Image 01 Image 03

New Study Shows Face Mask Usage Did Not Correlate With Better Outcomes

New Study Shows Face Mask Usage Did Not Correlate With Better Outcomes

Data from 35 countries and 602 million people using face masks “failed to show a benefit” and “may have harmful unintended consequences.”

Despite a court striking down the national mask mandate on public transportation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reinstated its recommendation that Americans wear masks on planes, trains, and buses.

Americans aged two and older should wear a well-fitting masks while on public transportation, including in airports and train stations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended, citing the current spread of coronavirus and projections of future COVID-19 trends.

For months, the Transportation Security Administration had been enforcing a requirement that passengers and workers wear masks.

The government had repeatedly extended the mandate, and the latest one had been set to expire May 3, but a federal judge in Florida struck down the rule on April 18.

The same day, the TSA said it would no longer enforce the mandate.

A CDC spokesperson said, ‘As a result of a court order, the mask order is no longer in effect and is not being enforced.’

However, an intriguing new study has been published showing that the data from 35 countries and 602 million people using face masks “failed to show a benefit” and “may have harmful unintended consequences.”

A new peer-reviewed study entitled: “Correlation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europe” has demonstrated that use of face masks, even widespread, did not correlate with better outcomes during the COVID epidemic, based on data from 35 European countries with populations of over one million people each, encompassing a total of 602 million people.

The study noted that the average proportion of mask usage in the period investigated (October 2020 until March 2021) was 60.9% ± 19.9%.

Governments and advisory bodies have recommended and often mandated the wearing of face masks in public spaces and in many areas mandates or recommendations remain in place, despite the fact, the study notes, that randomized controlled trials from prior to and during the epidemic have failed to show a benefit to the wearing of such masks with regard to COVID transmission.

…The study also noted that the public may have gained the impression that masks could be helpful due to the fact that mandates were usually implemented after the first peak of COVID cases had passed. However, it became evident that masks were not in fact helpful later that same year, when widespread mask usage does not appear to have mitigated the severity of the COVID wave of winter 2020.

“Moreover,” the study concludes, “the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”

Correlation is not causation.  Unhealthy people and the more vulnerable may have opted to mask at higher rates than the healthy and the young.  However, face masks do not offer miracle protection from the virus.

Finally, recall that many officials asserted that contact with contaminated surfaces could result in covid transmission. A detailed, new study also refutes those claims.

University of Michigan researchers tested air and surface samples around their campus and found odds are greater for inhaling virus particles than picking them up on your fingers.

“In this study, we set out to better understand potential exposures to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus — the virus which causes COVID-19 — in several college campus settings,” explained study author Richard Neitzel, a professor of environmental health sciences and global public health.

The settings included offices, classrooms, performance spaces, cafeterias, buses and a gym. However, the samples were taken during the pandemic lockdown, so these were relatively empty spaces.

“We also used information on campus COVID-19 infections to estimate the probability of infection associated with our environmental measurements,” added Neitzel.

“The overall risk of exposure to the virus was low at all of the locations we measured,” he said.

When the final studies on covid are published, there will likely be one tragic conclusion: Never in history have so many been harmed by so few.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


healthguyfsu | May 6, 2022 at 4:03 pm

But we supported the mask-making exports of a bunch of 3rd world countries….so there’s that!

I’m kidding.

I’ve always maintained that distancing is much better than masks, especially with the way our ventilation systems work.

    henrybowman in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 6, 2022 at 4:22 pm

    “But we supported the mask-making exports of a bunch of 3rd world countries”
    (Benny Hill taps nose): “China!”

    Also, relevant meme.

    DaveGinOly in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 8, 2022 at 2:26 am

    There was a study (Swedish?) about mid-pandemic about distancing indoors. Conclusion: “six feet or sixty feet” makes no difference. Modern building are so well-ventilated that the air in them is homogeneous. Another study of the use of barriers indoors determined that although they create areas low in suspended particles, they also create areas high in suspended particles – because the barriers interfere with the above-mentioned ventilation. So whether you might be safer or less safe in a room with barriers is highly dependent upon where you are in the room.

    Studies of outdoor transmission show that distancing isn’t necessary.

    So “distancing” was pretty much a bust, and some “mitigation” efforts actually made things worse. Is there anything that the “experts” didn’t get wrong about COVID response?

Joe-dallas | May 6, 2022 at 4:16 pm

A) that study is about a month old – so it should have been common knowledge by now
B) My study that I did back in April of 2020 – All based an well known medical knowledge of Resipiratory viruses concluded the same thing.

Colonel Travis | May 6, 2022 at 4:36 pm

Ripped straight from the pages of No Shit, Sherlock magazine!

You. Don’t. Say. The Coronabros will never let go of their talisman though.

Common cause: more disease encourages more masks. Hence correlation.

    alien in reply to rhhardin. | May 6, 2022 at 10:05 pm

    Remember that mask study that showed mask-users had a higher rate of infection than the maskless?

