The mainstream experts and pundits who supported mandates were wrong. Those skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks and occasionally censored as "misinformers" for opposing mandates were right. No, they haven't, and Bret Stephens tells them so in their own sorority newsletter. If they don't confess their errors, they are Disinformation Spreaders and Conspiracy Theorists.
So: I'm sure you've noticed all the media and technocratic non-elite rushing to confess their errors? Remember, confessing errors is what they themselves say distinguish them from Disinformation Spreaders. The leftwing media, as well as the technocratic non-elite which claims to be elite but constantly fucks everything up and is always catastrophically wrong about everything, claims that the difference between them and "mininformers" and "disinformation spreaders" and "conspiracy theorists" is that, even though they sometimes get things wrong (for "sometimes," read "always"), they are always quick and forthright about admitting their errors. Hen it comes to the population-level benefits of masking, the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust. And they track what has been widely observed in the United States: States with mask mandates fared no better against Covid than those without. The conclusions were based on 78 randomized controlled trials, six of them during the Covid pandemic, with a total of 610,872 participants in multiple countries.
Jefferson and 11 colleagues conducted the study for Cochrane, a British nonprofit that is widely considered the gold standard for its reviews of health care data. These observations don't come from just anywhere. "They were convinced by non-randomized studies, flawed observational studies." What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates? "Makes no difference - none of it," said Jefferson. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks? "There is just no evidence that they" - masks - "make any difference," he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous. The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses - including Covid-19 - was published late last month. Which Bret Stephens, alone at the New York Times, admits to its readers. He had to go outside the "Paper of Record" to find reportage about the Cochrane Study because, once again, the New York Times has refused to cover it.Īnd why won't they cover it? Because the Cochrane Study is an impeccable meta-study of 78 other studies which has proven, once and for all, that masks did nothing to slow the spread of covid.Ĭomparing regions in which mask mandates were imposed to regions where they were not imposed shows no difference whatsoever in the spread of covid. And that interview, of course, was not conducted by a New York Times reporter. Quite a long time ago in the news business. I suppose the editors could kill his column - but only at the risk of further exposing the Times as a woke indoctrination newsletter.Įd Morrissey points out that not only has the New York Times not mentioned the study, but that the interview Stephens quotes is from February 5th. He operates independently and chooses his topics himself, of course. The only mention in their paper comes from a columnist, allegedly from the "center right" liberal NeverTrumper Bret Stephens. The New York Times itself has still not acknowledged the Cochrane study. FebruThe New York Times Finally Covers the Cochrane Study Proving That Mask Mandates Did Nothing to Slow the Spread of CovidĪctually, I lied.
0 kommentar(er)
