Well, There He Goes Again
My favorite shallow thinker at The New York Times is back and this time he’s taking no prisoners.
Yes, once again, the laziest journalist on the planet, Bret Stephens, is back with a deep dive into the shallow end of the pool. This time, he’s on about how mask mandates were a complete bust during the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic (which by the way is still going on) and we should apologize to everyone (mostly in Red states) who we maligned and called stupid for not complying.
Bret’s proof? A study of scientific studies conducted by the British non-profit health researcher Cochrane which concludes that maybe, quite possibly, but it’s hard to tell for sure, that wearing a mask during a respiratory pandemic doesn’t really do much to prevent the spread of the virus.
The study Bret sites seems on its face to be pretty comprehensive. Cochrane researchers looked at 78 randomised controlled trials, or RCTs in medical research-speak, comprising more than 610,000 participants. Six of those trials involved Covid-19 patients in various countries.
But if you look closer, you’ll find that the researchers are wary of drawing any solid conclusions about mask wearing, peppering the study with phrases like “hampers drawing conclusions” and “our confidence is limited” and words like “possibly” all over it.
The Cochrane study basically concluded that there has not been enough study of the effectiveness of mask wearing to conclusively say if they make a difference or not in a viral pandemic.
“The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions,” the study notes. “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.”
Of course, Bret takes this to mean that mask mandates are useless and all the experts (namely Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) are wrong about masks being effective.
But wait, there’s more. Bret doesn’t actually base his column on the Cochrane study, but an interview the lead researcher of the study, Dr. Tom Jefferson, gave to a journalist about the study.
That journalist is Maryanne Demasi, who writes about medical issues on her Substack. Demasi is a “cholesterol denier” and thinks Wi-Fi causes brain tumors.
But she does admit up front in her interview that Dr. Jefferson doesn’t give many interviews.
“Jefferson doesn’t grant many interviews with journalists -- he doesn’t trust the media. But since we worked together at Cochrane a few years ago, he decided to let his guard down with me,” she wrote.
Hmm. Doesn’t seem to be any bias here. A source that doesn’t trust the media. A journalist who used to work for the company producing the study. Nothing to see here. Move along.
And then there’s the questions she asks Jefferson during the interview. Such as this one:
“DEMASI: There were so many silly mask policies. They expected 2yr olds to wear masks, and you had to wear a mask to walk into a restaurant, but you could take it off as soon as you sat down.”
I think this is what prosecutors call “leading the witness.”
Then there’s this exchange between Demasi and Jefferson, which I think explains where Dr. Jefferson is coming from:
“DEMASI: Did you wear a mask?
JEFFERSON: I follow the law. If the law says I need to wear one, then I wear one because I have to. I do not break the law. I obey the law of the country.
DEMASI: Yeah, same. What would you say to people who still want to wear a mask?
JEFFERSON: I think it's fair to say that if you want to wear a mask then you should have a choice, okay. But in the absence of evidence, you shouldn't be forcing anybody to do so.”
Jefferson is all for choice. How dare the government tell you what to do in a health crisis. And, by the way, the experts don’t know what they are talking about.
Anyway, back to Bret.
He kind of admits that there’s no harm in wearing a mask if you want to, even though there’s no conclusive evidence for or against their usefulness.
“No study — or study of studies — is ever perfect. Science is never absolutely settled. What’s more, the analysis does not prove that proper masks, properly worn, had no benefit at an individual level. People may have good personal reasons to wear masks, and they may have the discipline to wear them consistently. Their choices are their own,” he notes.
Here, again, our hero is pissed that the Government is telling him what to do. He’ll gladly wear a mask – whether or not they work – but just don’t make him do it. He’ll do it on his own. Except he won’t. There’ll be some other excuse against it. That’s how they work. Let me make my own decision to do something. But when I decide not to do it, don’t complain. If I want to endanger other people’s lives, that’s my decision. And if you do complain, I’d like an apology please.
Bret admits that if you want to wear a mask as an individual, go ahead, there’s no harm in it. Based on the Cochrane study he concludes that collectively, wearing masks is for wusses. On a population level, mask wearing is useless.
“But when it comes to the population-level benefits of masking, the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust,” Bret writes.
Except, of course, the Cochrane study does not say this.
The Cochrane study says that while there is no conclusive evidence that face masks are effective during a respiratory pandemic, there also is no evidence that they aren’t. In their words “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks.”
And that’s because, they note, clinical trials are imperfect, as are the studies that result from them. Not to mention, one of the biggest reasons face masks may not be effective in a pandemic has nothing to do with the mask themselves, but the people wearing them (or wearing them incorrectly, as the case may be).
In other words, face masks need to be studied more closely before any concrete conclusions can be drawn. If masks are effective then mask mandates will be effective. If they aren’t, then mandates are useless.
Naturally, Bret takes what he wants from the study and ignores the actual conclusion of the researchers.
In the conclusion to his column, Bret shows his true colors. And, as usually, gets it spectacularly wrong.
“But whatever the reason, mask mandates were a fool’s errand from the start. They may have created a false sense of safety — and thus permission to resume semi-normal life. They did almost nothing to advance safety itself. The Cochrane report ought to be the final nail in this particular coffin,” he writes. “There’s a final lesson. The last justification for masks is that, even if they proved to be ineffective, they seemed like a relatively low-cost, intuitively effective way of doing something against the virus in the early days of the pandemic. But ‘do something’ is not science, and it shouldn’t have been public policy. And the people who had the courage to say as much deserved to be listened to, not treated with contempt. They may not ever get the apology they deserve, but vindication ought to be enough.”
Except “the people who had the courage to say as much,” which is Bret-speak for those Red State governors who defied the mandates, possibly putting their citizens at risk of contracting Covid-19 and dying, did not defy the mask mandates because the science is inconclusive and they took a chance. They decided to do nothing because the government – namely the Democrats running the government – told them they had to do something and mask wearing was the best option at the time. They did it to “stick it to the Libs.” The government says “Do A,” so they “Do B.”
Because masks were mandated, because they weren't given a “choice,” they chose to ignore what the government was telling them.
People who act this way Bret do not deserve an apology. They do deserve to be treated with contempt. Just like the people who decided to wear their masks around their mouths, leaving their noses uncovered. Or wearing their masks covering their chins and not covering their mouths and noses.
Putting someone else’s health at risk is not laudable behavior. Even if it turns out that masks really are ineffective, what harm would it have done to wear a piece of cloth over your face when out in public? You live in the world with other people. At least pretend you care about them once in a while.
The science may not be conclusive on mask wearing. But the government mandated mask wearing out of an abundance of caution, not just to annoy you.
But you’re right Bret, “do something” is not science.
Likewise, “do nothing” is not government.
Think about that.