The Government on Wednesday published the evidence informing its recent controversial decision to recommend all secondary school pupils wear face masks in classrooms.
The new document from the Department for Education (DfE) explains that the decision “has been taken on the recommendation of UKHSA and is based on a range of evidence”. It says the Government has “balanced education and public health considerations, including the benefits in managing infection and transmission, against any educational and wider health and wellbeing impacts from the recommended use of face coverings”.
While conceding that the “direct COVID-19 health risks to children and young people are very low” – and rejecting SAGE’s advice to recommend masks in primary school classrooms (yes, really) – it claims that “the balance of risks for secondary classrooms has changed at this point in time, in accordance with the evolving evidence and the phase of the pandemic”.
The document summarises its evidence as follows:
Face coverings can be effective in contributing to reducing transmission of COVID-19 in public and community settings. This is informed by a range of research, including randomised control trials, contact tracing studies, and observational studies – assessed most recently by UKHSA, described in a review conducted in November 2021. The review’s conclusions were broadly in line with those of a previous Public Health England review; however, the addition of randomised control trials and substantially more individual-level observational studies increases the strength of the conclusions and strengthens the evidence for the effectiveness of face coverings in reducing the spread of COVID-19 in the community, through source control, wearer protection, and universal masking.
In fact, though, the UKHSA review from November 2021 found no high quality studies (except, it claims, the ONS study, which really isn’t high quality). Of the two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have been done and which were cited by the UKHSA, the one from Denmark found no statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 incidence from surgical masks (the study didn’t look at cloth masks) while the Bangladesh mask study found no benefit from cloth masks and the reported benefit from surgical masks was just 11%, with a 95% confidence interval that included zero. The UKHSA review also considered 23 observational studies, which it said had “mixed” results and many of which were of low quality and small.
This does not seem a strong basis to claim a large effect for mask wearing. A recent more comprehensive review (which included earlier evidence for other flu-like viruses) by Ian Liu, Vinay Prasad and Jonathan Darrow for the Cato Institute, entitled “Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS‐CoV‑2: A Critical Review“, concluded that: “More than a century after the 1918 influenza pandemic, examination of the efficacy of masks has produced a large volume of mostly low- to moderate-quality evidence that has largely failed to demonstrate their value in most settings.”
That is a better summary of the evidence than the DfE managed.
Needless to say, the DfE gives the propaganda value of masking a nod: “It can be a visible outward signal of safety behaviour and a reminder of COVID-19 risks.”
Notably, there is no mention in this document of the potential harms of wearing a mask for an extended period, such as the impact on breathing, the heart, or the skin. Contamination gets a brief mention, though it’s quickly dismissed:
Face masks and coverings will become highly contaminated with upper respiratory tract and skin micro-organisms. Disposal of single-use face coverings could theoretically pose a risk of transmission for inappropriately discarded face coverings, but it is very likely that the reduction in transmission risk due to reduced droplet and aerosol emissions from wearing a face covering significantly outweighs any potential for enhanced risk of transmission through inadvertent contact with a contaminated face covering. This is likely to hold regardless of duration that the face covering is used.
The reference provided for these claims is a SAGE document from September 2020, “Duration of Wearing of Face Coverings.” This is an interesting document, but it can scarcely be said to support the claims the DfE is making. On harms from masks, for example, it says:
Neither surgical masks nor face coverings are designed for use for extended periods. Wearing a face covering for an extended period can maintain a higher moisture level around the face which can be uncomfortable for some people and may increase the likelihood of skin complaints. Masks will become highly contaminated with upper respiratory tract and skin micro-organisms. A review of the downsides of face masks and face coverings (by Bakhit et al) found 20 studies reporting irritation and discomfort from using masks. Participants in studies with surgical or cloth masks reported difficulty breathing (12%-34%), facial irritation and discomfort (11-35%). More serious symptoms of headache, acne, rashes were associated with use of N95 and goggles. A study among healthcare workers (by Han et al) associates acne with extended duration of wearing. …
In a clinical study of extended wearing (by Chughtai et al), 124/148 participants reported at least one problem associated with mask use including pressure on face, breathing difficulty, discomfort, trouble communicating with the patient and headache. …
Measurements of heart rate during activity (by Li et al) showed significantly lower rates with a surgical mask compared to N95. In a study (by Fikenzer et al) of healthy young male volunteers surgical masks and FFP2/N95 respirators, both had a significantly marked negative impact on pulmonary capacity (FEV, PEV and PEF) while wearing the mask (with a spirometry mask) during exercise.
