1080 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

Early in the pandemic, real-world evidence from Asia suggested that general masking might work. Covid was stopped (or at least temporarily paused) in several countries that had general masking, and an early RCT suggested a general 11% reduction in covid and a 35% reduction in covid for older people. Is that a significant effect? I'd call it mediocre, but if it comes with minimal cost, it's worth doing. Is it perfect research? No, but it's good enough for policy recommendations. Mask mandates did eventually become unnecessary, but they were no more tyrannical than clothing mandates.

 

I think the issue was that the differences in the infection rates between Asia and the West were almost entirely attributed to masking, which was a logical fallacy.

 

Asia did many things differently to the West. Yes, masking was more widespread. But, they also almost entirely shut their borders very early in the pandemic and instituted very aggressive contact tracing and mandatory quarantines. None of which was likely to have flown in the West. 

 

It never made sense to have a number of differences in the response to covid and then attribute the lower infector rates solely to the masks.

[Florin]

I think the issue was that the differences in the infection rates between Asia and the West were almost entirely attributed to masking, which was a logical fallacy.

 

Asia did many things differently to the West. Yes, masking was more widespread. But, they also almost entirely shut their borders very early in the pandemic and instituted very aggressive contact tracing and mandatory quarantines. None of which was likely to have flown in the West. 

 

It never made sense to have a number of differences in the response to covid and then attribute the lower infector rates solely to the masks.

 

The up to 35% reduction in covid was achieved in a country (Bangladesh) that didn't (AFAIK) have some of the stricter NPIs like SK did, and it had compliance of only about 50% or less. So, this is even more applicable to the West.

 

https://med.stanford...s-covid-19.html

[Daniel Cooper]

The up to 35% reduction in covid was achieved in a country (Bangladesh) that didn't (AFAIK) have some of the stricter NPIs like SK did, and it had compliance of only about 50% or less. So, this is even more applicable to the West.

 

https://med.stanford...s-covid-19.html

 

The problem with that is that Bangladesh is a country that I would probably have the least confidence in their infection rate data. It is a very poor country, very rural, and has much less of a medical infrastructure that any Western country.

 

Basically, I just don't have high confidence in their data.

[Florin]

The problem with that is that Bangladesh is a country that I would probably have the least confidence in their infection rate data. It is a very poor country, very rural, and has much less of a medical infrastructure that any Western country.

 

Basically, I just don't have high confidence in their data.

 

The researchers seemed confident enough in the data to run this study, so that should count for something. And sometimes, you have to make decisions based on imperfect data.

 

Anyway, the bottom line is that there is real-world evidence to suggest that masks do work in some circumstances.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, do you have a link to the study? The link you give in post # 1052 seems to be presented as a synopsis of the "study", not the study paper itself. In your link, after the first paragraph, is the following: "Read the full paper here" where the "here" is a hyperlink to the following page. As you can see, if you click that link, there is no study.

 

I, for one, am not going to accept the results of a "study" for which I can't review purpose, scope, and methodology. Second-hand recountings don't cut it. 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 27 January 2025 - 06:16 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The researchers seemed confident enough in the data to run this study, so that should count for something. And sometimes, you have to make decisions based on imperfect data.
 
Anyway, the bottom line is that there is real-world evidence to suggest that masks do work in some circumstances.

 
The Replication Crisis has been in the news lately. The sort of standard figure you hear is that in the medical field roughly 50% of published studies can't be replicated. 

 

There was an article in the media within the last several weeks that put the figure at 70%, though I'm not sure that figure applied solely to medicine. 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

In my post #1055 I indicate that Florin's link has a a reference link to this page, which is the page which supposedly links to the "study" in question. In reality, Florin's link contains a link called "released" in the third paragraph which takes you to the page which has a supposed link to the actual study. Sorry for any confusion.

 

In any case, there is no study to review, so the "results" hold no weight.

[Dorian Grey]

Why not simply study reality?  Find a place that had mask mandates and see if they remained largely COVID free.  

 

If they did, the masks worked...  If they didn't the masks did not.  

 

The evidence should speak for itself!  

[Florin]

The Replication Crisis has been in the news lately. The sort of standard figure you hear is that in the medical field roughly 50% of published studies can't be replicated. 
 
