Spec pushes masking: volunteer or sadly be forced.

What scientific studies?

Vincent J. Curtis

12 Nov 22

RE: The mask mandate conundrum.  Spectator editorial 12 Nov 22.

It gratifies me not at all that the Spectator has belatedly come around to understanding what I said on 1 Aug 2020 in “The futility of masking.”  It matters a great deal what kind of mask is mandated if you prescribe masks to prevent the spread of airborne viral diseases like COVID-19.  Still, the editorial left much wanting, in facts and logic.

The editorial claims that: “properly fitted masks help reduce the transmission…according to a large review of the available mask literature.”  I’m calling B.S. on this.  What literature?  Many reviews of literature appeared in early 2021, and none of them found a statistically significant benefit to masking as a means of reducing transmission.  If there really were a favorable scientific study, it would have given a quantified benefit, such as fifty percent reduction, or ten percent reduction.  But since no benefit is quantified, no statistics quoted, the study simply wasn’t scientific.  Hence, Theresa Tam’s opinion is that masking and vaccination “might make a difference.”  Might.  Likewise, Andrew Morris prefaces his opinion with “probably.”  Because there is no science to support the opinion.

The error in logic is in the conundrum: “The longer we put off implementing [a mask mandate], the greater the chance one will be needed more urgently…”  So, the choice is either to submit now voluntarily or be forced to submit perhaps later.  Slaves might submit voluntarily now, but free people say, never mind the ‘perhaps’, to hell with either stupid option.

-30-

The Spec employs the "more in sorrow than in anger" tactic, and the "pity the stupid" tactic to dupe all those urban sophisticates who get their opinions from "The View."