Main Edition
US
FR
May 15, 2024 - 9:00pm
Face masks have not been effective at preventing the spread of Covid-19 since at least February 2022, according to a new study from the University of East Anglia.
Mask mandates were in place well into spring that year, but masks did not lower the risk of Covid infection after the initial Omicron peak that February, researchers found. Before Omicron, masks could reportedly reduce transmission by about 19%, but afterwards there was no relationship between consistent masking and risk of infection.
The research also demonstrates a weak relationship between childhood masking and infections. While school-aged children who never masked were more likely to be infected up until February 2022, after that point those who didn’t wear masks actually had a much lower likelihood of infection, though the difference was often statistically insignificant.
A number of surprising factors were at play in who was most likely to be infected, according to the study. Tobacco smokers, women, and ethnic minorities were less likely to test positive for the virus, as were those living in multi-generational houses, the disabled, and those living with the disabled. The report surveyed data from over 100,000 Britons from different age groups and ethnic backgrounds.
The UK Government secretly censored critics of Covid-19 protocols, including masking, through its Counter Disinformation Unit. Yet a growing body of research indicates that, on key issues including mandatory masking, the state approach was unscientific and did not meaningfully reduce the spread of the virus. Other studies have failed to find evidence supporting the efficacy of mask mandates and lockdowns.
“This isn’t totally surprising because laboratory evidence suggests that the Omicron variant was better able to infect the cells lining the upper respiratory tract than previous variants and so be more transmissible,” report co-author Dr Julii Brainard said in a statement. “Management of infection risk needs to be agile, adapting to epidemic development and better-quality information when it emerges.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe???
Masking and lockdown mandates weren’t about protection from viruses, but about conditioning people to accept orders.
FFS Grow up & put down the tin foil hat…
My very enlightened and scientific progressive buddy explained to me that masking is part of everyday life in many Asian countries. He said masking was just common courtesy to stop the spread. I then asked him to explain why so many “courteous people” were congregating in mass formations and wearing them like chin diapers but pulling them over their faces when the cops came around. He decided to pivot the conversation to Trump.
In much of Asia, bodily fluids are considered revolting, so if you have a runny nose, you want to hide it.
In terms of effectiveness, face masks are indeed effective in preventing the spread of droplet-bourn infections. If you’re coughing and sneezing, a mask will help prevent you spreading – though of course, you should not be out and about in the first place.
If the infections spreads by aerosols, masks are pointless, both to prevent spread and to protect.
Finally, many Asian cities have very high levels of particulate pollution, which is hard on the respiratory system. Masks are effective as a filter.
All objectively true but do you think constant masking is good for individual liberty?
So long as it’s up to the individual to decide whether or not to wear a mask, I don’t see individual liberty involved.
Of course, during “CoViD”, we had two egregious infringements of our liberties in connection with masking: (i) the mask mandates and (ii) the relentless psychological warfare by our government institutions spreading the lie that masking would provide any benefit.
Quite apart from the fact that the mandates were in flagrant violation of long-established workplace safety regulations. And the equally clear evidence that constant masking has deleterious health effects – the very reason for the workplace safety regulations.
I wouldn’t go that far, but more state authority is always a plus for the left. So, even if they hoped it would work, they didn’t care if it did or not.
The fact that they’ve mooted “climate lock-downs” shows where they want to go. Total state control over the economy an population movement. China is their ideal state.
Have the Left mooted “climate lockdowns”? Where have they said this?
https://www.greenmatters.com/weather-and-global-warming/climate-lockdowns
I like how casual they are about Totalitarianism.
The study says masks didn’t work against Omicron because it was more infective than earlier versions of covid. The article also says they did gave an effect on earlier covid versions.
The Cochrane Review findings contradict even this optimistic take.
“Before Omicron, masks could reportedly reduce transmission by about 19%, but afterwards there was no relationship between consistent masking and risk of infection.”
That 19% is a totally meaningless number. 19% of what?
Does it mean that with a mask, you would have been infected with 5 times the amount needed to cause an infection, but with a mask that was reduced to only 4.05 times the amount needed to make you ill?