The DfE document omits to mention any of these issues. It does, however, include some recognition of the negative impact on education. It mentions a survey conducted by the Department in March 2021 that found “80% of pupils reported that wearing a face covering made it difficult to communicate, and more than half felt wearing one made learning more difficult (55%)”. It also mentions a DfE survey from April 2021 that found “almost all secondary leaders and teachers (94%) thought that wearing face coverings has made communication between teachers and students more difficult, with 59% saying it has made it a lot more difficult”. It adds:
Research into the effect of mask wearing on communication has found that concealing a speaker’s lips led to lower performance, lower confidence scores, and increased perceived effort on the part of the listener. Moreover, meta-cognitive monitoring was worse when listening in these conditions compared with listening to an unmasked talker. A survey of impacts on communication with mask wearing in adults reported that face coverings negatively impact hearing, understanding, engagement, and feelings of connection with the speaker. People with hearing loss were impacted more than those without hearing loss. The inability to see facial expressions and to read lips have a major impact on speech understanding for those with hearing impairments. The worse the hearing, the greater the impact of the mask.
What about the evidence for the claims the document does make – that it is “very likely” that the transmission reduction from wearing a mask “significantly outweighs any potential for enhanced risk of transmission through inadvertent contact with a contaminated face covering” and that “this is likely to hold regardless of duration that the face covering is used”. This is what the cited SAGE document says:
There is a lack of good evidence relating to the wearing of face coverings, with very little data relating to duration of wearing. In particular we suggest that the following aspects would benefit from further research:
• Effectiveness of face coverings as a source control after longer duration wearing, including analysis of the influence of moisture on the performance of different types of face coverings.
• Analysis of the potential risk of transmission due to contaminated face coverings (during and after removal).
• Assessment of the prevalence of skin complaints associated with face coverings, including an understanding of the factors that contribute and potential mitigation.
• Analysis of user acceptability of face coverings for long duration use in different settings.
In other words, there was no good evidence on the things the DfE is claiming are “likely” or “very likely”, or on much else really.
The DfE also carried out its own analysis of the impact of masks in schools.
DfE has also undertaken initial observational analysis based on data reported by 123 secondary schools that implemented face coverings during a 2-3-week period in the autumn term 2021, compared to a sample of similar schools that did not. The preliminary findings demonstrate a potential positive effect in reducing pupil absence due to COVID-19.
What did it find? It found that COVID-19 absences fell by 0.6% more (absolute reduction) in secondary schools that used face masks compared to similar schools that did not over a 2-3-week period, which amounts to an 11% relative reduction.
In a weighted sample of secondary schools that did not use face masks, the average COVID-19 absence rate fell by 1.7 percentage points from 5.3% on October 1st 2021 to 3.6% in the third week of October. This is equivalent to a 32% decrease.
In secondary schools that did use face coverings (either face coverings only or a combination of face masks and additional communications e.g. providing more communications to parents but not introducing any further measures such as increased testing), the average COVID-19 absence rate fell by 2.3 percentage points from 5.3% on October 1st 2021 to 3.0% in the third week of October. This is equivalent to a 43% decrease.
At surface level, this suggests that COVID-19 absence fell by 0.6 percentage points more (an 11% relative difference) in secondary schools that used face masks compared to similar schools that did not over a 2-3-week period.
