The argument on masking still raging...

Pro-maskers argue that studies are inconclusive while the studies suggest that masking doesn't work...

A new review and meta-analysis of masking studies suggests that the detractors may have a point. The paper—a rigorous assessment of 78 studies—was published by Cochrane, an independent policy institution that has become well known for its reviews. The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.

So this was a study about the various studies. Similar to how a polling average takes an aggregate of polls and averages it up, this Cochrane study took 78 independent international studies and for lack of a better term, averaged them out. When the data was parsed from 78 different studies and on conclusion was make, it turns out that there is "little to no" evidence that masking helped reduce widespread infections.

While it is one thing to push back on a study or two, it is an entirely different thing to push back on the cumulation of 78 different studies conducted independently of themselves all reaching very similar conclusions. Moreover, these 78 particular studies were chosen because of he fact that they used the "gold standard" for studies. Meaning they were randomized and use a control group for reference. These are not sloppy studies set out to prove something already assumed. They were, in fact, the best 78 studies. I am sure this is frustrating for the CDC and other doctors who seem to truly believe that masking "should" work, even as it simply has not.

People who are pushing masking or otherwise are in the pro-mask camp will point to other types of non-statistical studies that suggest that masking (if the right mask is used and used properly) can reduce the amount of particles that get through. These are generally known as individual observational studies (rather than population studies). The logic, of course, is that if these masks work for an individual, then it makes sense that it should work for the population as a whole.

But, for a variety of reasons (some obvious and some not so obvious) the success of any studies at the individual level have not led to any real effect in the real world. Critics of those individual studies will point out that these are generally lab style observational studies that do not always relate well with real life. Proving that a mask can block particles when one person sneezes large amounts of flehm directly in the face of another at close ranges really provides very little substance for real life. That is the problem with lab simulation and observational studies and probably the main reason that the larger population based studies show competing results. In the real world we do not sneeze directly in each other's faces and in the real world we are not wearing a medical grade mask in a supervised lab setting.

The only way to get real world studies is statistically. These 78 studies are the best of the best of these studies. These studies statistically show that real world uses of masking and mask mandates do not bring about any significant assistance in stopping wither the spread of viruses in general or Covid in specific.

Moreover we are just starting to peel back the layers of all the emotional, physical, and social issues that mask wearing, mask mandates, and lockdowns have caused us. At the end of the day, the reality is that mask mandates and lock-downs hurt way more than they helped. Period. End of subject.