    Pepperidge Farms remembers.

    Barry in reply to rhhardin. | May 7, 2022 at 12:50 am

    Masks will not slow down an airborne virus. Your lungs do not have enough power to pup air through a filter media able to trap and stop the movement of the largest virus, much less the tinier variety.

    It was always a lie. Flat out a lie.

      LE in reply to Barry. | May 7, 2022 at 2:11 am

      I believe there is a misunderstanding of how respirators work here. It is not just how large the physical “holes” in the filter medium are I comparison to the virus. Electrostatic play a major role in trapping the ti yvirus particles. A properly worn respirator would be highly effective.

        Barry in reply to LE. | May 8, 2022 at 1:59 am

        I understand how masks work and how industrial filtration works, and how filtration in aircraft works. Do you have any knowledge at all?

        “Electrostatics” play no role in how any of the masks work. The china/fauci virus is 0.1 micron and the electrostatic force present in an N95 mask is not effective on that size particle any more than the mechanical filtering ability is.

        Even then the mask loses its electrostatic capability rapidly after deployment.

        This is why, in spite of all the BS and outright lies, not one bit of evidence supports the lies.

        “A properly worn respirator would be highly effective.”

        Then why isn’t it? That statement is an outright lie.

          LE in reply to Barry. | May 8, 2022 at 9:23 pm

          Not going to get in to a longer argument with you, but briefly:

          – You asked if i have any knowledge at all. I worked with small-diameter aerosols for several years. I have a doctorate degree in one of the major natural sciences and have worked as a scientist for many years.
          – Yes, 0.1 micron (100 nm) aerosols can be efficiently filtered by the filter media of an N95 respirator.
          – The respirators have expiration dates and should be good through at least that date. I would make an educated guess that the elastic bands will go bad before the actual filter media go bad, unless one does something stupid with the respirator.
          – What about this particular study? I think it shows a piece of the puzzle but 1) it is a short communication (not a full paper), 2) there are many potential confounding factors that may not have been taken into account, 3) it is not about respirators but masks in general, and 4) this is just one publication among several. Beware of confirmation bias.

          Note that I said “properly worn”. That is key. How many people did you see that wore them properly?

          You do you. I am against mandates, whether vaccine or mask. I am for freedom here. Masks may not be right in all context. But does N95 filter media filter out a high percentage of 0.1 micron particles? Absolutely!

          Barry in reply to Barry. | May 8, 2022 at 10:02 pm

          “But does N95 filter media filter out a high percentage of 0.1 micron particles? Absolutely!”

          Whatever your education, it didn’t work, at all. The statement you made is absolutely false. You cannot and will not show any reputable study that indicates otherwise. In fact, because of the large scale forced usage we have real world result to look at, the actual point of this posting by Leslie, and the results are negative to worse than negative as the use of masks may make the problem worse.

          Let’s turn to the makers of those N95 masks. Do any of the high quality makers say it will help stop a virus?

          No. Get that, NO. Not one.

          From Honeywell:

          “.3 microns: The masks filter out contaminants like dusts, mists and fumes. The minimum size of .3 microns of particulates and large droplets won’t pass through the barrier, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.)”

          My bolding, note that virus is not mentioned.

          0.3 microns and smaller will pass through the mask. The virus in question is 1/3 that size and passes through easily.

          Masks don’t work. If you had a shred of credibility you would admit the truth.

          “Not going to get in to a longer argument with you…”
          Of course you are not. You can’t unless you resort to outright fabrication of results and lies.

        DaveGinOly in reply to LE. | May 8, 2022 at 2:51 am

        There are no commercially-available masks that are rated to stop viruses.

        If you google “masks rated to protect from virus” you’ll get virtually zero return. What you will see is a bunch of hocus-pocus about “effectiveness”. It’s a scam. The “effectiveness” is a rating of the percentage of viral particles that will be stopped by the mask. The problem is that so little virus is needed to cause an infection, and so many viruses can be contained in a single exhalation, that even a “99%” effective mask won’t prevent infection. The 1% of the virus that gets through can be many times more particles than enough to make you ill.

        Viruses, unlike chemicals/smoke, reproduce in your body. Ingest a little poison, and it might make you sick, even if its not enough to kill you. Inhale a very small quantity of viruses, and they will replicate into millions in your body. This is why anything less than 100% effectiveness at stopping viruses is necessary for a mask to actually be 100% effective at preventing illness. No mask is rated to do this.

          See my response to Barry above. To be clear, yes, I am talking about aerosol filtration efficiency. I am getting outside of my expertise when discussing virions.

          I agree that the 1-10% (using 1-10% for discussions sake, it might be something different but is likely in the ballpark) could still infect you, but that should to some extent depend on the initial amount of virions present. There is some minimum level of virions required for infection. What is that level? I do not know. But if I cut the number of virions by a factor of around 10-100x, I still should reasonably have a better chance of being below the threshold than if I didn’t.