However, the study had numerous limitations, which made the finding a “non-statistical and unknown clinical significant” reduction, i.e., it may just be chance.
There is a level of statistical uncertainty around the result. The analysis is non-peer reviewed and with the current sample size, shows a non-statistical and unknown clinical significant reduction in infection in a short follow up period, including that a ‘false positive’ (i.e. finding that face coverings saw reduced absence when the finding is actually by chance) would emerge around 15% of the time; a 5% threshold is widely used to declare statistical significance in academic literature.
Therefore, further work should be done to extend the analysis in terms of scope: for example, looking at different statistical methodologies, capturing different and longer treatment time periods and controlling for a wider number of school and local area variables to ensure this is a consistent finding.
The statistical uncertainty around the result was such that the 95% confidence interval for the effect size included zero (note in the below the upper CI is positive).
What’s more, the control group of 1,192 schools that didn’t use masks were very different to the 123 treatment schools which did, so that the above findings only emerged after substantial weighting was added to the control group schools using a process the document calls “entropy balancing”.
Exploration of the data showed that the control and treatment group had differing characteristics, so weights for the control group schools were calculated using entropy balancing.
Prior to this weighting, the non-mask schools actually had lower average absence rates throughout the study period – though the treatment schools reduced more from their higher starting point.
Prior to weighting, the mean absence rate of the control group increases across the treatment period, whereas the mean absence rate of the treatment group decreases. However, the absence rates in the control group remain lower overall than those in the treatment group.
All-in-all, not exactly robust, compelling evidence of the benefits of masking, particularly given all the well-documented harms, which the document itself either sets out or cites other documents which do.
The document at one point hints at what I suspect is the real reason masks were brought back into classrooms: “In a Unison survey of support staff, 71% said face coverings in secondary school classrooms are an important safety measure.” Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis wrote in the Times this week that: “Face masks have been a central demand of teaching unions.” Sounds vey much like politics rather than science to me. (See this recent Daily Sceptic article by Ben Irvine on the role the teaching unions played in forcing the Government to lockdown in March 2020.)
When are we going to stop harming our young people with pointless interventions to deal with a virus that poses no threat to them and let them live normal lives again?
Stop Press: Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine Carl Heneghan tells Julia Hartley-Brewer he is unimpressed by the Government’s “evidence” for masking in classrooms.
Stop Press 2: The Telegraph reports that some schoolchildren are rebelling. According to Damien McNulty, a national executive member of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers: “Sadly, we have had reports in the last 24 hours of at least six secondary schools in the north-west of England where children, in huge numbers, are refusing to take lateral flow tests or to wear masks. We’ve got one school in Lancashire where only 67 children out of 1,300 [5%] are prepared to have a lateral flow test and wear masks. This is a public health emergency.” Hats off to these young people for standing up for themselves against the unions and authorities who would force them to do harmful and pointless things. May their rebellion grow!
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The headmistress of my teenage son’s school was seen in her car on her own wearing a mask. With this level of leadership there’s no hope
My son is of course exempted. Along with seemingly only one other in his year of 120 pupils. Again… No hope
Don’t give up, you still have friends.
There is hope. Your son and the other boy ARE hope.
Presumably, the headmistress had established that her car’s ventilation system did not include a HEPA filter, so… you can never be too careful. Hot engine blocks can harbour all sorts of nasty bugs.
I’m more concerned about those I observe on country walks, hundreds of yards if not miles distant from anyone else, gamely trudging along while masked.
And then you see the fucking face nappies discarded in the hedge, waiting to kill some animal which comes along…
You remember the Derbyshire (I think) police going after lone walkers way out in the Peak District countryside early on in the first lockdown. Totally bereft of sense or logic.
My son is exempt too. But he enjoys taking with friends in their sixth form space. He has 4 months left til A Levels, his last chance to enjoy them. And for the sake of keeping the unions at bey, this gets done. Boris can redeem himself a tad by pulling it on the 26th. I get unions have power. But the majority of Brits are not on their side now l.
