From the NY Slimes comes a report that the mask mandates had NO difference in the spread of covid . That included the use of N-95 masks.

Opinion | The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned? - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html)


The study analyzed 78 randomized controlled trials with a total of 610,872 participants in multiple countries. The conclusions contradict the initial studies that persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates. States with mask mandates fared no better against Covid than those without, the study found. The mainstream experts and pundits who supported mandates were wrong, and those skeptics who opposed them were right. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is criticized for its adherence to its masking guidance, which is undermining the trust required for it to operate as an effective public institution.


This is from a study by Cochrane a non-profit international group based in UK .

About us | Cochrane (https://www.cochrane.org/about-us)

Doubters were vilified by the Clueless Joe Administration ,the compliant press and the government controlled social media.

But ,But But ..... what about following the science ? What convinced governments that masking the people was the best way ?

They were convinced by non-randomized studies, flawed observational studies.

So much for following the science.

Mask did server a useful purpose, to make people more aware of their surroundings and other people, rather than the more normal blindly marching on and ignoring all others...

The source being cited for this topic/post is a secondary source (technically tertiary since its source is a meta-analysis of several individual studies, which would hence be the original sources). If one truly wants to understand the research and create their own complete, unbiased conclusion of its findings, they should read the original article. I will link it here: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

After reading through the New York Times article and the meta-analysis its referring to, I feel that the author of the news article is heavily focusing on the raw results of the study and then spewing pessimistic statements, creating more separation and negative feelings in the public. Simultaneously though, it mentions this very important detail: "No study — or study of studies — is ever perfect. Science is never absolutely settled" (Lowy, 2023).

With that said, I'm not trying to invalidate the analysis nor science as a whole; knowledge is vital to the growth of humanity and is our greatest defense. I just think the news article should've also mentioned some of the several limitations of the study and what additional statements the original authors of said study made in their writing. For example:

"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children." (Jefferson et al., 2023).

And also:

"Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies."

And technically, this is all very summarized in the Plan English contents of the research article. I'd highly recommend reading the actual Discussion section of the research as the authors discuss several features of the original studies they analyzed that introduce other limitations and agreements/disagreements with previous studies, including the subject of randomization, a specific point of discussion mentioned in the original post:

"The variable quality of the methods of some studies is striking. Incomplete or no reporting of randomisation (Turner 2004a), blinding (Farr 1988a; Farr 1988b), numerators and denominators (Carabin 1999; Kotch 1994), interventions, and cluster coefficients in the relevant trials (Carabin 1999), led to a considerable loss of information. Potential biases were often not discussed." (Jefferson et al., 2023).

I know I write a lot and have trouble with conciseness, so TL;DR: Although the time since the COVID-19 pandemic started may seem long to us in our day-to-day lives, the research behind it and how we reacted to it is still very young. It takes LOTS of time and effort in the academic field for anything to get published (i.e., years and sometimes decades), and the pandemic event itself is only a few years old. It's important for mankind to learn quickly in order to grow and improve on how we approach things in the future, but research takes time and we should be patient until said research is more developed before making final conclusions.

Thank you for your input. I completely agree science is not settled . But the phrase has served those who claim a scientific consensus to stifle debate . We the people are ill served by such absolutes and by those who would invoke it to dictate to us how to live our lives .

Mask did server a useful purpose, to make people more aware of their surroundings and other people, rather than the more normal blindly marching on and ignoring all others... What a terrible cost to do something that strikes me as being unneeded. I don't think people needed much reminding once the thousands of deaths a week started.

Welcome aboard, RandomPerson. Glad to have you.

What a terrible cost to do something that strikes me as being unneeded.
Early on and even as time went on, we didn't know masks weren't needed. We were grasping at anything and everything that would protect us. We avoided direct contact (shaking hands, hugging, kissing); we washed our hands as often as we could; stores put up signs so shoppers went only one direction in each aisle; companies allowed, even encouraged, employees to work from home.

That's a fair comment about the early days of the pandemic. Fear drove a lot of decisions. Still, it became apparent early on that aside from N95 masks, the others provided so little protection as to be of questionable value and certainly not worth the trauma involved in so many cases such as with schoolchildren.

Only about six months ago did people pull off their masks (some still wear them), stores allowed two-way traffic in their aisles, and working from home has become a normal behavior. Getting boosters is still being encouraged as the subvariants change and the virus evolves. People over 50 are encouraged to keep their guard up.

The source being cited for this topic/post is a secondary source (technically tertiary since its source is a meta-analysis of several individual studies, which would hence be the original sources). If one truly wants to understand the research and create their own complete, unbiased conclusion of its findings, they should read the original article. I will link it here: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

.................................................. .......... etc., etc., etc.

It takes LOTS of time and effort in the academic field for anything to get published (i.e., years and sometimes decades), and the pandemic event itself is only a few years old. It's important for mankind to learn quickly in order to grow and improve on how we approach things in the future, but research takes time and we should be patient until said research is more developed before making final conclusions.

Thank you for the good reply exhibiting critical thinking, something often lost on these pages.


Early on and even as time went on, we didn't know masks weren't needed. We were grasping at anything and everything that would protect us. We avoided direct contact (shaking hands, hugging, kissing); we washed our hands as often as we could; stores put up signs so shoppers went only one direction in each aisle; companies allowed, even encouraged, employees to work from home.

Another solid reply showing a good grasp of what has transpired to help explain the current situation. Far preferable to mindlessly bashing the government for obvious political reasons.

So any counter point is "mindless" even as Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson confirms points we made months ago about the mandates .

It's not like paper masks were invented three years ago. It's been known since their beginning that they do very little to prevent the movement of viruses.


Far preferable to mindlessly bashing the government for obvious political reasons.Kind of like the mindless suggestion that Trump told people to inject bleach or take fish tank cleansers?

So any counter point is "mindless" even as Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson confirms points we made months ago about the mandates .

Re-read the informative post by Random36 to better understand the situation.

A counter point is not necessarily mindless, but it is suspiciously so when it's consistent with many other "counter points" that are simply anti-government posts in disguise.

I read it . If the government makes a claim the science is settled ;it is etched in stone . Later when the evidence is scientifically challenged then we should wait for the results for years .

If the government makes a claim the science is settled ;it is etched in stone . Later when the evidence is scientifically challenged then we should wait for the results for years .Well said and especially true if the poster has a rather questionable point of view to advance.

That's a fair comment about the early days of the pandemic. Fear drove a lot of decisions. Still, it became apparent early on that aside from N95 masks, the others provided so little protection as to be of questionable value and certainly not worth the trauma involved in so many cases such as with schoolchildren.

As a teacher, I’d say the masks didn’t cause the trauma. It was caused by having to stay home and learn online, or coming back to school with plexiglass barriers and no contact with anyone within 6 feet at school. Overall, coming back to school was better than staying home, even with all of the “protective” regulations and restrictions.

Overall, coming back to school was better than staying home, even with all of the “protective” regulations and restrictions.I would agree with that. However, the mandatory masks for young children was a major problem. Probably not so much for the older kids, though.

The kids were fine with the masks. I teach Kindergarten. They adapted quickly. Their parents were the problem. Some students still wear masks daily.

Nationally, there were a lot of concerns with the kids having to mask up, and especially considering that it provided very little in the way of benefits.