But this is a good article for examining both sides of the issue, not necessarily for its thesis or conclusion but for the links provided in this paragraph. I have long wondered what the argument for the efficacy of masks was based on. Here it is juxtaposed to the “most rigorous and comprehensive analysis” on the subject.
For years, the science of masking to minimize the spread of airborne viruses, including COVID, has been settled. But Stephens’ February 21 column mischaracterized a recent review of other researchers’ studies to push his anti-masking views. In the process, he made the Times a megaphone for broadcasting incomplete, misleading, and dangerous assertions as if they were facts.
Stephens began his column by describing the Cochrane Library’s January 30, 2023 review as the “most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19.” Then he wrote that one of the study’s 11 authors, Tom Jefferson, said its conclusions “were unambiguous.”
We’ll return to that one.
Quoting Jefferson, Stephens continued, “‘There’s just no evidence that they’ – masks – ‘make any difference.’”
How about high-quality N-95 masks?
Again, quoting Jefferson, Stephens wrote, “‘Makes no difference – none of it.’”
Whatever Happened to the New York Times Fact-Checker? — Common Dreams
The proper mask for the proper application.
Have to also wear it properly.
*** which people didn’t do (or dispose of properly)
All things considered-
Can I laugh now?
The masks offered by my work could be placed over the eyes AND one STILL could see. Through and through.
i think the best masks would be made out of plastic. no air in or out. then we’d be safe.