Wisconsin (the state I live in) just extended its mask mandate the day after the largest randomized controlled study on masks shows no meaningful difference in their use for protection against COVID. Of course, all this just re-affirms the (pre-politicized) consensus of mask (in)effectiveness regarding protection/transmission of influenza, including the 2019 analysis issued by the World Health Organization: “Ten RCTs were included in meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Also the CDC: “In our systematic review, we identified 10 [Randomly Controlled Trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”
Another study not getting sufficient media attention (I can only wonder why?) is Sars-Cov-2 Transmission Among Marine Recruits. TLDR: Transmission is occurring even under strictly enforced mask and social distancing measures, which strongly challenges the assumption that large droplets and surface contamination are the primary means of transmission. In other words, aerosol transmission is important, to which these burdensome measures are ineffective.
Please also understand the recent analysis published in The Lancet in favor of masks was based predominantly on low-level observational evidence (in fact, no high-level randomized controlled trials were included) and thus pales in comparison to the prior consensus — based on some 40 years of scientific inquiry — it is attempting to overthrow. Here’s the thing about that: If a longstanding scientific consensus formed largely independently of socio-political pressures suddenly and dramatically begins to change in the midst of an extremely politically charged environment, it is entirely conceivable that we’re entering into a Castro Consensus. Naturally, this doesn’t mean the change is completely unjustified, but it does provide a reasonable basis for being initially skeptical. (Especially if there is additional evidence to suggest politically lobbying played a part in the decision making.) And in light of the DanMask study, such skepticism is now being vindicated.
Last thing. We must remember that those who impose burdens have the burden of proof. It is not on me — nor you — to prove that masks don’t work. If gov officials are going to mandate our wearing of masks (or force us to stay indoors, shut down businesses, cancel Thanksgiving, etc), it is on THEM to prove not only their effectiveness, but their indispensability, and to be honest in the potential downsides such impositions may include. So far, they have failed utterly on all accounts, and deserve to be called out for their boldly anti-scientific, borderline tyrannical attitude.
See also:
EP 455: Have COVID Lockdowns Done More Harm Than Good? with Dr. Jay Richards.