New York Times admits mask mandates had no positive effect

After two years of persistently advocating for forced mask-wearing, the New York Times Tuesday admitted that mask mandates failed to have any health impact. 

“The evidence suggests that broad mask mandates have not done much to reduce Covid caseloads over the past two years,” wrote David Leonhardt in an article titled, “Why Masks Work But Mandates Haven’t”. 

“In U.S. cities where mask use has been more common, Covid has spread at a similar rate as in mask-resistant cities. Mask mandates in schools also seem to have done little to reduce the spread. Hong Kong, despite almost universal mask-wearing, recently endured one of the world’s worst Covid outbreaks.” 

The Times also suddenly began touting personal choice. 

“Because masks work and mandates often don’t, people can make their own decisions,” the article read. “Anybody who wants to wear a snug, high-quality mask can do so and will be less likely to contract Covid.” 

“Different people can reasonably make different choices,” Leonhardt concluded. 

Many have known for some time the scientific evidence opposing mask-wearing. Two randomized controlled studies were done to assess the efficacy of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. One from Bangladesh showed that masks provide an 11% decrease in infections for older people and no impact on younger people, and one from Denmark showed that masks have no effect on infections at all.    

“Twitter banned many for arguing these exact facts about masks,” wrote Outkick founder Clay Travis about the article. “Big tech banned articles sharing this data. The Department of Justice even labeled parents like me who argued against masks at our school boards using this data ‘domestic terrorists.’ Suddenly it’s acceptable to say.” 

While human rights organizations like America’s Frontline Doctors have long defied the unscientific mask mandates, others have insisted that masks work despite evidence. When a federal judge in April effectively ruled the travel mask mandate unlawful, they claimed the judge was illegitimate. 

As noted by Travis, social media platforms have notoriously shut down and suspended offenders who have shared information similar to that shared by the Times’ article. 

It remains to be seen if sharing such scientific data will now be allowed.