Editor's note: This article has been corrected. The study's authors did not find a statistically significant reduction in infection rates between people who received a recommendation to wear a mask, and people who did not receive a recommendation to wear a mask. However, the study did not purport to measure the efficacy of masks in preventing people who are already infected from spreading SARS-CoV-2, or the larger question of whether mask wearing overall is effective at preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Please follow all local regulations and laws.
Most Western elites are telegraphing the message that we will be forced to cover our humanity with cheap Chinese face burkas indefinitely. They are mandating that even two-year-olds must wear masks. The long-term effects on the lungs, emotional and behavioral problems, and development of infants and toddlers is enormous. For such an unconstitutional invasion of personal liberty, they are responsible to show us some amazing degree of effectiveness of this cultish ritual.
The much-vaunted Danish mask study was finally published today in the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine. Now we know why three medical journals were so averse to publishing its findings. The study examined the difference in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates among people who did not receive a recommendation to wear a mask, compared to people who did receive a recommendation to wear a mask. The results of this massive real-life controlled experiment show that the group that received a recommendation to wear surgical masks in April experienced a 0.38% lower infection rate than the control group that did not wear masks. That is about one-third of one percent, which is so low that it could just be statistically random variances that demonstrate no definitive efficacy even to that infinitesimal level.
"The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use," concluded the authors. "The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."
There was a total of roughly 3,000 people in each group of the study, which would make this the largest study ever conducted on the efficacy of a mask recommendation. In October, Berlingske, Denmark's oldest operating daily newspaper, reported that three major journals – JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet – refused to publish the study.
It appears that the study's authors had to twist their tongues in order to get this study published by noting that "the estimates were imprecise and statistically compatible with an effect ranging from a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection." They of course had to concede that their study doesn't definitely rule out the idea that masks could be effective!
Double-negatives in science are just hilarious. The Danish study had to eat a bunch of mouth worms to get the thi… https://t.co/XVpBY9C4Mp— Justin Hart (@Justin Hart) 1605711156.0
It's important to note that several studies have theorized that the virus might have gotten more contagious in recent months than it was in the spring. Assuming there is validity to that theory, this Danish study, which was conducted in April and May, would demonstrate that masks are ineffective even against the less contagious version of the virus.
Then again, there is nothing new about mask-wearing to anyone paying attention. It has long been the policy of OSHA that respirators, such as an N-95s, are the minimum standard for personal protective equipment. We have always known that surgical masks, which have pores about 30 times larger than virus particles and are not form-fitted around the edges, cannot protect against airborne viruses such as the flu. Plus, most people, especially those who are indoors for a long period of time, such as in school and business settings, will tend to wear more comfortable cloth masks, which are even less effective and risk spreading the virus even more.
The authors of the study say that masks might still be an effective method to prevent spread of the virus because it might prevent people who are already infected from transmitting the virus:
The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings. This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks.
This is a fair point – that at the time, most other people outside of the study group in Denmark were not wearing masks. The problem is we've seen the virus spread to everyone in the ensuing months, including in places with 100% mask compliance. In a recent CDC study, 85% of those convalescent COVID patients surveyed reported that they wore masks always or most of the time during the lead-up to their infection period. Thus, the Danish study results clearly corroborate what we see with our own eyes in all environments.
We have seen this result from over six months of real-life experience in the world and even in the military with 100% compliance. My son was yelled at for slipping his mask down in a dentist's office for a few seconds when the doctor and hygienist would literally be in his mouth for a much longer period of time. Have we ever experienced something this destructive and illogical in our lifetimes?
Matt Walsh offers to respond to Rolling Stone's comment request on one condition: 'I will provide a comment for your hit piece if you can define the word 'woman'"