Sensible woman, taking precautions not to give herself Covid.
“The Government’s Case for Masks in Classrooms Accidentally Reveals They’re a Terrible Idea” – Let’s not worry about children are dying from COVID jab mandates, lockdowns and overdoses
The ‘Smoking Gun’ – COVID Restrictions Are Not About Health
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/01/06/impact-of-covid-policies-on-children.aspx?ui=1fb065e0c4152b58bd4ed94cf29c7cbfad40307fb723460ddabacd55f3c58b0c&sd=20210518&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20220106_HL2&mid=DM1075218&rid=1371255987
Children Are Dying From COVID jab mandates, Lockdowns and Overdoses
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Saturday 8th January 2pm – Marlow
Berks & Bucks Freedom Day
Higginson Park corner of High Street & Pound Lane
Marlow SL7 1NF
and get your boost of freedom!!
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham – Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
My guess is she is a rainbow wearing guardian reader, a fan of Greta, and took a knee for BLM
Get your kid out of there in grand fashion. Make a big deal of it. On your way out, give all the parents an info pack with the written statement of Robert Malone as to why children should not be jabbed and whatever your best evidence. Why send your child to be brainwashed and formed by these idiots. Their goal is to make your child dumb like they are. Being constantly surrounded by morons will have an effect on your flesh and blood. There are co-operative schools being set up by like monded parents.
If you can do this in a way where you remove your child AND make all the other parents fully aware of why you are doing this, it will have an effect. Just give them the transcript of the Malone speech. Its so powerful when it comes from him, obviously emphasise who he is. They will take notice when they see ACTION being taken and you QUALIFY those actions with great evidence.
Full Text of Malone Statement
https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/live-stream-event-physicians-alerting-parents
My name is Robert Malone, and I am speaking to you as a parent, grandparent, physician and scientist. I don’t usually read from a prepared speech, but this is so important that I wanted to make sure that I get every single word and scientific fact correct.
I stand by this statement with a career dedicated to vaccine research and development. I’m vaccinated for COVID and I’m generally pro-vaccination. I have devoted my entire career to developing safe and effective ways to prevent and treat infectious diseases.
After this, I will be posting the text of this statement so you can share it with your friends and family.
Before you inject your child – a decision that is irreversible – I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created:
There are three issues parents need to understand:
The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including
The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable
The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested.
Ask yourself if you want your own child to be part of the most radical medical experiment in human history
One final point: the reason they’re giving you to vaccinate your child is a lie.
In summary: there is no benefit for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus, given the known health risks of the vaccine that as a parent, you and your children may have to live with for the rest of their lives.
The risk/benefit analysis isn’t even close.
As a parent and grandparent, my recommendation to you is to resist and fight to protect your children.
Not always that easy unfortunately (as removing Son from school) for various reasons.
However my son is a very intelligent, sceptical, independent critical thinker who rarely fraternises with his muzzeloid zombified compatriots. I don’t think he’s at much risk of being brain washed or dumbed down by what they do at school.
Also – last term they had a couple of quite “woke” assemblies and he came home and laughingly described the tosh were trying to push down the pupils’ throats.
Thanks for the link to the Malone speech. I have read it a couple of times before but now I shall bookmark it for future reference.
Its like this – if people like you who see what is going on continue to serve your kids up as fuel for this fire, you are guaranteeing the furtherance of this system where you could help to buckle it. Youre doing nothing when you should be doing everything. This ends when people take a stand. If you are happy to send your kids to an institution where they muzzle and jab children with experimental gene therapy plus all the nanotech, plus brainwash them, plus force them to put carcinogenic swabs up their noses and scrape their blood brain barriers, despite the known health risks which you have said you understand very well, then there is no hope for this world. Imagine if the school was a house at the end of your road – would you send your kids to that house every day if they were injecting kids with gene therapy and brainwashing them etc. Most likely you would not let them go anywhere near that house. But you send them to a place where they do that on an industrial scale. We are at the crossroads. People like you can make a big difference but it needs good people to take real action. If you carry on obeying and dancing to their tune, the other parents will think its all good. If you defy them and inform the other parents why, it could spark things. Ditto across the board – all of a sudden loads and loads of parents dont want to send their children to the Soviet Farm.