There was an article in the media within the last several weeks that put the figure at 70%, though I'm not sure that figure applied solely to medicine.

 
Sure, but you still use medicine. 
 

In my post #1055 I indicate that Florin's link has a a reference link to this page, which is the page which supposedly links to the "study" in question. In reality, Florin's link contains a link called "released" in the third paragraph which takes you to the page which has a supposed link to the actual study. Sorry for any confusion.
 
In any case, there is no study to review, so the "results" hold no weight.

 

STUDY DESIGN
Randomized controlled trial

 
https://www.poverty-...tion-bangladesh
 

Why not simply study reality?  Find a place that had mask mandates and see if they remained largely COVID free.  
 
If they did, the masks worked...  If they didn't the masks did not.  
 
The evidence should speak for itself!

 
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or mediocre).

[joesixpack]

I guess this is an issue on which everyone has to come to their own conclusions. I found n95 masks, and medical surgical masks effective in certain situations. I wore them when going into public buildings with a lot of people, for short periods of time. Like grocery stores. Where I was, restaurants were not open for seating, it was all take out. No movie theaters etc. No one got sick in the house. The summer of 2021 we went back to northern Wisconsin for 5 months. There was never a lock down there, and no mask requirements were ever imposed. Everyone was going to movies, going to restaurants, life was normal and I found that wearing a mask was not socially required, or encouraged - except at the Dr.s office. So I stopped, along with my wife. After 3 months I got really sick. They said I had Pneumonia, I was not tested for Covid, and they treated me with antibiotics. I think I had Covid. At the same time, other people were getting Covid and treating it like the flu. So my conclusion is masks can help if you are careful and do not stay in crowded rooms or buildings for long periods of time. But wearing a mask will not do much if you are going to go about your normal life, with no restrictions.

 

Anyway, I think I found the study, at least it looks to be complete, with downloadable documents representing their findings. Here it is:

 

https://www.science....science.abi9069

[Daniel Cooper]

 
Sure, but you still use medicine. 
 

 

 
https://www.poverty-...tion-bangladesh
 

 
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or mediocre).

 

Indeed I still use medicine.

 

But, I don't tend to believe that a single study is the last word. I think you have to look across multiple studies.

 

When I see multiple studies on the same issue come down finding a modest effect in this direction and other studies finding a modest effect in another direction (which is what I believe I see with masking), I tend to believe that if an effect exists at all, it's not very large.

 

This is what I believe to be the case with masking. I'm not sure if it helps, does nothing, or hurts. But whatever it does I do not believe that you're looking at a massive effect one way or the other. Of course, you can always embrace the studies you like, ignore the studies you don't, and believe the science backs up your favorite position. And the point is, you can do that with masks no matter which side you are on because you can find studies that support your position regardless of what that position is.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, the link you give in your post #1059 doesn't contain a "study", unless you're seeing something that my browser isn't loading. Your link has the following title and paragraph as the main content of your linked page:

 

"Normalizing Community Mask-Wearing: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Bangladesh

Evidence suggests that face masks can slow the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, but getting people to consistently and properly wear masks has been a public health challenge. In Bangladesh, researchers partnered with policymakers to design and evaluate strategies to increase mask uptake. Masks were distributed to households and in public places. Mask use was promoted through role-modeling, messages by prominent Bangladeshi leaders and personalities, informational brochures, and in-person reinforcement. The researchers also tested a number of incentives and behavioral nudges, including public commitment devices and text message reminders.

May 13, 2021"

 

And, on the left-hand side under "Publications", an image that, when clicked, loads a 6-page document. That document is not a study, It is essentially a "press release" or "synopsis" written by Laura Burke and Neela Saldanha (Editor: Laura Burke | Designer: Michelle Read.)--attribution was written in small print under "Give Well" near the bottom of page six.

 

Nowhere in those six pages is 35% mentioned.

 

There are 3rd person references to "the researchers" or "research team". In a study, the actions of the investigators are typically written as "we", for example as in "we found...".

 

This link mentions "35 percent", but that link doesn't contain a study, it consists of claims in a supposed study

 

Florin, you have, as yet, failed to provide a link to an actual study which can substantiate your 35% claim. 

 

Please give a link to an actual study so that readers can assess the credibility of the study.

 

 

[Florin]

Indeed I still use medicine.
 
