To some who revere the U.S. medical establishment and its not-to-be-questioned recommendations, it must have been horrific for them to read that “a new study of studies reignites controversy over mask mandates,” as reported by The Economist magazine on April 4, 2023.

To that end, The Economist story asserted, “Most papers (on the effectiveness of mask mandates) are inconclusive, though the largest covid-era study showed benefits”

The magazine also stated, “The covid-19 pandemic may be fading into history, but debate over disease-control policies remains fierce. In January, Cochrane, a nonprofit, published a meta-analysis (a study of studies) on mask mandates, which did not detect statistically significant evidence of their effectiveness.

“Critics of lockdowns have touted this result,” the magazine added, and then quoted Bret Stephens of The New York Times as writing the following:

“Mask mandates were a bust. Skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks…were right. The mainstream experts and pundits…were wrong.”

 Much to its credit and probably not surprisingly to many skeptical Americans, The Economist added that “a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week (in late March 2023) said the media had refused to cover it to ‘squelch dissent.’”

As one might expect, as reported by the The Economist, “Supporters retort that it showed no such thing,” as the magazine quoted Michael Brown, a member of Cochrane’s editorial board, as saying the following: 

“The number of deaths would have been much higher” without “mask mandates [and] social distancing. I’m very confident of that statement.”

Rhetorically, The Economist story then asked: “Why are people who disagree so strongly citing the same paper?”

In answering its question, the magazine wrote: “Although Cochrane is often called the ‘gold standard,’ its meta-analyses are only as good as the studies they combine. And the lack of reliable research conducted during the pandemic prevented Cochrane from reaching a definitive conclusion itself. This left ample evidence for both sides to cherry-pick.”

From our perspective at the Daily Planet, we appreciate that there are contrarians both inside of the medical/scientific community and outside of it, who are smart enough and brave enough to question everything, always.