I have nowhere to live and was claiming Universal Credit – but I just told them they can shove it because I dont want to take money off those scumbags any more or be dependent on them for money. I told them straight why. I dont want to be part of their evil system and go to their institutions. Just going there has a very negative effect on me. Intimidating G4$ goons everywhere filming you and recording everything you say. The propagandised staff. The CCTV and wireless tech everywhere. The sanctions for not obeying. Having to login to their system, read their language, obey their rules. Fuck that and fuck them. I dont want to deal with those fucking scumbags.
Good to see pushback in some schools.
https://twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/1478830130017488896?s=20
Everyone is exempt if they do not consent. The UNESCO Convention on Bioethics and Human Rights article 6 clearly includes ‘preventative’ medical interventions for which consent is required, and masks are (claimed to be) preventative. Techers, unions and govt may not override this.
Masks cannot stop a virus. Their main purpose is to maintain fear so that people agree to give up rights. They also test potential levels of compliance to new random diktats and sow division in society. There is an additional element of forced humiliation to show whose boss.
Very true.
If people think that turning themselves into noseless, mouthless, dehumanised goons is NOT humiliating, they have ceased to be human.
This is what I can’t understand – that apparently the majority of people just don’t see it that way.
Look at a muzzled human eye-to-eye and it’s like staring at a pelican.
This was evident from the start of this nightmare but there’s obviously a majority of our species that remains indifferent to the way muzzling means it no longer communicates its presence in society. Deeply disturbing.
People have been conditioned by the education system into being order-followers not critical thinkers. They are weak-willed and choose the least path of resistance.
I’m still trying to work out how to signal to these people that I’m not willing to interact with faceless aliens. The problem with this is that they’re all so impolite to each other already that being impolite probably won’t get noticed. And some of them do really look sad, imprisoned behind their face wall and not really daring to get out of it.
The masks were the key. If went to Tesco and Sainsbury’s sans mask and didn’t get sick then the whole edifice would have been brought crashing down. Imagine no masks no problem
You can show corporate-owned progressives, which the Johnson regime is a part of, all manner of facts, logic and evidence and it wont make a blind bit of difference because it is impossible to reason with with bullies, thugs, oppressors, criminals and tyrants. All that matters to them is imposing their ideological will upon others, and that will be achieved no matter what the cost in human suffering.
Once again we are missing a definitive study with sufficient weight that doesn’t use statistical jiggers pokery and is agreed as a well designed test by those who don’t support mask use.
Why not just do the science?
I think Tony Fauci mercilessly slaughtered Science, starting in the 80s.
Reasons and evidences no longer matter to the evil.
Time for Uzis. The ultimate argument settler.
My wife who is a bit deaf and lip reads teaches at a secondary school. She says all the kids wearing masks is a chuffing nightmare and really disrupts teaching.
Also the little fuckers sometimes say things and make noises in class and due to the masks it’s really hard to see who the culprit was.
Maybe it’s a deliberate policy effect?
And this is the major reason why school children like masks!
About as effective as a swastika arm band, then.
Less. At least with a swastika armband people keep their distance.
Unless they’re at a Nuremburg rally!
Anyone making a red-white-black swastika face covering. I can’t wait to be told to remove that!
I’m going to lose my job soon and it’s not a good one. I know the boss is going to say have you been vaccinated. Not sure if it’s any if her business but it will probably end up me being homeless. I’ve been working for 16 months of the “pandemic” out of 20 and think why did I bother
If you are in the UK you still have some rights. I’m in an uncomfortable position at work, but they couldnt force me to wear a mask. Call their bluff if you can. I will leave rather than get a jab. No freedom after a jab but soul tyranny and vax servitude. Do your best and good luck. Nobody can take your free will away, whatever you decide.
