[NEW] The Question of Masks | question mask – NATAVIGUIDES

I envy the reader who can reach the end of Alex Berenson’s Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Masks, without tearing her hair out in frustration at the absurdity of the world today, which apparently is not so different from the one that Galileo inhabited four centuries ago. 

Berenson makes an airtight case (no pun intended) that there is no evidence whatsoever that surgical and cloth masks work to control coronavirus spread, and a substantial amount that they do not. Nevertheless, as anyone who has tried to discuss the topic in a blue state knows, the subject has been so politicized that to make this contention amounts to heresy. 

This is the third booklet in a series, Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns. The first two focus upon the deleterious effects of lockdowns and overestimation of the virus’s dangerousness. Berenson, who used to work as a reporter at the New York Times before he became a full-time novelist, has been known from the very beginning as a coronavirus “contrarian,” and has since attained unofficial status as king of the lockdown skeptics. As his Twitter profile famously depicts him smiling sardonically with a mask under his chin, it is about time he addressed the subject.

Initially, Berenson documents the so-called experts’ notorious about-face on masks this past March. Having said for weeks that face coverings do not stop transmission of the virus, Anthony Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Surgeon General, and others, did a 180 virtually overnight. The common explanation for this sudden change is that the first message was disingenuous, and given only to prevent a mask shortage among health care professionals. Berenson eschews this interpretation, arguing that the initial message was correct, but these people and institutions succumbed to political pressure.

What is the proof that this was political? Although Berenson does not explicitly state as much, it is worth noting that former President Trump immediately defied the idea of mask-wearing, as did many of his supporters, which I believe led to the extreme reaction in the opposite direction among Democrats and liberals. 

Berenson points out that immediately, when mere weeks and months before Americans had been told not to wear masks, newspapers and magazines began publishing “insufferably arrogant” pieces portraying those who resisted mask-wearing as cretins, narcissists, and even sociopaths. This plays into the idea, held by many in this country, that those who are not on their side politically are fundamentally different, morally inferior, or perhaps even evil. Thus, to suggest that people who resist masks are narcissists or sociopaths fits squarely into the narrative that the political other is less-than.

But the real evidence lies in the fact that, contrary to the dogma that has taken root in American society, especially in Democratic circles, there is simply no scientific substantiation for the claim that masks, as they are worn in everyday life, protect either the wearer or those who encounter her. In Berenson’s words, “The evidence that face coverings do any good turns out to be even more porous than the masks themselves.” In my opinion, were the subject not so politically fraught, it is unlikely that the scientific evidence would be ignored.

Berenson describes the studies that evaluate whether surgical and cloth masks protect the wearer, and his verdict will, at this point, be unsurprising. Theoretical evidence establishes that surgical and cloth masks “offer next to no protection” because the virus typically travels on particles so small that in order to provide protection, the material must be fine enough to catch nearly all aerosols and droplets. 

Apart from N95 respirators, which also are more effective because they are fitted to the individual’s face, masks are not made from such material. Not only are N95s expensive, but worn properly, they are “suffocating, uncomfortable, and difficult to tolerate for long durations.” Thus, as a practical matter, if non-medical professionals are going to wear face-coverings for an extended time period, they will be standard cloth or surgical masks. 

The yet stronger proof, from randomized controlled studies (RCTs) — the “gold standard” in science – is overwhelming that these masks are not effective. As Berenson explains, research from Hong Kong and Vietnam found no evidence that surgical masks reduce influenza transmission, and evidence that cloth masks increase rates of infection, respectively. 

The first large RCT, conducted in Denmark specifically to assess the utility of masks against SARS-CoV-2, found no difference in rates of infection between those who wore and those who did not wear masks (I have previously analyzed the distortion of the study’s results, especially by the New York Times and other center-left publications).

As for the proposition that masks may not protect the wearer but do protect those around her, again, “masks have almost no chance of catching most of the particles we exhale” because of the particles’ size, as explicated in a paper published in the Lancet. (From a logical standpoint, I have never found the concept that masks can protect those around the wearer though they do not protect her to be persuasive: either the mask functions as a barrier or it does not, although I am not a scientist and perhaps am missing something). 

