Mask-wearing had no discernible impact on the spread of COVID-19 in Europe during winter 2020-21 and may actually have increased mortality, a study has found.
The peer-reviewed study by Professor Beny Spira from the Department of Microbiology at the University of São Paulo, published in the journal Cureus, looked at the correlation between the rate of mask-wearing in the population and the number of reported infections and deaths from October 2020 to March 2021 in 35 European countries. All European countries, including Western and Eastern Europe, with more than one million inhabitants were included, encompassing a total of 602 million people. All the countries experienced a peak of COVID-19 infections during the six months – the winter 2020-21 wave.
The results are shown in the graphs above, where a positive correlation can be seen in the case of both infections and deaths, i.e., greater mask-wearing went hand-in-hand with more infections and deaths, the opposite of the intended effect of masks. In the case of reported infections the correlation was not statistically significant, so may have been by chance. In the case of deaths it was statistically significant, particularly in Western Europe, opening up the possibility that wearing masks actually made things worse.
Professor Spira addresses some possible limitations of the study.
It could be argued that some confounding factors could have influenced these results. One of these factors could have been different vaccination rates among the studied countries. However, this is unlikely given the fact that at the end of the period analysed in this study (March 31st 2021), vaccination rollout was still at its beginning, with only three countries displaying vaccination rates higher than 20%: the UK (48%), Serbia (35%), and Hungary (30%), with all doses counted individually. It could also be claimed that the rise in infection levels prompted mask usage resulting in higher levels of masking in countries with already higher transmission rates. While this assertion is certainly true for some countries, several others with high infection rates, such as France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain had strict mask mandates in place since the first semester of 2020. In addition, during the six-month period covered by this study, all countries underwent a peak in COVID-19 infections, thus all of them endured similar pressures that might have potentially influenced the level of mask usage.
Professor Spira notes the findings are in line with the results of most randomised controlled trials before and during the pandemic, which found the “role of masks in preventing respiratory viral transmission was small, null, or inconclusive”. Despite this lack of evidence, masks were widely mandated.
Mask mandates were implemented in almost all world countries and in most places where masks were not obligatory, their use in public spaces was recommended. Accordingly, the World Health Organisation (WHO) as well as other public institutions, such as the IHME, from which the data on mask compliance used in this study were obtained, strongly recommend the use of masks as a tool to curb COVID-19 transmission. These mandates and recommendations took place despite the fact that most randomised controlled trials carried out before and during the COVID-19 pandemic concluded that the role of masks in preventing respiratory viral transmission was small, null, or inconclusive.
Mask proponents appear to have been led astray by population-based studies from 2020, where, the study notes, ‘mask effectiveness’ was invariably measured against a background of falling infections.
Conversely, ecological studies, performed during the first months of the pandemic, comparing countries, states, and provinces before and after the implementation of mask mandates almost unanimously concluded that masks reduced COVID-19 propagation. However, mask mandates were normally implemented after the peak of COVID-19 cases in the first wave, which might have given the impression that the drop in the number of cases was caused by the increment in mask usage. For instance, the peak of cases in Germany’s first wave occurred in the first week of April 2020, while masks became mandatory in all of Germany’s federal states between the 20th and 29th of April, at a time when the propagation of COVID-19 was already declining. Furthermore, the mask mandate was still in place in the subsequent autumn-winter wave of 2020-2021, but it did not help preventing the outburst of cases and deaths in Germany that was several-fold more severe than in the first wave.
The study concludes that the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 reported infections and deaths suggest that “the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e., during the strong 2020-2021 autumn-winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission”. It adds that the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe suggests the practice “may have had harmful unintended consequences” – though cautions that no cause-effect conclusions can be drawn from the observational analysis.
The study is worth reading in full.
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.
These idiots are fast approaching my debanking/defunding list. We are members, but I am sick of their morbid stupidity, endless simpleton wokisms, racisms, and climate bollocks. Just take care of the god damn buildings and heritage sites and shut the hell up. Or watch your membership dwindle.
Ferd I’m amazed you haven’t left yet. The NT has always frozen their property in aspic, a form of living death.
The problem is, whether or not I remain a member, The National Trust does own large swathes of coastline in the South West and it is this National Trust coastline that keeps us a members, otherwise I think I would leave.
I did not renew my membership after purchasing one of their leaflets describing walks around Hawkshead in the lake district.
In the leaflet they described Vikings as Scandinavian refugees.That was the last straw for me.Even the kids asked what on earth are they on about?
Presumably, that’s because they believe the refugees of today are repeating what the Vikings did in the past.
:->
Yep———-Ironically the Swedes today are now paying for their multicultural dogma as 20 times more sexual crimes are committed by the latter day rapists than by indigenous Swedes. —-But so determined are they that this isn’t true that they make it a crime to talk about it.
Yes I believe the Vikings were put up in castles at taxpayers expense, and I had always thought they were rapists and pillagers. Sorry I now admit I was wrong and that we should pay money for past injustices to all red haired people.
The NT has set its course and there is no rowing back for them now despite your displeasure or any number of members displeasure. There is no way that their proscribed agenda will be allowed to be perceived by the public to have been overturned by a members revolt. Money will be found either from lottery, government or billionaire funding sources to ensure that a popular revolt of this kind fails – God forbid, the people may apply the same democratic principle to all manner of things.
“Patrick Begg, outdoors and natural resources director at the trust”
Who the F. thinks these job titles up? Doubtless another waster on a couple of hundred grand a year. He belongs in the bottom block. A complete Next Tuesday.