It is none of her business and you should tell her so. It’s confidential medical information. Indeed, Johnson’s idea of knocking on the door of us unvaxxed implies the illegal dissemination of confidential medical data.
I do so hope he does it, as when whoever knocks on our door, I will ask to photo their ID card, note the above, and also that coercion to take ANY medicine is against international law and the Nuremberg Code
I’ll then photograph their face
The study this government paper quotes is funny.
They explain that, statistically speaking, if you were to put balloons on the heads of these children and make them sing the national anthem backwards, there’s a 15% chance you’d get the same result as this study in terms of efficacy against COVID absence.
I see them as a stupidity test. Unfortunately our so called experts are all stupid. Along with all the people wearing masks.
The Unions demanded masks: the Government won’t stand up to them and made “the evidence” fit the desire policy.
Just like the models.
The union’s position suits the government.
A well worn path that we’ve all travelled along many times. There has never been any meaningful evidence that masks work and the best that has ever been claimed is that they ‘may in certain settings reduce transmission’. Or, they may not. As Dr Kendrick stated early doors, it seems that masks should work – but they don’t.
They’re a visible reminder of compliance with government wishes.
Was it only two years ago that it was possible not to despair about the credulity of friends and neighbours?
Dave you hit upon it. They seem like they should work, they don’t. The average person thinks a mask is a tight weave, when in truth, it’s like a chain link fence, which can’t stop snow anymore than masks can stop a tiny virus. What was at the beginning a “do something” strategy has now simply continued because we think it should work. The data from Wales and Scotland from July to November shows just how false that is.
It only seems like they should work if you’re a blithering idiot. Even ignoring the holes in the weave there’s massive fucking holes around the edges.
To me it feels like a marketing strategy, and when we eventuality get our people’s inquest into this crime, I suspect that we’ll discover it was cooked up by public relations executives in New York, and not public health experts. The world’s public health experts correctly advised against them until unknown forces rolled them out globally a lot like a marketing campaign.
After two years of being fed absolute nonsense, can anyone be surprised that the Department of Anything Goes cares about what words mean when quoting from research?
They subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty principle whereby words mean whatever they wish them to mean; no more and no less.
We have turned masks into both magic amulets and a £300b a year industry. Both of which make ending this fetish very difficult. Go to many nations outside the West (Central and East Asia and Africa being my own experience), and you will see educated people, including in the medical field, wearing magic amulets and charms. No scientific evidence for them, but since their grandma wore one and loved to 90, they must work, right?
And once there is profit to be made, you know an industry won’t give up its captive market easily. Masks have been the greatest silliness of a parody of a two-years, but people will still shell out £5 for one with a design they like.
Even if we were to take the 10% reduction level as true, it would have to weighted against costs. Which are actually high. Additionally, to whom does the reduction come from? From the wearer or the crowd around them? If masks work, they should
work for the wearer, making it an optional choice for the fearful and at risk. Which is exactly where we should be now. “Wear them if you want, teachers and kids.” Then again, that applies to vaccinating the under 3s, who instead we have strong armed. Jeez I hate this foolishness.
Yes, the biggest con by far is the claim that wearing a mask somehow protects others. The behavioural insights cabal knew exactly what they were doing and that it would work on what has proved to be a largely gullible population, not just here, but worldwide.
Right from the start as soon as they came up with the line ‘masks don’t protect the wearer but those around you’. You know it’s a psychological trick to get people to conform. People just don’t want to be challenged. My wife is a classic example she knows it’s all pantomime and has from the start but still insists on wearing one because she wants to avoid confrontation. At least now she goes to the shops with her unmasked husband.
It’s possible to determine that masks don’t protect the wearer by determining if sickness is reduced in the group wearing them. But it’s impossible to determine if they protect others in real-world situations. And in my opinion, that’s the exact reason for this claim.