19% fewer infections.
So if there were 1001 people in a room, 1 of whom is infected, without masks 100 people would be infected (for example to keep the maths simple), with masks it would be 81.
Politicians heard the dramatic, overblown predictions of many millions of deaths and realized that if they didn’t act and these were anywhere near fulfilled, they would be blamed. So, they needed to DO ‘Something’. Masking and lockdowns were something, thus absolving their consciences of guilt and their reputations from blame. This is where the health authorities are to blame – for horrible predictions, and recommendation of ineffective solutions. The pols can be blamed for part of that since they repressed discussion of alternatives, again out of fear.
This is a completely ridiculous conspiratorial and totally evidence free assertion.
In fact there are far more subtle and effective ways of social control than forcing people to spend hours upon hours in their own small apartments. A significant minority don’t trust the government in any way after that experience, which doesn’t exactly aid social control.
So, all that masks added to the equation was annoyance and discomfort? Fabulous!
Do not underestimate their value as a virtue signals.
Much worse than this: The Cochrane Review casts doubt on whether community masking ever effective, for any strain of SARS-2.
‘Before Omicron, masks could reportedly reduce transmission by about 19%,….’
Now there is a meaningless number!
Does it mean that an infected person only transmitted to an uninfected person only 81% of the virus load that they would have transmitted without the mask?
Your guess is as good as mine.
19% is not just a meaningless number but meaningless precise. It’s probably 19 ± 20%!!! Irrespective, these numbers, even if meaningful should be expressed as approximately 10, 15 or 20%. There is no way you can get an accuracy of ± 0.5% which is what the number 19% implies.
Also this study claims that wearing a face-mask is associated with less infection for the person involved, but we were repeatedly told that wearing a face-mask was for the benefit of *other* people.
A typical mainstream media comment from the time was – ‘The research largely suggests face masks won’t necessarily stop you catching Covid-19 but will lessen the chance of you passing it on if you are asymptomatically carrying and unaware of this (so not isolating at home).’
And, of course, association means little , especially when the only evidence of face-mask wearing is a self-reported survey. Who is going to tell a researcher at the door that they have broken the law by not wearing the compulsory face-masks?
M
Masks are reasonably effective if the right ones are worn properly. The problem with mask mandates is that the majority of people don’t do that. Far better to leave people to do their own thing and teach the vulnerable how to do wear them effectively. Mandates are senseless authoritarianism.
What evidence do you have that the right masks are reasonably effective if worn properly. The answer: none. The Cleveland Clinic did an RCT of healthcare workers comparing surgical masks with N95 masks. They found no difference. Surgical masks have massive gaps on the top, bottom and sides. Nominally, N95, even if poorly fitted, do not. Further, healthcare workers know how to wear masks properly. It is therefore simply a myth that masks of any sort have any impact on the transmission of respiratory viruses.
The WHO’s September 2019 summary of the state of the art of science and research on preventing the spread of respiratory infections said that there was no evidence that masking had any effect on the spread of infection, based on a review of numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies done over the preceding decade.
There was no reason to assume masking would have any positive effect. And we now – again – have confirmation that it didn’t.
Never wore one, never got the clot shot, never got the WuFlu. Why people are so gullible I’ll never know, but, given what we’ve seen on American campuses these last couple of weeks, we’ll surely never be rid of the idiotically credulous.
This story is only half of right: The Cochrane Review painstakingly demonstrates there is no credible evidence that masks had any impact on community transmission throughout the entirety of the pandemic. Masks were a prop the entire time and were not based on science.
Ha Ha, to mask or not to mask. Forget the masks, stop the shots .
The Dutch virologist Geert Vanden Bossche explains that all the dangerous mRNA vaccinations are effectively creating a much more virulent strain of the virus that the well vaccinated population will have no immune system to deter. Just a shame that the UK’s health agencies can’t see it coming or perhaps they do judging by the way they have mishandled everything.
It’s almost like the virus adapted to the widespread use of masks to prevent transmission. Astounding. Someone should study this phenomenon of organisms adapting to better their chances of survival… oh wait….