Berenson notes that the author “did not go so far as to call masks useless – a near impossibility in the current environment – but he was lukewarm at best on their value to protect other people even in the most obvious case, when they are worn by symptomatic cases in hospitals.”

Similarly, on June 5, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a paper stating that “widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are other potential benefits and harms to consider.”

Again, given the political climate, the WHO “chok[ed] out” a tepid endorsement of mask usage: “Governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings.”

Berenson compellingly dispels the myth that observational studies prove masks’ efficacy, such as the much cited salon in Missouri where two hairdressers who had coronavirus symptoms wore masks and did not infect 139 clients. As Berenson notes, there are countless other explanations for this result. For example, maybe the salon had good ventilation, or maybe the hairdressers were not very infectious. Despite the lack of scientific and intellectual rigor underlying it, this anecdote served as the rationale for many jurisdictions’ mask mandates.  Moreover, the remaining observational data points staunchly in the opposite direction: worldwide, rising cases are not correlated with mask usage.

As anyone who has become embroiled in the mask debate knows well, the next question is always, why not wear one, since we don’t know for sure and there’s a chance they help? As Berenson argues, government directives should be supported by some evidence. 

It has not been disproven that five-minute headstands prevent coronavirus spread, but most of us would see a problem with government requiring us to stand on our heads for five minutes a day just in case. Put otherwise, allowing the government to make rules without adequate evidence they are effective creates substantial danger that it will issue arbitrary directives to give the appearance of doing something.

Furthermore, as Berenson explains, masks are not harmless. He details two 2013 decisions from Canadian arbiters, addressing a challenge to hospital rules requiring nurses to wear masks if they had not been vaccinated against influenza. Both arbiters found in the nurses’ favor, and determined there was limited or no evidence that demonstrated the “utility of masks in reducing transmission” and substantial harms, including discomfort and skin irritation. 

Although Berenson does not discuss this, widespread, long-term mask usage may cause significant psychological damage, especially to children and babies and even more so to those with disabilities such as autism. Even the New York Times acknowledged that masks likely impede children’s cognitive development, despite reaching the irrational conclusion that such harm is inevitable. 

One of Berenson’s most critical points is that there is now substantial evidence that the coronavirus is very rarely, if ever, spread by asymptomatic individuals. The belief that asymptomatic transmission was one of the primary forces driving coronavirus spread propelled lockdowns and universal mask requirements in the spring. 

If only symptomatic people spread the virus, then there is no justification whatsoever for quarantining and masking healthy populations: all that societies must do is ask people exhibiting symptoms to stay home.

Several large, recent studies have established that asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus is exceedingly uncommon, if it occurs at all; the WHO has also recognized this fact. Of course, these studies have been entirely ignored by the media. Those who have staked their personal and professional reputations on the efficacy and necessity of lockdowns and mask mandates cannot now acknowledge having made such a grave, crucial error. 

Berenson ends by theorizing that mask mandates appear to reflect “an effort by governments to find out what restrictions on their civil liberties people will accept on the thinnest possible evidence . . . Today, we must wear masks. Tomorrow we’ll need negative Covid tests to travel between countries. Or vaccines to go to work.”

As I have written in the past, I agree resoundingly with Berenson’s conclusion, although I tend to blame governmental incompetence and refusal to concede error as well as more nefarious motives. 

Of course, the media is at fault too, with publications and television channels such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC promoting a blindly pro-lockdown, pro-mask ideology, at the same time discounting the evidence pouring in from all corners of the earth that lockdowns do not work as long- or medium-term solutions while they are destroying millions of lives, and masks are ineffective. Even now, with a vaccine available, the New York Times is publishing articles arguing that the supposedly deadlier new strain of the virus means that countries must lock down harder and longer; Australia expects to keep its borders closed through the end of 2021, if not longer; and the United Kingdom has indicated it will remain in lockdown until at least July. 

Berenson sees the writing on the wall. Until a substantial portion of us stand up and make clear that we will not tolerate being stripped of life, liberty, property, and dignity, our governments will continue to inflict these repressive measures.

Jenin Younes

Jenin Younes is a graduate of Cornell University and New York University School of Law.