Please allow me to cut through the clutter. Really, I’m here to help.
Masks are satanic.
The reason for mask mandates is satanic.
The people making these decisions are satanic.
And by satanic I mean mimetic contagion, after Réné Girard.
But I’m perfectly happy if you want to use the old definition, the personification of evil.
Have a great day!
Excellent take down.
The masks are the sign we are dealing with a cult. In the US they are cloth masking kids while trying to convince the general public only N95 will actually do any good.
I also can’t believe they are using the Bangladesh and Danmask studies to support masks in schools. They both showed no impact. By now, we should be drowning in data jumping out of every corner showing masks are a magic shield.
And yet
A classic example of policy-based evidence making, of which we have seem much over the past two years.
I wrote to the Chief Executive of my Regional NHS Trust about exactly that phrase just a couple of days ago, and the subsequent 740,000 missed cancer diagnoses as recently reported by the National Audit Office. I’m looking forward to the reply.
Don’t hold your breath!
Many schoolchildren have natural immunity now anyway. Not even a public health official would be able to claim that masks benefit people with natural immunity.
So that’s why the Swedes, who must not be aware of this masks work ‘research’, were and are dropping dead like flies, especially their children, and why they see an explosion in cases.
Oh, wait….
“It can be a visible outward signal of safety behaviour and a reminder of COVID-19 risks.”
And that is exactly why we are told to wear masks.
While refusing to wear a mask in church, I had a GP (who’d given up trying to argue the science) ask me to wear a mask “for the look of it”
Mask wearing is virtue signalling, compliance signalling, fear signalling. It’s nothing to do with affecting transmission
Last time I spoke to a GP a couple of months back (and the for first time in about 20 years) he wasn’t wearing a mask. Neither was I. And it wasn’t mentioned. Which was reassuring. He gave me some great advice for my health issue which was “don’t bother with the NHS”. Which thankfully I was able to take.
We will stop harming our young people with masks and pointless school rules when the Government- which cares nothing for evidence based decision making- loses a judicial review.
What’s set out above is so damming that – if it’s correct- the house of cards would collapse at judicial review. But there appears to be no pressure group or third sector body which both a) cares enough about children, and b) has the resources, to bring a judicial review.
Surely it’s time for a principled but unfunded pressure group like Us For Them to look at coordinating group action by a group of parents on the basis of a Protected Costs Order? There must be lawyers and data scientists who would assist with the pre-action protocol letter.
This matters for more than masks. A Government that’s gone mad and isn’t making evidence based decisions needs to be stopped.
Corinne Stockheath, Sebastian Fox, Michael Green or Grant Shapps has just now been talking absolute crap on TalkRADIO about the ‘confidence’ muzzling gives people on public transport. Suppose Hartley-Brewer’s been doing all she can, given the ridiculously short times allowed between all the faff on that station.
There is NO confidence to be gained in being out and about and seeing large numbers of people with a rag on the face, it is thoroughly depressing.
The ‘confidence’ thing was one of the earliest ‘benefits’ of forcing a population into muzzles in 2020.
That a pathetic apologist for this crime against humanity, like G.Shapps, is still peddling this bollocks in interviews with no thoughts of his own (or even thought), nearly 2 years on demonstrates why he and his fellow gangsters are so malignant.
The ‘confidence’ thing was one of the earliest ‘benefits’ of forcing a population into muzzles in 2020.
That a pathetic apologist for this crime against humanity, like G.Shapps, is still peddling this bollocks in interviews with no thoughts of his own (or even thought), nearly 2 years on demonstrates why he and his fellow gangsters are so malignant.
The UKHSA review was an embarrassment from start to finish. A classic start with the conclusion you want and cherry pick evidence (which you misinterpret anyway) to justify it.
Like all guidance from the government and their psychological warfare nudge unit, it’s about the threat perception, not the reality. The quoted studies are just a (very flimsy) fig leaf to minimise any embarrassment resulting from their tyranny. It won’t be forgotten or forgiven. In the meantime I won’t to talk to anyone if I can’t see their face.
