Masking…the Truth?

thespian masks

I’ve shown a number of Tony Heller’s vlogs here on the subject of “climate change”. He has more recently been covering COVID-19. Heller just moved from Colorado Springs to Wyoming, having tired of the increasing Leftism in his former location. In a recent vlog he plays a short clip from a 60 Minutes segment (March 8, 2020) in which Anthony Fauci discusses the use of masks. The video is timestamped at this mark (0:56), and below is my transcription of the brief discussion on this subject:

Fauci: Right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks.

60 Minutes: You’re sure of it? ‘Cause people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: No. Right now people should not be wa- — There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet; but, it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences: people keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.

60 Minutes: And can you get some schmutz sorta staying inside [the mask]?

Fauci: Of course, of course; but, when you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill.

I can affirm that every time I wear the mask—in places where I live in which it’s currently enforced, such as grocery stores—I am constantly “fiddling with the mask”. Yet Fauci contradicts the above in his recent Senate testimony (May 12, 2020):

Well, ya know, the best PPE [personal protective equipment] for the general public, if possible, right now, is to maintain the physical and social distancing. But, as we’ve said, and I think all of us would agree, there are certain circumstances in which it is beyond your control, when you need to do necessary things—like go to the drug store and get your medication, go to the grocery store and get your food—that, in fact, you need some supplementation than just physical distancing. That’s the reason why some time ago, a recommendation was made—I believe it was Dr. Redfield at the CDC who first said that—about getting some sort of a covering. We don’t want to call it a mask—because back then we were concerned we would be taking masks away from the healthcare providers—but, some sort of mask-like facial covering, I think for the time being, should be a very regular part of how we prevent the spread of infection. And, in fact, the more and more as you go outside right here in where I am sitting in Washington, DC, you can see many people out there with masks on, which gives me some degree of comfort that people are taking this very seriously.

Yes, I can recall the pleas not to use up all the surgical masks, especially N95 respirator masks, (in favor of construction masks, e.g.) so that healthcare workers will have enough; but, what about Fauci’s earlier statement in the 60 Minutes segment above? He clearly said that we, the general public, should not be wearing masks of any type, and, further, that it is healthcare providers and the ill that need them. Was he not telling the truth earlier, in order to ensure adequate supply for first responders and healthcare providers? Or is he exaggerating right now, and, if so, for what purpose(s)?

From the World Health Organization (WHO) website we find the following (and more) on the subject of masks:

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

janus

So, which is it?

I always enjoy listening to Mike Rowe. In the following he uses one of my favorite terms: personal responsibility. This is one of the hallmarks of a free society. And, not surprisingly, he has other nuggets to consider:

…Something is happening right now with regard to public safety and individual responsibility. It’s a collision.

In some areas particularly, if things continue much further down this track, there’ll be no need to strive for the Green New Deal or to impose any of the more stringent “climate change” mandates since the same deleterious end-goals can be achieved this way instead, and at a much quicker pace.

9 Responses to Masking…the Truth?

  1. Craig says:

    I am pleased to see this article. If you would like some excellent additional sources, you might want to check out Chris Martenson at Peak Prosperity. Thanks, Craig!

    Like

  2. Craig says:

    Thanks, Craig! Hope you and yours are well.

    Like

  3. Craig says:

    The second segment of Mike Rowe speaking on The Rubin Report has just been released and is even better:

    Like

  4. Craig says:

    Another gem from Mike Rowe–from one year ago:

    Like

  5. Craig says:

    I’ve seen a number of this guy’s vlogs over the past few years, and though I don’t always approve of his material en toto, this one hits the nail on the head!

    Like

  6. Craig says:

    Krystal and Saagar: Fauci ADMITS LIVE government lied about masks to preserve supplies

    OK, so, Fauci LIED about needing masks at first–as can be inferred from my blog post–but he’s telling the truth now? We were also told that wearing the mask is NOT for self-protection, but to protect others from supposed ‘asymptomatic carriers who can be/are contagious’. The way this was framed was such that if you DON’T wear a mask, then you just don’t care about others. But I’ve yet to see a study that unequivocally shows that there are “asymptomatic carriers” spreading the virus. So far I’ve found assertions sans actual evidence.