Jenin currently works as a civil liberties attorney in Washington DC.

She enjoys running, restaurants, and reading in her free time.

Masks. Prior to the pandemic, Verona’s public schools only needed to think about them on Halloween. But COVID-19 made masks, and many other things, essential measures for health and safety. These measures quickly became objects for debate and dissension that made for late nights at many Board of Education meetings. So we needed to ask candidates what they would do about mask mandates and other COVID protocols imposed by government and health authorities. The question, and their answers, are below/

MyVeronaNJ.com has published its full interviews with Rom Mueller, Pam Priscoe and Chris Wacha on a page specifically for that candidate, but you can read all the answers to Question Three here, and zero in on a specific answer by clicking on a candidate’s name in the list below, which is ordered by their position on the ballot.

Do you support Gov. Murphy’s COVID mask mandate for schools and the vaccination and testing requirements for teachers and staff? How then will you help the BOE to carry out any future directives to prevent the spread of COVID from the state or health authorities that might not be what some parents want?

Pam Priscoe
Chris Wacha
Ron Mueller

Pam Priscoe: So obviously there’s two sides. One side that doesn’t agree and one side that does agree. I want everybody to be protected, our staff, most importantly, and our students, should be protected, and if a student is not able to get a vaccine at this point, if they’re under the age, then they need to be in a mask. When those guidelines shift from the Department of Health and the CDC regulations, that is when we can shift, but if Governor Murphy, or whoever is in charge, decides to change that policy, then that is when we will follow suit. I understand it is very difficult for children and teachers, especially in the extreme heat, to have a mask on. Luckily we are getting through the hot temperatures now so wearing a mask during the day should be much easier. But again it’s to protect everyone and to protect all our children because it just takes that one teacher, or that one student to, God forbid, have something happen. I am fully for the protection of our staff and our children. And, you know, again, we’re not going to always please everyone with what is the right answer, but until we get a different direction, we have to follow what we’re told. We do whatever is mandated by the state. Our superintendent is told what to do from the state. That is what I as a Board member feel we should follow.

Read more Pam Priscoe answers here.

Chris Wacha: Every Board candidate is going to take an oath saying that they’re going to follow the laws of the state of New Jersey. This executive order carries with it the law of kids must wear masks while in a building; adults, visitors, as well while they’re inside the building. So will I support it, yes. I’m in my office with the door closed doing this interview but every time I leave my office, the mask goes right back on.

We found that we were able to open our building full time the entire year last year. We believe that wearing masks made the virus very, very difficult to spread from one person to another person within the school setting. So will I support it? Yes.

As far as is this a good idea, the parents are unhappy about it and I can certainly empathize with them. I think it’s really hard for kids, I think it’s hard for staff. It’s not something that’s ideal. And I imagine that whenever it is that Governor Murphy, or whatever the next governor might be, potentially lifts that executive order, I would imagine that our COVID numbers would be at a certain metric where that would make sense, where it was less likely there would be viral transmission within the school setting. It absolutely makes the learning harder in some ways and even more intimidating for students.

Wacha clarified that, for the 2020-2021 school year, the Haledon school initially divided its students into two groups that would alternate being in the building for a full week. In December, the district policy became that any child who wanted to come in every day could do so. Wacha said that there were 12 times when Haledon was notified that COVID was in its building and that it had evidence of one transmission within its school setting. In the current school year, Haledon has been announcing COVID cases in posts to its Facebook page.

Read more Chris Wacha answers here.

Ron Mueller:As a local BOE, we have to follow the mandates from the state, and we have to clearly communicate to our, our parents and citizens of our town that you know we are having to facilitate whatever the state hands down to us as mandates in order to receive the funding that we receive from the state and in order to, you know, fall in line with where the state is headed. So, I would say, if our school district is strongly against or our town is strongly against mandates headed down from the state, that it’s in our rights to inform the state that we disagree with the mandates that are being handed down, but that if that is what is required then that is what we have to support and follow.

Read more Ron Mueller answers here.

The answers to Question One, what does the BOE do, are here; Question Two, about having the time to serve on the BOE, is here.

Read the full interviews with each candidate.

You can watch the Verona Conference of SCAs candidate forum here.