But, I don't tend to believe that a single study is the last word. I think you have to look across multiple studies.
 
When I see multiple studies on the same issue come down finding a modest effect in this direction and other studies finding a modest effect in another direction (which is what I believe I see with masking), I tend to believe that if an effect exists at all, it's not very large.
 
This is what I believe to be the case with masking. I'm not sure if it helps, does nothing, or hurts. But whatever it does I do not believe that you're looking at a massive effect one way or the other. Of course, you can always embrace the studies you like, ignore the studies you don't, and believe the science backs up your favorite position. And the point is, you can do that with masks no matter which side you are on because you can find studies that support your position regardless of what that position is.

 
AFAIK, this was the largest RCT of masking during the pandemic and other meta reviews (we discussed at least one of them before) lean toward some positive effects of masking with so-so confidence. If you don't have better alternatives, don't you think that was enough to justify the rationale behind mask mandates?
 
Anyway, my main point is that the claim that there's no evidence that masking helps is clearly false.
 

Florin, the link you give in your post #1059 doesn't contain a "study", unless you're seeing something that my browser isn't loading. Your link has the following title and paragraph as the main content of your linked page:
 
"Normalizing Community Mask-Wearing: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Bangladesh
Evidence suggests that face masks can slow the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, but getting people to consistently and properly wear masks has been a public health challenge. In Bangladesh, researchers partnered with policymakers to design and evaluate strategies to increase mask uptake. Masks were distributed to households and in public places. Mask use was promoted through role-modeling, messages by prominent Bangladeshi leaders and personalities, informational brochures, and in-person reinforcement. The researchers also tested a number of incentives and behavioral nudges, including public commitment devices and text message reminders.
May 13, 2021"
 
And, on the left-hand side under "Publications", an image that, when clicked, loads a 6-page document. That document is not a study, It is essentially a "press release" or "synopsis" written by Laura Burke and Neela Saldanha (Editor: Laura Burke | Designer: Michelle Read.)--attribution was written in small print under "Give Well" near the bottom of page six.
 
Nowhere in those six pages is 35% mentioned.
 
There are 3rd person references to "the researchers" or "research team". In a study, the actions of the investigators are typically written as "we", for example as in "we found...".
 
This link mentions "35 percent", but that link doesn't contain a study, it consists of claims in a supposed study
 
Florin, you have, as yet, failed to provide a link to an actual study which can substantiate your 35% claim. 
 
Please give a link to an actual study so that readers can assess the credibility of the study.

Anyway, I think I found the study, at least it looks to be complete, with downloadable documents representing their findings. Here it is:
 
https://www.science....science.abi9069

The effects were substantially larger (and more precisely estimated) in communities where we distributed surgical masks, consistent with their greater filtration efficiency as measured in the laboratory (manuscript forthcoming). In villages randomized to receive surgical masks, the relative reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence was 11% overall, 23% among individuals aged 50 to 59 years, and 35% among those ≥60 years of age in preferred specifications.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, before I give my criticisms of the study cited by joesixpack, and for which you seem to have adopted as being the "link to an actual study" that I had requested in my post #1062, I'd like to know if that study is, indeed, the study upon which you are basing your claims. If that isn't the study in question, then I need a link to the study you wish to cite. Thanks.

[Florin]

Florin, before I give my criticisms of the study cited by joesixpack, and for which you seem to have adopted as being the "link to an actual study" that I had requested in my post #1062, I'd like to know if that study is, indeed, the study upon which you are basing your claims. If that isn't the study in question, then I need a link to the study you wish to cite. Thanks.

 

It's the same study, but the peer-reviewed version seems to have more details.

[Mind]

Another study finds no statistical difference between neighboring school districts with vastly different mask mandates during the COVID panic.

 

This is in line with decades of peer-reviewed studies regarding general masking. General masking of the population is a poor pandemic response.

 

People were misled by short-term, poorly designed, under-powered studies during the COVID panic. Respected scientists who disagreed with the masking policy were censored and even fired during the COVID panic - by "health" leaders like Dr. Fauci, Francis Collins, Dr. Birx, etc...

 

 

[Florin]

Another study finds no statistical difference between neighboring school districts with vastly different mask mandates during the COVID panic.

 

This is in line with decades of peer-reviewed studies regarding general masking. General masking of the population is a poor pandemic response.

