{"id":192758,"date":"2021-08-23T12:01:00","date_gmt":"2021-08-23T11:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=192758"},"modified":"2021-08-23T09:15:32","modified_gmt":"2021-08-23T08:15:32","slug":"the-face-mask-folly-in-retrospect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2021\/08\/the-face-mask-folly-in-retrospect\/","title":{"rendered":"The Face Mask Folly in Retrospect"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

\u201cIt\u2019s just a mask\u201d: Global impact of the face mask folly (K. Birb)<\/p><\/div>\n

22 Aug 2021 – It has been known for decades that face masks don\u2019t work against respiratory virus epidemics. Why has much of the world nonetheless fallen for the face mask folly? Ten reasons.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

1) The droplet model<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many \u2018health authorities\u2019 have relied on the obsolete \u2018droplet model\u2019 of virus transmission. If this model were correct, face masks would indeed work. But in reality, respiratory droplets \u2013 which by definition cannot be inhaled \u2013 play almost no role in virus transmission. Instead, respiratory viruses are transmitted via much smaller aerosols<\/a>, as well as, possibly, some object surfaces<\/a>. Face masks don\u2019t work against either of these transmission routes.<\/p>\n

2) The Asian paradox<\/strong><\/p>\n

During the first year of the pandemic, several East Asian countries had a very low coronavirus infection rate, and many \u2018health experts\u2019 falsely assumed that this was due to face masks. In reality, it was due to very rapid border controls<\/a> in some countries neighboring China as well as a combination of metabolic and immunologic factors<\/a> that reduced transmission rates. Nevertheless, many East Asian countries eventually got overwhelmed<\/a> by the coronavirus, too (see charts below).<\/p>\n

3) The Czech mirage<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the spring of 2020, the Czech Republic was one of the first European countries that introduced face masks. Because the Czech infection rate initially stayed low, many \u2018health experts\u2019 falsely concluded<\/a> that this was due to the masks. In reality, most of Eastern Europe simply missed the first wave of the epidemic. A few months later, the Czech Republic had the highest infection rate in the world<\/a>, but by then, much of the world had already introduced face mask mandates.<\/p>\n

4) Fake science<\/strong><\/p>\n

For decades, studies have shown that face masks don\u2019t work<\/a> against respiratory virus epidemics. But with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and increasing political pressure (see below), suddenly studies appeared claiming the opposite. In reality, these studies were a mixture of<\/a> confounded observational data, unrealistic modelling and lab results, and outright fraud. The most influential fraudulent study was a WHO-mandated meta-study<\/a> published in The Lancet.<\/p>\n

5) Asymptomatic transmission<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another factor contributing to the implementation of mask mandates was the notion of \u2018asymptomatic transmission\u2019. The idea was that everybody should be wearing a mask because even people without symptoms might spread the virus. The importance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission is still a matter of debate<\/a> \u2013 up to half of all transmission might occur pre-symptomatically \u2013, but either way, face masks simply don\u2019t work against aerosol transmission.<\/p>\n

6) Political pressure<\/strong><\/p>\n

Several political factors contributed to the implementation of mask mandates. First, some politicians simply wanted to \u201cdo something\u201d against the pandemic; second, some politicians thought face masks might have a \u201cpsychological effect\u201d and might \u201cremind\u201d citizens to stay cautious (if anything, it had the opposite effect: creating a \u2018false sense of security\u2019); third, some politicians used mask mandates to enforce compliance and pressure the population into accepting mass vaccination.<\/p>\n

In addition, there was a vicious circle involving science and politics: politicians claimed to \u201cfollow the science\u201d, but scientists followed politics. For instance, the WHO famously admitted that their updated mask guidelines were in response to \u201cpolitical lobbying\u201d<\/a>, not new evidence.<\/p>\n

7) The media<\/strong><\/p>\n

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the media simply amplified the fraudulent science and the political pressure to enforce mask mandates. Only some independent media outlets and some truly independent experts questioned the validity of the underlying evidence.<\/p>\n

8) \u201cSurgeons wear masks\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Surgeons wear masks, so they must be effective, right? This was another factor contributing to the face mask misunderstanding. In reality, surgeons wear masks not against viruses, but against much larger bacteria, but more importantly, studies have long shown that even surgeons\u2019 masks make no difference<\/a> in terms of bacterial wound infections.<\/p>\n

9) Misleading memes<\/strong><\/p>\n

To convince low-IQ social media users of the effectiveness of face masks, several unscientific memes were created. The most notorious one probably was the \u201cpeeing into your pants\u201d<\/a> meme, shared by many \u2018health experts\u2019. Many of these memes exploited the fact that most people simply dont\u2019t realize how small and ubiquitous viral aerosols really are.<\/p>\n

10) Doubling down
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

After mask mandates had been implemented globally and hundreds of billions of dollars had been spent on masks, it soon became obvious, once more, that masks simply don\u2019t work against respiratory virus epidemics (see charts below). But at that point, neither politicians, nor \u2018health experts\u2019, nor duped citizens who had to wear them for months wanted to admit this anymore.<\/p>\n

Instead, some \u2018health authorities\u2019 doubled down and enforced outdoor masking (even on beaches), double-masking, or N95\/FFP2 masking, to no avail. The one novel scientific insight produced during the coronavirus pandemic was that even N95\/FFP2 mask mandates have made no difference at all<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sweden: The exception that proved the rule<\/strong><\/p>\n

Only very few countries in the world have resisted the face mask folly. The most famous example certainly is Sweden (see chart below), which has also resisted the lockdown folly. Naturally, Swedish coronavirus mortality has remained below<\/em><\/a> the European average. But the many vicious attacks against Sweden by much of the international media showed just how difficult it has been to escape the folly and follow the real science during this bizarre pandemic.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
A child wearing a mask at school (more<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

How face masks and lockdowns failed<\/h4>\n

These charts show<\/a> that infections have been driven primarily by seasonal and endemic factors, whereas mask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact (charts<\/strong>: Ian Miller<\/a>).<\/p>\n

See also<\/h4>\n