I’d be tempted to call the DFE report “junk science”, but that would be unfair to the word “junk.”
The weakness in the observational study of schools ought to be screamingly obvious. Masked schools still had significantly higher rates of covid absences, even after several weeks. And there seems to be no consideration of potential confounding variables in the rate of decrease in absences at the masked schools.
Let’s not make the mistake, however, of simply pointing fingers at Britain’s education and government figures. The campaign of fear-mongering and hysteria is truly a worldwide one.
“It can be a visible outward signal of safety behaviour and a reminder of COVID-19 risks.”
And therein lies the main problem. That may be the intention but in my experience, people who are wearing masks tend to think they are “protected” and stand very close, even when I am trying to stand (unmasked) 2m away from them.
The children themselves are now rebelling en masse https://twitter.censors.us/BBCNWT/status/1478830130017488896#m – apparently this is a “public health emergency”. (twitter.censors.us is a Nitter instance, it lets you view twitter threads while avoiding their ads and trackers. If preferred, just replace twitter.censors.us with twitter.com)
As with most business cases in the private or public sector, the conclusion was decided first, and then the report was written to support the conclusion, even if most of the data cited actually contradicts the chosen conclusion.
It’s intended for consumption by people who already agree, not by people with critical thinking skills, and the latter are just ignored.
I was out with a friend and an acquaintance today, the acquaintance is a Covid/mask wearing/hand sanitising fanatic. We went for a coffee and I was surprised to see that when she took her mask off at the table she put it face side down on the table, that seems to be the level of knowledge we are dealing with.
Interesting discussion on Talk Radio with Francis Hoar (Barrister) re masks in schools here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2WAaQ925cA&ab_channel=talkRADIO
Apologies if already posted.
There Are Now 365 Studies that Prove the Efficacy of Ivermectin and HCQ in Treating COVID-19. Any hospital administrator who mandated the shots to employees to comply with the government mandate for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and who refused to allow alternative treatments to be tried, doctors who pushed their patients to take the EUA drug without giving fully informed consent, anyone who forcefully administered the shot, the AMA, AAP, Boards of Health, CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO, scientists who participated in the development, Big Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, Astra Zeneca, et. al.), anyone who pushed the sick into nursing homes resulting in deaths, all must be arrested, prosecuted, tried and if found guilty sentenced to prolonged imprisonment and fines or death for intentional homicide. Get your ivermectin before it is too late! https://ivmpharmacy.com
The government “balanced education and public health considerations”.
Seriously, are any of their decisions not stuff straight out of Yes Prime Minister?
I have a better idea. Remove masks from the children and mask up the teachers instead so they can keep themselves safe without impacting on anyone else. Problem solved. The unions can’t complain about that can they? I am guessing it would be a very short term policy indeed.
Masks don’t work, never have, never will, forcing children to wear masks is child abuse. What happens to people who abuse children? I think you know.
Masks is one of the topics I’d like to hear Chris Whitty debate with John Rogan.
Having listened to the recent Joe Rogan interviews with eminent Doctors who have now been “CANCELLED”, I think the UK population need to hear from our own Chief Medical Officer, so I started the petition below in an attempt to foster support for the idea. Our main medical profession doesn’t seem to want to have a discussion in open forum, I wonder why!
Please sign this petition.
“Sir Chris Whitty UK CMO must be interviewed on The Joe Rogan Experience.”
https://chng.it/NZVpWgD4s7
A 3 hour in depth interview with the UK Chief Medical Officer would assist general understanding of the logic used by the UK government advisors around Covid.
Seek opinion on Imperial College data modelling and The Great Barrington Declaration.
Seek clarity on mask and vaccination health benefits and risks.
Seek clarity on why the UK population isn’t treated early for Covid with existing fully tested drugs.
Seek clarity on proportions of population in hospital and ICU.
Child abuse.