          I am happy to be corrected. I do not plan to argue further. You do you. I am for freedom. I am against mandates.

The ineffectiveness of masks to mitigate the progress of infections, in closed and open environments, comports with science from the 80s, and observations from at least the early 20th century.

There are many here addicted, and sure by observation minorities are more likely to be wearing them.

Those of us with two brain cells to rub together were saying this TWO YEARS AGO.

The idea that putting a piece of fucking cloth over your face for 8 hours was going to meaningfully protect you from an airborne virus was utterly ridiculous from the start.

Four issues: the leaky “diaper”, petri dish, and viral collector effects, as well as individual and shared social contagion. The ineffectiveness of masks… in fact, the effectiveness of masks to increase infections has been long established through scientific inquiry in trained populations: doctors, nurses, etc., and higher orders of personal protection (e.g. N95 certified) over time and space.

My shocked face has malfunctioned.

TY Leslie…

Never in history have so many been harmed by so few.

Hear! Hear!

Yeah, we know. Masks never worked, especially the joke called cloth masks. To believe that a cloth mask you can actually breathe through could stop a virus that is .1 micron in size, you would have to be stupid enough to vote for a pedophile like Biden.

    CommoChief in reply to Ironclaw. | May 6, 2022 at 8:58 pm

    Wait so all those crocheted masks are ineffective?/S

      Barry in reply to CommoChief. | May 7, 2022 at 12:51 am

      To be fair, they work just as well as the N95 mask on an airborne virus.

        LE in reply to Barry. | May 7, 2022 at 2:31 am

        Completely wrong. To be clear, I am against mandates, but a properly worn N95 respirator would be highly effective at trapping particles of the size of this virus.

          LE in reply to LE. | May 7, 2022 at 2:33 am

          A cloth or crocheted mask – probably not very effective. A properly worn N95 respirator – should be highly effective at trapping particles the size of this virus.

          LE in reply to LE. | May 7, 2022 at 2:40 am

          Remember, a respirator such as N95 has different filtering modes. It is not just about small filter “holes”, but there is also electrostatic filtering to trap small particles. They should not be mandated, but properly worn N95 respirators should be highly effective.

          Barry in reply to LE. | May 8, 2022 at 2:07 am

          You’re a damn joke. The N95 mask “would be highly effective”? Then why the hell isn’t it?

          Since it’s clear you are an outright fabricator with poor ability to write in English, I’ll explain it to you quite clearly.

          1. Prove it. There is not a shred of evidence that a mask of any type not supplied with external power will trap any airborne virus. Not one study has ever shown such a mask capable of such nor have any real world results shown this to be true.

          2. Electrostatics. Do you even know what the word means? No, electrostatics in unpowered masks do not have the ability to attract and hold 0.1 micron virus’s. Show us any study that shows that to be the case.

          DaveGinOly in reply to LE. | May 8, 2022 at 3:01 am

          Too be clear, N95 respirators are highly efficient at trapping viruses, but are still ineffective at stopping infections. Why? Because the 1% of viruses that get through are still plenty to cause an infection/illness. Look at what they say about masks – it’s always how efficient they are at blocking particles. But to stop airborne viral disease transmission, they’d have to be 100% effective. They are not rated to stop disease transmission. The mechanistic studies show “blocking effectiveness”. The clinical trials show “effectiveness at preventing disease transmission.” Masks do well in the former, but they fail in the latter.

          You are confusing mechanistic effectiveness with the prevention of disease transmission by an airborne virus. They are not the same things. Governments and “experts” have been intentionally conflating these two very different standards.

          Barry in reply to LE. | May 8, 2022 at 11:20 am

          “Because the 1% of viruses that get through…”

          What you say is all true, but they way it is stated suggests the masks are 99% effective. They are not even close to that. A properly worn N95 mask, fitted perfectly, disposed of often as it becomes contaminated, and properly handled might* slow down 10% of the virus transmission rate, but that is for the virus bound in liquid. Once it evaporates that virus is freed.

          *yea, the data is sketchy because there is no reliable data.

          Ask yourself: prior to this scamvirus why the medical community did not suggest wearing a mask to stop or reduce the spread of the flu or common cold? Because they don’t work on any airborne virus.

          They do work well to create hysteria and help steal elections.

    Dimsdale in reply to Ironclaw. | May 7, 2022 at 1:45 pm

    We could have solved a lot of problems by convincing the hard leftists that only wrapping their heads with plastic wrap was effective in the defense against the Wuhan flu…

Leslie: “Never in history have so many been harmed by so few.”

Biden: “Hold my beer …”

Of course none of these studies based on actual data can be considered “science”, Herr Fauci IS science, because he said so.

From the earliest days of the pandemic; wearing a mask to keep out the virus is like putting up a chain link fence to keep out mosquitos.