EN
FR
On Friday afternoon, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (still called the CDC, even though they added a ‘P’) released a heretical report about mask-wearing and COVID-19.
The report, authored by at least a dozen medical doctors, PhD researchers, and, bizarrely, a handful of attorneys, examined how mask mandates across the US affected COVID cases and death rates.
You’d think with all of the media propaganda about mask effectiveness… and all the virtue signaling, with politicians and reporters appearing on live TV wearing masks… that the data would prove incontrovertibly and overwhelmingly that masks have saved the world.
But that’s not what the report says.
According to the CDC’s analysis, between March 1 and December 31 last year, statewide mask mandates were in effect in 2,313 of the 3,142 counties in the United States.
And, looking at the county-by-county data, the CDC concludes that mask mandates were associated with an average 1.32% decrease in the growth rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths during the first 100 days after the mask policy was implemented.
Wait, what? Only 1.32%?
You read that correctly, they didn’t misplace the decimal: according to the federal government agency that is responsible for managing the COVID-1984 pandemic, the difference between mask mandates and no mask mandate is literally just a 1.32% difference.
And bear in mind, it’s entirely possible that the real figure is even lower than that, given all the questionable COVID statistics.
For example, the CDC reports that influenza cases in the United States have dropped to almost zero in the 2020-2021 flu season, down from 56 MILLION the previous year.
It’s amazing they expect anyone to take this data seriously.
Are we honestly supposed to believe that the flu has been eradicated? Or is it possible, that, maybe just maybe, at leastsome influenza cases have been misdiagnosed as COVID?
If that’s the case, then the real impact of masks on COVID growth rates is potentially much lower than 1.32%.
Even the CDC seems to understand this, because at the end of its report, they inspidly conclude by stating that mask mandates “have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19. . .” [the bold is mine, obviously]
Really? “Potential”? That’s HERESY! And an obvious contradiction to WHO guidance. It makes we wonder whether Google and Facebook are gearing up to censor this report, given they have self-appointed themselves as the Ministry of Truth.
Frankly it’s pretty incredible that the data was too weak for the CDC to make a clear assertion about the benefits of mask mandates.
(though I did say there were a couple of lawyers who co-authored this paper… and using non-committal language like “potential” certainly sounds like typical weasel lawyer-speak.)
Now, please don’t misunderstand the point of this letter. I’m not here to bash masks or say that they don’t work, or go on some anti-mask rant.
The point is that I’m pro-data. And pro-reason.
Public health policies come with consequences. There are always costs, and there are (hopefully) benefits.
The CDC has just published an official analysis of the benefits, quantified at precisely 1.32%.
What are the costs of their decisions? Well there’s plenty of data about that too.
For example, a recent study published earlier this month in the premier scientific journal Nature shows that Americans who wear masks are more likely engage in riskier activities, like, you know, leaving the house.
The study conclude that mask mandates “lead to risk compensation behavior” and mask wearers “spend 11-24 fewer minutes at home on average and increase visits to some commercial locations– most notably restaurants, which are a high-risk location.”
Other consequences are more grim.
There have been several studies which chronicle the alarming rise in severe mental health issues, including a spike in youth suicide, as a result of various public health policies, including mask mandates and lockdowns.
For example, another study published in Nature from early January reported that, in late 2020, suicide rates among children in Japan jumped 49%.
And the US government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service (SAMHSA) reported an incredible 890% increase in call volume to its nationwide suicide hotline last April.
Then there are the economic consequences to consider: Do mask mandates boost the economy by giving people more confidence to go out and spend? Or do mask mandates compel more people to stay home to avoid the hassle, and hence reduce economic activity?
There’s still no conclusive analysis on the subject. But you’d think that policymakers would want to know.
You’d think that they would look at all the data, all the pro’s and con’s, economic consequences, public health consequences, etc., and make an informed, rational decision.
But that doesn’t seem to happen anymore.
There can be no rational discourse on the topic. You’re not allowed to ask any questions or express any intellectual dissent, otherwise you’ll be denounced as a conspiracy theorist.
You have one job: obey. It’s not even about ‘trusting the science’ anymore, as we’ve been told to do over and over again during the pandemic. Because now the science tells us that mask mandates “have the potential” to reduce Covid growth rates by just 1.32%.
Not that you’ll hear this in the media.
There actually was a bonanza of coverage over the weekend about the CDC’s new report. The Washington Post headline read “After state lift restrictions, CDC says mask mandates can reduce deaths”.
The New York Times reported that “Wearing masks, the [CDC] study reported, was linked to fewer infections with the coronavirus and Covid-19 deaths.”
NBC called the report “strong evidence that mask mandates can slow the spread of the coronavirus. . .”
But very little of the media coverage bothered to mention the real data, i.e. the marginal 1.32% reduction in growth rates.
Just like the CDC’s influenza data, it’s incredible that the media expects to be taken seriously, or that they pass themselves off as an objective, unbiased source of information.
Source: SovereignMan.com.
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website
Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.
2300 hundred years ago, the Arabic people discovered that covering someone’s mouth and nose broke their will and their individuality. It depersonalizes them and makes them submissive. Islam later took it over and imposed it on their women so they could show their submissiveness to Allah.
Without a face; we don’t exist.
”Americans who wear masks are more likely to engage in riskier activities, like, you know, leaving the house!”
Ha ha ha, that’s funny like:
”Americans who get out of the house are more likely to put their lives at risk, like, you know, there’s people out there!
They really tried hard to convince us to be scared of one another, well, I’ve got news for them, it didn’t work…
BIG HUGS FOR EVERYONE!
All this and much more evidence to prove this was a planned crime against humanity. But remember 9/11? How many arrests of the real perpetrators? Right, NONE. This will be no different.
Looking at the Figure indicating the differences when in-place dining was opened there appears to be a clear correlation with reported death rates. No attempt is made to recognize the numerous related behavioral changes involved with the closing of in-place dining and its re-opening. These include decreased time spent in a vehicle traveling to the restaurant for dining. This is evidenced by the dramatic drop in business by the restaurants after the initial mask and dining mandate. The statistical importance in this aspect is well known and has been ignored in the basic study. The starting assumption is that any observed effects on the death rate were related to the mandate to wear a mask or exposure to other people and not to any other behavioral factors. The lack of recognition of these other factors associated with the mandates indicates clearly the bias of the study. How many statistically significant variables were overlooked in this simplistic analysis of the effects of the mandates?