    And, as I’ve shown in the article, the WHO states that one is to wear the mask: (a) if caring for a CV19 patient, or (b) if coughing or sneezing.

    Furthermore, with the height of hypocrisy, certain politicians tyrannically mandated sheltering-in-place, yet allowed for gatherings of protestors, in which antisocial distancing was impossible, with many sans masks. Excuse me if I disbelieve the lot of them.

    The Sweden model makes the most sense to me. Let the healthy people mingle with a bit of caution; protect the vulnerable.

    Like

  7. Craig says:

    Good article on this issue:

    The Science of Mask-Wearing Hasn’t Changed. So Why Have Our Expectations?

    The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks. It wasn’t clear how protective a cloth mask would be, and Martin worried that wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were — and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19…

    Do cloth face coverings work? Probably, to some extent. But just how much they work depends on the material, how they’re used, and what you’re expecting them to accomplish. And — regardless of what you’ve seen in highly shareable memes — we definitely don’t know enough to say that wearing these kinds of coverings will reduce risk of transmission by a specific percentage, let alone a high percentage. Those were the conclusions of an expert report published by the National Academies of Sciences on April 8, and two of the lead authors of that paper recently told me the science hasn’t significantly changed since then. Some studies have come out showing a correlation in certain regions between mask mandates and reduced spread of the coronavirus, but several of those not-yet-peer-reviewed studies have turned out to have important flaws — such as failing to account for factors like other behaviors (such as higher rates of social distancing) that went along with wearing masks in those places.

    …“Back in March, it was difficult to even have anybody take you seriously when the CDC and WHO said the opposite,” said Jeremy Howard, a data scientist and entrepreneur…

    At the same time, Michael Osterholm, a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped, has also found himself threatened and harassed. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told me he’s received vulgar emails from people who read his statements questioning the efficacy of cloth masks. Osterholm said that his position was not that masks shouldn’t be worn — he wears one in public, himself — but that there is limited data on how effective DIY cloth masks are at stopping small particles, either from passing through or being forced out the sides of the mask. Without that information, he said, physical distancing and isolation remain the most important tools in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. But as more Republicans say the worst of the coronavirus is behind us, and usage of masks tracks tightly along the partisan spectrum, Osterholm told me he felt like well-meaning people were making him out to be a pandemic denialist.

    Ultimately, experts said, all the nuance and complication around masks is a challenge that public health messaging has to face up to. It’s difficult to make one-size-fits-all recommendations for situations that don’t readily lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all reality.

    The good news is that there’s more agreement than disagreement on where to start. Just look at Osterholm and Howard, two experts who might easily be seen as having opposing viewpoints in this battle. Yet they hold similar positions on one issue: They both wish the CDC would have given the public the nuanced information about masks back in March and trusted them to understand it. Granted, that might mean presenting the public with a complex message, such as: “We don’t know how well cloth masks work, so distancing should come first, but masks are likely to work to some extent and not everyone can distance themselves.” That’s a mouthful and harder to fit on a bumper sticker than “yes, you should,” or “no, you shouldn’t.” But it comes down to what builds trust more: certainty or honesty?

    Like

  8. Jim says:

    I recall being told at the beginning that the ‘science’ said infection could only occur if you spent a minimum 15 minutes inside about 4-5′ distance from an infected person, and that no mask bar a military respirator could prevent infected droplets from being ingested. Hence the distancing rules and forget mask-wearing initially.

    I think the bounds of what people will accept as agreeable social behaviour are being explored by governments. By the looks of it, most will toe the line even in the face of conflicting and alternating parameters and guidelines. Conditioning now, under the guise of our ‘safety’, will only become a greater and broader excuse to erode personal freedoms.

    I note today that Sweden’s chief epidemiologist isn’t expecting a serious second wave, unlike that being experienced by most of Europe.

    Like

  9. Craig says:

    Yep, I agree.

    Sweden did the right thing. I think the USA is now approaching herd immunity in some areas. But we need to get the at-no- and low-risk people congregating.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: