Cochrane Review Reveals Masks Ineffective Against Flu-Like Illnesses – RedState
Remember 2020, the halcyon days of mask mandates? I was working in New Jersey when the whole COVID panic started, and you would have thought the air itself had become radioactive. Many people have accepted it as a stupid necessity, but there are always those who take things to a ridiculous level. We all remember images of people driving alone, in their personal cars, wearing masks, or walking alone, outside, on a sunny day, again wearing a mask.
It’s OK. I always thought stupid people should stand out.
The reason could come back, here and there. Now at Oxford University, former double-masking advocate Professor Trish Greenhalgh has changed her mind on masks:
One of the leading proponents of face masks as a way to counter the spread of respiratory infections appears to have had a change of heart. Oxford University Professor Trish Greenhalgh – described as the “high priestess” of the face mask movement, who even appeared on her X feed wearing two face masks during the COVID-19 years – has endorsed a letter to the WHO claiming, as reported by Tutor“There is ‘no rational justification for prioritizing or using’ the surgical masks that are ubiquitous in hospitals and clinics around the world, given their ‘inadequate protection against airborne pathogens’.”
It is a remarkable about-face by Professor Greenhalgh whose embrace of face mask ideology seemed, at times, to defy both logic and the best principles of evidence-based medicine. Once a leading proponent of evidence-based medicine, with numerous entries in the Cochrane Library – the gold standard for systematic reviews of clinical evidence, including on face masks – she once reportedly said that “too much emphasis on evidence-based medicine can be the enemy of good policy”.
It’s not the big turnaround it seems. The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University sent a letter to the World Health Organization advocating not masks, but actual respirators.
While the pivot above seems like good news, unfortunately it’s not that good. And the bad news is revealed in Global health nowthe daily newsletter from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, dated January 12. THE Tutor The article, containing a link to the letter, is titled: “Face masks are ‘inadequate’ and should be replaced by respirators, WHO advised. The letter was addressed to WHO chief Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and the recommendations only apply to clinical staff in hospital settings.
The letter addressed to the WHO chief is titled “A call for universal use of ventilators in health care.” In it, the signatories say that as COVID-19 “continues to circulate globally and mutate,” WHO must “support equitable access to globally certified ventilators.”
Professor Greenhalgh signed the latter as an endorser.
Now, note the above mention of the Cochrane Library; It’s relevant, and here’s why. This is what real science looks like. This study, titled “Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses,” provides concrete evidence, and the thumbnail shows that surgical and medical masks showed no effectiveness and that N95 masks and respirators did not produce benefits that outweighed the discomfort of wearing them.
Concerning masks, the study concludes:
Wearing masks in the community likely has little or no effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 outcomes compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low confidence evidence).
For N95 masks and respirators:
Use of an N95/P2 respirator compared to medical/surgical masks likely has little or no effect on the more accurate, objective outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare professionals had no impact on overall results. Harms have been poorly measured and reported, but discomfort from wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators has been reported in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).
Want to know what made the difference? Something that healthcare professionals and every rational person knows: wash your hands.
Pooled data showed that hand hygiene can be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction in respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms, this benefit would translate into a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI: 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harm (very low certainty evidence).
This is how we do it. This is the kind of rational analysis that should have been done in 2020, and perhaps we’ll remember that in 2023 we were still discussing the whole “mask mandate.”
Learn more: Republican Sen. JD Vance to introduce bill banning federal mask mandates
It certainly appears that the mask mandate and plans for vaccine requirements are in the works
These types of policy decisions, whether made by academia, by government, or by individuals, should be based on evidence. The Cochrane review produced evidence here. Professor Greenhalgh would do well to take another look.
Editor’s Note: Do you like RedState’s conservative reporting that attacks the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code STRUGGLE to benefit from 60% off your membership.
