Studies: Masks Did Nothing. Lockdowns Did Nothing.

Before getting to that, a rant:

I really enjoyed the NeverTrumpers all taking hard positions on Proxy Issues to just stick it to Trump voters, stuff like masking and lockdowns, stuff they were all proven catastrophically wrong on. Stuff they claimed they were "following the science on," when they were really just acting in the most primitive, lizard-like tribalistically hateful ways.

Is it possible that all NeverTrumpers just happened to all "follow the (same) science" and come down on the same side of all of these proxy issues?

Or is it more likely that they are broke-brained obsessives incapable of viewing any issue through any other lens other than "Trump or Anti-Trump?" and just take the "Anti-Trump" position on everything?

Including, more and more, on core conservative positions they supposedly used to support the conservative side on. The Bulwark, for example, is now pro-abortion, pro-CRT, pro-transgender conversion therapy, and pro-grooming.

The NeverTrump obsessives -- all of whom, I am convinced, had nervous breakdowns in the spring of 2016 and would be diagnosed as such if they just sought out the mental health help they desperately need -- took positions on a whole bunch of issues just because Trump had taken or even just expressed sympathy for the other side.

But remember: These are the Smart People who really Think About the Issues, though. They don't just take positions to Own the Libs, you see. They're patriots who care about Country First, not just tribalists animated by a base desire to plunge their thumbs in the eye sockets of their enemies.

And to hear them constantly whining about "cons" taking positions to "own the libs" when they're exclusively taking positions to own the cons. It's too much. It's much too much.

Anyway, here's some more science for the NeverTrump nervous breakdown broke-brains, who have not yet apologized for pushing this garbage, or for pushing the Russiagate conspiracy theory (while simultaneously having the absolute balls to decry conspiracy theories!).

Bonchie at RedState notes a study which shows that not only did masks not help limit covid's spread, but actually seem to have contributed to... covid deaths?!

The observational study -- "The Foegen Effect: A Mechanism by Which Facemasks Contribute to the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate" -- was published in Medicine in February 2022, authored by German doctor Zacharias Fögen.

The paper analyzed "whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas" during the time period of August 1st, 2020 to October 15th. Kansas was used for comparison because the state allowed each of its 105 counties to decide whether or not to implement mask mandates, with 81 counties deciding against the measure.

"The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case," summarized the paper.

"Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates."

A German study finds that the lockdowns had no connection to falling covid rates. Covid transmission rates were already falling before Germany needlessly locked down its population.

They claim that they can't say for certain that the lockdowns didn't help -- just that they have no evidence that they did help.

I'll say it for them: They didn't help.

Coronavirus lockdowns had "no direct connection" to falling infection rates in Germany -- as transmission was already declining before the restrictions were imposed, new research found.

The research, conducted by statisticians at Ludwig Maximilians Munich University, found that the country's R rate -- the number of people an infected person passes the virus to -- had already dipped below 1 prior to the national lockdown being imposed last November, according to the Telegraph.

The rate was also decreasing in December and April when the lockdown was tightened, the research found.

The scientists examined the R number because they viewed it as a more accurate measure than COVID-19 test results in determining the true infection rate within the community, which was what the German government was relying on.

Because the R number was dropping before the national lockdown was imposed, the researchers determined they could not conclusively say that the stay-at-home orders had any significant impact on controlling the pandemic.

There was "no direct connection," they wrote, according to the Telegraph.

"The [lockdown] measures taken could have had a positive effect on the course of the infection, but are not solely responsible for the decline," the statisticians wrote, according to the Telegraph.

The research has been seized on by lockdown critics, but the statisticians have stressed that there's no evidence in the data that lockdowns weren't necessary.

The Daily Skeptic has a preview of what the German government is getting ready to report, which is a generally-negative assessment of Merkel's mask-and-lockdown covid regime.

posted by Ace at 04:19 PM

| Access Comments