 

People were misled by short-term, poorly designed, under-powered studies during the COVID panic. Respected scientists who disagreed with the masking policy were censored and even fired during the COVID panic - by "health" leaders like Dr. Fauci, Francis Collins, Dr. Birx, etc...

 

It seems you've ignored all of the masking studies that contradicts your anti-masking stance. The RCT I mentioned was way bigger than this one, and yet, you've ignored it. You've also ignored other studies that lean toward masking. The "decades of peer-reviewed studies" are mixed and often of poor quality.

 

Masking sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't. If you don't have better alternatives, there's no reason to avoid it.

[Dorian Grey]

It seems you've ignored all of the masking studies that contradicts your anti-masking stance. The RCT I mentioned was way bigger than this one, and yet, you've ignored it. You've also ignored other studies that lean toward masking. The "decades of peer-reviewed studies" are mixed and often of poor quality.

 

Masking sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't. If you don't have better alternatives, there's no reason to avoid it.

 

"If you don't have better alternatives, there's no reason to avoid it."  But in a free society, would mandates be ethical?

 

Here in San Diego, we had indoor AND OUTDOOR mask mandates that dragged on for the better part of a year, with remarkably good compliance.  Did they help?  

 

Well, omicron swept through our town like a Southern California wildfire.  If the masks made any difference at all, it was minuscule.  

 

Would early, outpatient treatment have saved more people.  Hard to imagine how it would not have done so.  

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100776

 

(Outpatient: Number of studies showing clinical improvement, 11. Number of studies showing no improvement, 0. % improved vs total studies, 100)

 

It wasn't so much the mask mandates that drove me wild, but the suppression of early treatments.  You gotta act like you have a plan, so it was masks rather than treatment, and if you did fall ill, remdesivir was all that was offered till Pharma's billion dollar babies hatched.  

 

It was the crime of the century, and I for one, will never forgive or forget.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 20 February 2025 - 06:08 PM.

[Florin]

"If you don't have better alternatives, there's no reason to avoid it."  But in a free society, would mandates be ethical?

 

Here in San Diego, we had indoor AND OUTDOOR mask mandates that dragged on for the better part of a year, with remarkably good compliance.  Did they help?  

 

Well, omicron swept through our town like a Southern California wildfire.  If the masks made any difference at all, it was minuscule.  

 

Would early, outpatient treatment have saved more people.  Hard to imagine how it would not have done so.  

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100776

 

(Outpatient: Number of studies showing clinical improvement, 11. Number of studies showing no improvement, 0. % improved vs total studies, 100)

 

It wasn't so much the mask mandates that drove me wild, but the suppression of early treatments.  You gotta act like you have a plan, so it was masks rather than treatment, and if you did fall ill, remdesivir was all that was offered till Pharma's billion dollar babies hatched.  

 

It was the crime of the century, and I for one, will never forgive or forget.  

 

We've discussed this many times before. There's no reason for masks if you have better alternatives like respirators. And if you have respirators, there's no reasons to have mandates. The only time when mask mandates made any sense was early in the pandemic when the supply of respirators was supposedly low.

 

Omicron developed later in the pandemic when it became clear that more contagious variants made masks ineffective, while the RCT was conducted in May 2020.

 

Are mask mandates ethical? Are clothing and anti-smoking mandates ethical? Most people seem to think they are.

 

I have nothing against therapeutics, but I'd prefer to focus on the subject of this thread.

[Dorian Grey]

Respirators?  I was out and about most every day, & I only recall seeing someone wearing a respirator 2 or 3 times over the 2 or 3 years of the pandemic.  Sorry, but this is a non-issue.  

 

My issue with masks is that they were advertised as profoundly more effective than they actually were.  We weren't supposed to need outpatient therapeutics... Just wear a mask!  I remember Dr Fauci admitted supplementing Vitamin-D once, and when the interviewer asked if the public might ask their doc about testing or supplementing D, he paused for a second, and then said:  "I know of something cheaper...  Just wear a mask".  Vitamin-D for me, but not for thee?  Absolutely disgraceful!  

 

They (masks) gave a false sense of confidence...  I recall seeing people out & about talking to strangers, standing just a foot apart, with their stretched out ear-loop masks hanging away from their faces, yet they felt they were protected by these magic shields.  