Probably a relation of the useless lefty economist David Begg. He was one of the crazies desperate to bounce UK in to the euro. Essentially a useful idiot. Once yr in the woke aristocracy these sinecures become rather easier to obtain.
Thanks
I think there should be a competition for the most ridiculous job titles in the wake of the climate alarm, HP.
You are right Aethelred.
Former member of NT here. The main threat to ‘their’ properties is haemorrhaging support. They keep telling us about the slave-owning history of the builders and owners of the houses – so why don’t they burn them down to demonstrate their contempt more fully?
A Minister for Management of Civilisational Decline would be more useful.
Congratulations Minister. Yours is the only department to achieve its targets.
The Ministry for Silly Talks?
I suggest a Minister for Deaeration of Woke Windbags.
Thanks for then new word.
Maybe the droughts and wildfires will be offset by the floods. It just needs a longer term perspective than most marketing plans.
Make no mistake, this is marketing and not true concern for environments that have suffered all these “hazards” in past years.
Not yet another bloody government department about the climate alarm. We need that new Argentinian prez Javier Milei to do one of his – “Ministry of Climate Adaptation? OUT!” actions. Honestly, the NT are losing it…drought, heavy rain, wildfires? But not today or tomorrow but by 2060! For god’s sake, just get a deckchair and some wellies.
Why the hell are we worrying about 2060. The so-called Tory dupes have caused enough damage to this country these past fourteen years. It’s 2023, can we pay attention to NOW?
Apparently the planet might be a couple of degrees warmer by 2100. Well if anybody is still on this planet in 2100 lucky them, personally I would appreciate those two degrees NOW.
And I won’t be here in 2060 so actually I CGAF about effing global boiling, flooding, freezing or whatever other nonsense they come up with.
Today’s problems need today’s solutions. Tomorrow can look after itself.
https://documents.nationaltrust.org.uk/story/annual-report-2023/page/2/1
I haven’t had a good look yet but I am sure this will be interesting
Today’s problems need today’s solutions. Tomorrow can look after itself.
Tomorrow is something the people of tomorrow will have to deal with tomorrow. People who claim they are solving the problems of tomorrow by creating problems today just want to distract from the latter. They don’t know anything about the real problems of tomorrow and the people of tomorrow obviously haven’t appointed them as their representatives. Conveniently, they just cannot yet object to what’s supposedly being done in their name.
Excellent
It’s a shame that they appear to be jumping onto the bandwagon using “climate change” in lieu of normal extreme weather events and the need to maintain various structures, both old and new. I am actually a member of it. The original reason why I joined was doing the sums for parking at a number of their sites. In effect, paying up front, but less than non-members have to pay given the number of times I go to them.
I’ve often parked without paying. Don’t think their fines are enforcible anyway. I feel eternal shame that I belonged to this organisation for a couple of decades. I should be flayed like Henry the second was in Canterbury cathedral and be forced to sleep on the floor with no blanket.
..and lo the grift continues unabated.
….”“the single biggest threat” to the charity’s mission”, is your organisation’s woke-ism, Mr Begg.
I used to be a member. I looked at moving my subscription to the RSPB, but they’re almost as bad.
Do not support any of them.
I don’t. I want to support the wildlife, our heritage etc., but unfortunately, no organisation can be trusted it seems.
The charity […] said approximately 71% of the places it looks after could be at medium or high risk of climate hazards by 2060.
Attempt to translate this into English: Hazard means risk. Hence, the last bit is
climate risks in 37 years.
Combining this with the bit in front of it yields
above-average risk of climate risks in 37 years.
Then, we have the could, a subjunctive, ie, another risk. We’re now at
there’s a risk of above average risk of climate risks in 37 years
Filling in the last bit now gives the complete sentence:
Modelling has shown that there will be a risk of above average risk of climate risks for about 3/4 of the places the National Trust is currently administrating in 37 years.
What’s that’s supposed to mean – beyond No climate-related damage expected until at least 2060 – is anybody’s guess. Presumably, the point is to repeat risk combined with climate as often as possible to convey the impression of a serious danger. Someone demanding anything based on a statement like this should be unceremoniously shown door and told not to come back until he has at least managed to make up his mind about what he’s actually afraid of.
So far the evidence is the greatest danger to the fabric of the buildiungs and their contents arises from the incompetence of the NT which allows them to burn to the ground.
Interesting that they demand a minister for climate adaptation. In some ways I agreenm with adapting to changes in our environment. Stop wasting huge resources on trying to change the temperature, which is impossible but, as required, adapt to changes – which is what humans have always done. Is the National Trust finally bending to the obvious?
We need to “tackle” Climate change…..so give us some more money.
It’s hilarious how they use “adaptation” and not ‘mitigation’, as these clowns think we can control the weather.
Translation: Systems going well…. Send more money.
Where does this National trust gets its information from? ——-Do they ever question any of it? ——-Very unlikely. Rent seekers question nothing. After all if you need money for something, being alarmist about climate is a great way to get it. If you are a coral island in the pacific what better to get big sums of money from the eco socialist western world than claim you are going to vanish beneath the waves. If you are animal rights activists who think we should all eat vegetables and locusts, what better way to stop people killing animals for food than to claim the animals destroy the climate. If you build turbines or smart meters, what better way to farm all the subsidy than claim your products save the planet. etc etc etc………”Climate Change” —–The gift that keeps on giving. But the gifts are all paid for by us.——– And it is costing trillions.