CDC Claims Mask Mandates Don’t Have a Statistically Different Impact on COVID Than No Masks At All – Will Therefore Continue Pushing Masks

Gateway Pundit ^ | March 7, 2021 | Jim Hoft

[CheshireTheCat]

The CDC recommends wearing masks after their study showed that related to COVID, the results of wearing masks were statistically the same as the results when not wearing masks.

The results of a CDC study at first appear to show that wearing masks help reduce the spread of COVID.

The results were inside the statistical margin of error.

[Owen]

What is the point, here?

The virus has killed 21% more old people in the past 12 months than typically die in a pre-virus year. 21%!!

How high must that number go before we would approve of measures to reduce it? Does the mask measure not work? Maybe not. Then what measure will you accept? Any at all?

Or you can just announce you are okay with 21% increases in elderly death. Good luck getting elected on that platform. Old people vote. The ones you left alive, I mean.

[who knows what evil?]

CDC = BS.

[Sirius Lee]

Wear your slave mask, slaves! Don’t you know that soldiers will sometimes hesitate to shoot a woman begging for mercy unless she’s just a faceless thing?

[daniel1212]

With its over 200 network requests after waiting the Pundit page to load you would think it would actually provide something more substantial than a link to Twitter, findings you can actually copy and link that actually goes to the study itself. And you could have at least provided the image (you are normally allowed at least 300 words) but thanks for at least the assertion.

[Flick Lives]

The CDC does state that masks work—but the statistical evidence shown is very weak. The margins of error show that the positive effect is quite minimal.

—

Weak as in a mask is 2% more effective than no mask.

[ReaganGeneration2]

The point here is not about mask effectiveness, but that mask mandates are useless.

So let people decide for themselves what to wear, how to hide their essential image, how to breathe safely, and how to associate with others.

[SomeCallMeTim]

How high must that number go before we would approve of measures to reduce it? Does the mask measure not work? Maybe not. Then what measure will you accept? Any at all?

I would turn your question back on you. What measure will you reject? Will you embrace ANY government mandate that claims to slow the spread of this virus? Even if it's proven to have little to no effect?

That's what this study shows: Mandated Masking and Restaurant closures had VERY LITTLE impact on the spread of this virus. Meanwhile, they have TREMENDOUSLY NEGATIVE impact on the lives of the people who owned them and worked in them.

There has to be some kind of balance here. We can't just accept that because this one study (with it's many flaws) shows the slimmest of statistical correlation.. (and, that's ALL it shows... slim correlation, not causation)... we have to accept wide spread shut down of legal businesses and severe restrictions on the LIBERTY of our people.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Thank you for posting this original study. I trust NOTHING from Gateway Pundit.

This is yet another great example of why.

They take one random incorrect tweet and turn it into a story that gets broadcasts by conservatives, who are then embarrassed by smug liberals who point out the obvious flaw.

I’m starting to believe that GP is actually a liberal site, designed for this purpose.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

Best method is to follow people around, with and without masks, and find out how many get it and spread it. Nothing else could be better. This study didn’t do it.

But the DANMASK-19 study did, 6,000 people. Results? No statistical benefit from wearing masks. Game over.

[AndyTheBear]

Not sure what Jim Hoft understands.

As I read the study it seems like hogwash though. The p-value is based on measure the change of the change of the number of cases around the time the mask mandates were given.

Now of course, p-values are a measure of how different data sets vary form each other, with a low value indicating there is more significant a difference. But the difference should be between a known expect result (null hypothesis) and the result that is true if the hypothesis tested is true: in this case that the masks are helping reduce the change of the change in cases and deaths.

The problem I have with this study is that it does not seem competent to expect a null hypothesis of no relation between mask mandates and changes to the changes in cases and deaths, even if the masks did not help at all. There were wild differences in the number of cases in different areas at different times with places where there were no mask mandates being far lower in the number of cases. That places where the virus was just starting out might have a positive second derivitive of cases/deaths with respect to time opposed to those where the virus was already infecting people is common sense. It is what I would expect.

Does not the chart of cases over time not usually look like a wave with it accelerating upwards then slowing down, flattening at the top and then declining? Why would one expect that there was no relation between where one is on this chart and what policies might be put in place?

[hinckley buzzard]

One would need to be able to examine the methodology to be sure, but if the reported p-values are accurate, they indicate a statistically significant finding. Note however that statistical significance is not the same as practical significance. With a high enough sample size, even trivial differences can reach statistical significance, which appears to be the case here.There also is a potential problem with the design which appears to report multiple t-tests on the same samples. This can result in alpha slippage, undermining the significance of the results.

[CIB-173RDABN]

I have long since concluded the single most important element towards stopping the spread of this has been the unprecedented hand washing and cleansing you see people doing.

—
I also have a box of latex gloves in the garage I put on before getting into the car and wear them until I get home and then toss them into the (non bio hazard) trash can.

[IrishBrigade]

“When I come out of a place that demands mask wearing, I rip the mask off my face like a surgeon coming out of an OR who just lost a bad case on the table!’

indeed; I make the biggest show I can about ripping it off (in my case, a face shield)...sometimes I wait in the vestibule until I see a couple of women all masked up walking up, then I emerge baring my face as they pass nearby...