 

The mask mandates were divisive!  Just because I'm wearing a mask, doesn't mean you don't have to...  They only "work" if everyone wears them full time.  Right! 

 

At least the vaccines may have saved a few lives in the nursing homes in 2021, but the whole deal with masks was a wrong turn.  The didn't work!  We all got COVID anyway!  

[Florin]

Respirators?  I was out and about most every day, & I only recall seeing someone wearing a respirator 2 or 3 times over the 2 or 3 years of the pandemic.  Sorry, but this is a non-issue.

 

Right, and that's because morons like Fauci refused to popularize respirators and instead pushed the use of ineffective masks instead.

[joesixpack]

We've discussed this many times before. There's no reason for masks if you have better alternatives like respirators. And if you have respirators, there's no reasons to have mandates. The only time when mask mandates made any sense was early in the pandemic when the supply of respirators was supposedly low.

 

Omicron developed later in the pandemic when it became clear that more contagious variants made masks ineffective, while the RCT was conducted in May 2020.

 

Are mask mandates ethical? Are clothing and anti-smoking mandates ethical? Most people seem to think they are.

 

I have nothing against therapeutics, but I'd prefer to focus on the subject of this thread.

I think mask mandates were completely useless. Cloth masks did nothing, and that is all you needed to comply. N95 respirators are to difficult for many people to wear all day, so you can't  mandate them. And mandating anything for toddlers over 2 years to wear on planes is not moral.

[Florin]

I think mask mandates were completely useless. Cloth masks did nothing, and that is all you needed to comply. N95 respirators are to difficult for many people to wear all day, so you can't  mandate them. And mandating anything for toddlers over 2 years to wear on planes is not moral.

 

I agree that cloths masks are almost useless, but a lot of people wore surgical masks which did provide some protection, at least near the start of the pandemic.

 

Plenty of people probably thought that they couldn't wear masks all day until they did. Elastomeric respirators are generally more comfortable than N95s and provide better protection. And there was plenty of time to develop even better alternatives (like PAPRs), but there was almost zero interest because of people like Fauci. The CDC eventually did start talking about N95s on their website, but it was too little, too late.

 

We discussed all of this before, but I guess this is dead-horse-beating-time or something.

Edited by Florin, 21 February 2025 - 05:57 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The other question aside from whether or not masks work is who should have worn them.

 

Should a healthy 20 year old have been wearing a mask during the covid pandemic?

 

My contention is "Almost certainly not". See, getting covid at the end of the day wasn't optional for 99% of the population. Once sars-cov-2 escaped that lab in Wuhan, you were going to get covid at some point. A working mask might delay the inevitable but couldn't prevent it.

 

If you were healthy and relatively young (say under 60) your chances of a serious consequence even from the initial strains were pretty damned low. Was it worth the bother for that group? I think if most people understood the true risk they'd answer "no".

 

If you were older or had some underlying health issue (and the masks actually worked) it probably made sense for some people to wear them. At least that offered you the potential to maybe forestall getting the virus until it had evolved into the less lethal strains in circulation today.

 

But it never made any sense for healthy people below some age (maybe into the later 60s even) to mask up because their risks of a serious consequence were just so low.

 

That was the fundamental mistake we (and by "we" I mean our governments and health agencies) made - to act as if everyone had an equal and high risk from this virus. That was always nonsense and it made the response to this virus much more onerous that it needed to be.

[Mind]

The other question aside from whether or not masks work is who should have worn them.

 

Should a healthy 20 year old have been wearing a mask during the covid pandemic?

 

My contention is "Almost certainly not". See, getting covid at the end of the day wasn't optional for 99% of the population. Once sars-cov-2 escaped that lab in Wuhan, you were going to get covid at some point. A working mask might delay the inevitable but couldn't prevent it.

 

If you were healthy and relatively young (say under 60) your chances of a serious consequence even from the initial strains were pretty damned low. Was it worth the bother for that group? I think if most people understood the true risk they'd answer "no".

 

If you were older or had some underlying health issue (and the masks actually worked) it probably made sense for some people to wear them. At least that offered you the potential to maybe forestall getting the virus until it had evolved into the less lethal strains in circulation today.

