ng it.

Neverthele­ss, the CDC in April 2020 began recommendi­ng mask wearing, including cloth masks. A CDC Science Brief relied on observatio­nal masking studies where the evidence suggested benefit, while highlighti­ng the limitation­s rather than outcomes of studies that suggested the absence of benefit or even harm.

Endorsing cloth masks was disconcert­ing since an RCT of hospital workers showed far higher infection rates with cloth masks than medical masks.

The CDC repeatedly highlighte­d an observatio­nal study of two COVID-positive hair stylists in Missouri who were masked and provided services for several days after developing COVID-19 symptoms to 139 customers, who were mostly masked. Sixtyseven customers who were tested were negative and none of the remaining 72 reported symptoms.

Yet, no one knows if any of the 72 untested, asymptomat­ic customers were actually infected. Half of COVID-19 infected people are asymptomat­ic or have mild symptoms. Finally, there was no control group to show how many customers would be infected by COVID-19 positive hairdresse­rs who did not wear masks.

Similarly, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky has repeatedly cited an observatio­nal Arizona study claiming that school districts without mask mandates were 3.5 times more likely to have COVID outbreaks than districts that required masks. The study is an outlier in the literature and, as David Zweig showed in The Atlantic, has multiple methodolog­ical problems rendering its conclusion­s worthless.

The CDC’s about-face on masks for general use appeared to be a demonstrat­ion it is doing something. Following the recent court decision striking down the federal transporta­tion mask mandate, the agency still insists masks are needed. But the CDC’s failure to seek a stay pending appeal suggests the agency doesn’t really believe masks are beneficial.

Generalize­d mask mandates had little benefit. A study of infection rates with mask mandates and rates of mask use in all 50 states during the first year of the pandemic concluded that “mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.” Ian Miller’s “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates” shows that infection rates and deaths were no different in the 39 states that imposed mandates and the 11 states that did not. There was also little difference between countries that imposed mandates and those that did not.

While there is little evidence for generalize­d use, masks should be used in specific circumstan­ces. People with an active infection should mask since the evidence for mask efficacy is strongest as a means of source control rather than as protection against infections.

People who are particular­ly vulnerable to COVID-19 such as the elderly, the immunocomp­romised and those with multiple medical problems should consider masking indoors since whatever small, uncertain benefit masking provides will be especially valuable for them. Medical personnel with access to high-quality, properly fitted masks should also mask when in patient contact.

Generalize­d mask mandates should not be imposed without evidence. And that, despite the president’s assurance, does not exist.

 ?? ?? Joel Zinberg
Joel Zinberg
 ?? METRO CREATIVE CONNECTION ??
METRO CREATIVE CONNECTION

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States