I love doing that; it’s what polticians have wrought in us...

[PsyCon]

The p values are not relevant — this study is a large can of garbage.

The continued absence of any Gold Standard research (randomized double blind controlled experiments) demonstrating the efficacy of masks is rather telling.

Two critical variables not controlled in this study are the virulence of the virus and the susceptibility of the individuals within the populations.

[Labyrinthos]

“I trust NOTHING from Gateway Pundit.”

See Post No. 9.

Whether wearing mask has a statistically significant impact upon Covid transmission — that depends upon the definition of “wearing a mask.” I am confident that wearing a properly fitted mask that covers the nose and mouth and is frequently replaced or sanitized, significantly reduces the risk of transmitting any airborne viral disease, including Covid. Wearing the same mask, below the nose, day-after-day, is completely ineffective. Unfortunately, too many people are stupid, stubborn, lazy, indifferent, or simply refuse to wear a properly fitted mask that covers the nose and mouth out of personal choice, even in places where masks are mandatory, and as a result, comparing Covid statistics based upon mask mandates is a useless exercise.

With that said, each person should have freedom of choice: If you don’t want to wear a mask, then don’t. If you contract Covid and die, then what can I say, other than life is full of risks, and for the overwhelming, vast majority of people, Covid is no more life threatening than seasonal influenza. But if you want to wear a mask, then by all means wear one or two or three, and if you are concerned about catching Covid from someone who refuses to wear a mask, then stay home.

As for me, I wear a properly fitted mask that covers my mouth and nose when in public areas, where close contact with other people is inevitable. I have not lived in a bunker during the pandemic, and regularly go to the gym, local pub, and grocery store, etc. I have not had so much as a sniffle, cough, or runny nose since I started wearing a mask, even though I have historically contacted the common cold each winter. Whether this is because I wear a mask or in spite of it, I really don’t know for sure, but I suspect there is a correlation.

[IrishBrigade]

‘Mask mandates push people to wear them for too long and towards compromise of what little gain comes from the mask.’

mask mandates do worse than that; they fray the fragile social bond that helps people maintain civility...

for instance, under no circumstance will I wear any type of face covering outdoors, and I take a lot of walks around town...often, people have come toward me, noticed my bare face, and they hurriedly pull their masks on, or worse, veer out into the street, passing me by as if I were a freaking leper; I can almost hear them crying ‘unclean, unclean...’

[Arones]

...this study is a large can of garbage.

Then GP should have said that.

My comments are related to GP's shoddy research, reporting and writing.

[daniel1212]

Or you can just announce you are okay with 21% increases in elderly death.

"Citation needed" but it sounds valid, although the underlying cause is usually comorbidities, and most of which were in long-term care facilities.

. Good luck getting elected on that platform. Old people vote. The ones you left alive, I mean

Yes, the vulnerable are to be protected, from the womb to the grave, but better measures could have been undertaken rather than all-ages long-term restrictions which have the collective long term effect that are worse.

[daniel1212]

Jim Hoft doesn't understand p values and statistical significance. P values less than 0.05 are statistically significant.

Here is the report: Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020

Thanks for the detective research that was neglected. However, notice the specious comparison in the CDC graphic:

Requiring masks and allowing indoor dining are two different scenarios. Indoor dining means masks are not worn in close proximity regardless of typical mask mandates, and is simply not the same as not requiring masks in general. Here in MA the governor requires masks to be worn at all times when outside on public property, regardless of the spacing, and which is absurd and no stats support that unequivocal mandate (and a Oct 29, 2020 Massachusetts report on clusters found that household transmission (via tracing) was at the center of the vast majority (almost 94 percent) of recent COVID-19 cases). Yet this forced fallacious comparison is what the CDC uses to advocate for universal mask mandates:

Allowing any on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days after reopening, and increases in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 61–80 and 81–100 days after reopening. Implementing mask mandates was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whereas reopening restaurants for on-premises dining was associated with increased transmission.

Rather, this study does not substantiate that implementing mask mandates would reduce rates (although I am sure they do somewhat, and the more the better until you cannot breath at all) since they take them off while eating, and thus this data simply does not support general mask mandates unless indoor dining and the like are disallowed. And therefore the sophistry that the CDC is engaging in here impugns its integrity in general, and results in typical misleading parroting MSM headlines (which on mobile devices is all that many sheep read) such as,

CDC study shows link between mask mandates, reduced COVID ... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-study-shows-link 1 day ago

Coronavirus mask mandates linked to decline in cases ... https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-mask. 1 day ago

Mask mandates tied to fewer COVID-19 cases, deaths, U.S ... https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/mask-mandates

CDC study finds mask mandates reduced COVID-19 cases and ... https://theweek.com/speedreads/970549/cdc-study... 1 day ago

Mask Mandates Linked To Decrease In COVID-19 Cases, Study ... https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live...

CDC study shows link between mask mandates, reduced COVID ... https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/cdc... 1 day ago

This is akin to the parroting misleading headlines asserting the absurdity,

"Researchers find face masks don't hinder breathing during exercise" (FR thread):

[Jane Long]

So, FL, AZ and GA had much higher case and death rates than states like CA, NY and other masked states?