 

But it never made any sense for healthy people below some age (maybe into the later 60s even) to mask up because their risks of a serious consequence were just so low.

 

That was the fundamental mistake we (and by "we" I mean our governments and health agencies) made - to act as if everyone had an equal and high risk from this virus. That was always nonsense and it made the response to this virus much more onerous that it needed to be.

 

Don't forget that masking was sold to the public as the end-all-be-all super-duper guaranteed perfect pandemic response that was going to end the pandemic "in a matter of weeks" (anyway, that is what health officials in my state said). The real science has never shown that masking works at the population level. General population masking is a poor pandemic response. Masking did not stop anyone from getting COVID no matter if there was high compliance or low compliance.

Edited by Mind, 20 March 2025 - 05:09 PM.

[Florin]

Don't forget that masking was sold to the pubic as the end-all-be-all super-duper guaranteed perfect pandemic response that was going to end the pandemic "in a matter of weeks" (anyway, that is what health officials in my state said). The real science has never shown that masking works at the population level. General population masking is a poor pandemic response. Masking did not stop anyone from getting COVID no matter if there was high compliance or low compliance.

 

AFAIK, no one said that masks would have ended the pandemic. Respirators might have or at least kept transmission to a minimum, but they weren't tried.

 

And the RCT that was mentioned suggested that masks could stop some covid transmission even without high compliance.

[Florin]

The other question aside from whether or not masks work is who should have worn them.

 

Should a healthy 20 year old have been wearing a mask during the covid pandemic?

 

My contention is "Almost certainly not". See, getting covid at the end of the day wasn't optional for 99% of the population. Once sars-cov-2 escaped that lab in Wuhan, you were going to get covid at some point. A working mask might delay the inevitable but couldn't prevent it.

 

If you were healthy and relatively young (say under 60) your chances of a serious consequence even from the initial strains were pretty damned low. Was it worth the bother for that group? I think if most people understood the true risk they'd answer "no".

 

If you were older or had some underlying health issue (and the masks actually worked) it probably made sense for some people to wear them. At least that offered you the potential to maybe forestall getting the virus until it had evolved into the less lethal strains in circulation today.

 

But it never made any sense for healthy people below some age (maybe into the later 60s even) to mask up because their risks of a serious consequence were just so low.

 

That was the fundamental mistake we (and by "we" I mean our governments and health agencies) made - to act as if everyone had an equal and high risk from this virus. That was always nonsense and it made the response to this virus much more onerous that it needed to be.

 

You seem to have forgotten the rationale behind mask mandates. The primary rationale was source control, not personal protection, and that means the more (even lower risk) people you mask, the less transmission you get and the less older people die and clog up hospitals.

 

A lot of high-risk people could have delayed getting covid either indefinitely or until vaccines or other therapeutics were developed. For those in nursing homes, it wouldn't have been so hard for staff to wear ventless respirators and arrange meetings with relatives outdoors. A lot of retirees could either wear respirators while shopping or just order groceries online and meet people outdoors or with respirators indoors.

 

Also, masking made sense for plenty of younger, healthier people who would have wanted to avoid the risk of getting long covid, even if covid itself wasn't life threatening.

 

If respirators were used instead of masks, your reasoning would make more sense, but that's not what you're talking about here. The real fundamental mistake was not to use respirators.

[Mind]

A good review of the insanity that was the COVID pandemic panic, on the five year anniversary - including people screaming at others in the wilderness, in National Parks, for not wearing a mask.

[Daniel Cooper]

A good review of the insanity that was the COVID pandemic panic, on the five year anniversary - including people screaming at others in the wilderness, in National Parks, for not wearing a mask.

 

Remember the guy out in California that was surfing off shore without a mask that got arrested?

 

Crazy times.

[Mind]

Here is an interesting study for public health bureaucrats to consider: Mask usage is correlated with excess mortality in Europe. 

 

A couple of things to consider: The mask usage was self-reported and mask usage was often required along with other NPIs. Countries that had looser mask requirement also had fewer other draconian COVID policies.

 

To me it makes sense. Isolate people, force them to stay 6 feet away from people, and wear a mask non-stop and they are going to be lonely and depressed. There are very few people who can wear a mask non-stop and not go crazy. It is well-known that the suicide rate skyrocketed during the COVID pandemic panic - some of the excess death was probably from that.