A few folks have written to disagree with my position that there's no real proof out there as to the effectiveness of masks against COVID. As far as they're concerned, there's absolute, definitive proof of whatever they want to believe…and it seems to bother some that (a) I don't think so and/or (b) I might or might not be wearing one when they think I should or should not. The latter seems to rile some folks who are unlikely to come within fifty miles of me.
The ones who say it's settled that masks are useless all seem to be pointing to the "Cochrane Study" as having settled the issue once and for all. Cochrane is a widely-respected organization but their findings in this area were extremely limited in scope and they're being so misinterpreted that Cochrane put out a notice that started with these words…
Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that "masks don't work," which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
Could they say it any clearer? Somehow, that didn't persuade a friend of mine. I sent him the link and he wrote back that as far as he was concerned, the study still proved his position — i.e., what he wanted to believe it proved. There's a lot of that around.
I am reminded of a year or two ago when a different friend sent me a draft of an article he was working on about the failure of Charlton Comics' super-hero line in the late sixties. He said he wanted any corrections I had and I sent him what I thought was a big one. In the piece, he cited sales figures for certain comics and he got those out of the Statements of Ownership that ran in some of the Charlton comics in question. Back then, if you published comics sold by subscription, you had to print an annual notice in each book divulging its past sales.
I sent the guy an interview with Dick Giordano, who was the editor of those comics. In it, Dick said that the numbers in those Statements were bogus; that someone just made them up to satisfy the postal authorities who apparently never checked. This friend wrote me back, "I was aware he said that but those numbers are the only ones we have." In other words: Wrong numbers are better than no numbers at all.
But of course, they aren't. Imagine if a policeman said, "Yes, I know the guy we arrested for that murder was probably not the killer but he was the only suspect we had."
To some people, proof of what they want to believe doesn't have to be accurate. It just has to fit into their arguments for the moment, kind of as a placeholder for the real proof they "know" is coming. Look at all the folks who passionately believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Trump and his lawyers, some of whom may be facing disbarment now, got laughed out of court with their "proof" something like eighty times. Even judges Trump appointed saw no merit in any of it.
But die-hard Trumpers fervently believe that solid proof of Donald's landslide is someplace out there and they're not going to let a little thing like not actually having it change their positions. How much "proof" has Mike Lindell touted and then quietly abandoned?
I know I've said this before on this blog but often, I think "I don't know" is the correct answer to a question. We often don't like admitting that we don't know but sometimes — increasingly often in my life — we don't. At least, I don't. What really baffles me about this mask business is that no one discussing it seems to be considering the possibility that the N95 masks that doctors wear and recommend might be more effective than masks made of the cheapest cloth some non-medical company can find.
Common sense tells me that there could be a difference and maybe a huge one. But I don't see anyone doing any real analysis of this…and I'm talking about actual research.
We seem to be getting very lazy with the whole concept of evidence and proof. These days when someone says, "I did the research on this," they just might mean they searched the Internet until they found someone who gave them the answer they wanted to believe. And that someone didn't have to be an expert or have done any real research themselves. Like that Cochrane Review study that didn't say what many people wanted to think it said, all the alleged research just had to be someone saying it online somewhere.