|
|
The 27 May New York Times “The Morning” article, titled, “The Meaning of Meta When It Comes to Outdoor Transmission,” details that the odds of getting infected outdoors with the coronavirus are slim and none.
Yet, around the world, people have been forced by their dictatorial governments to “shelter-in-place,” and, when permitted to go outdoors, we the little people of Slavelandia must wear masks. In addition, anytime there were crowds in the streets, those who attended were demonized by Presstitutes and politicians as being responsible for spreading the virus.
Facts vs. Fiction
A major facet of the debate over whether masks offer protection from COVID-19 revolves around studies of rates of indoor vs. outdoor transmission of the virus. We noted the change in attitude about the benefits of outdoor mask-wearing in our 27 April article, “MASK TIDE TURNING.”
The NYT article addresses the policies of the CDC regarding the need for mask-wearing when outdoors, and what informs such policies. Despite contrary data, the CDC believes that there exists a significant risk of COVID-19 transmission even outdoors.
Masks For All, All The Time
In the interest of extreme caution, the CDC recommends unvaccinated persons wear masks just about all the time, and they have issued guidelines that have moved many communities to impose strict requirements for outdoor masking. The agency has even directed that all those attending summer camps, whether camper or counselor, vaccinated or not, should wear masks just about all the time. The article notes the camp guidelines employ the term “universal.”
But the statistics on outdoor transmission cited by the CDC appear to be exaggerated and inviting to misinterpretation… and this is where the term “meta” comes in.
When questioned by a Senate committee about the risk of outdoor transmission, CDC director Dr. Rochelle “Impending Doom” Walensky stated the risk was “under 10 percent.” Rather than minimize the risk, that figure exaggerates it; anything approaching 10 percent should be cause for great concern. (See our 30 March article, “TEXAS REOPENS: CASES DOWN, CDC SPREADS FEAR.”)
Dr. Walensky defended that figure, saying it came from just a single study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. That one study, she said, was a “meta-analysis” of other studies, with “meta” meaning it synthesized the data from the other studies to reach a conclusion.
Walensky B.S.
But when one of the epidemiologist authors of that study, Dr. Nooshin Razani of the University of California at San Francisco, learned of Dr. Walensky’s statements, she chimed in with a different conclusion and pointed out a semantic distinction that had been lost on Dr. Walensky (as it likely would be on many of us).
Dr. Walensky had used the terms “meta-analysis” and “systematic review” interchangeably, but they are not at all the same. In a nutshell, the former yields a precise estimate, while the latter is far more general.
So, the conclusion that the risk of outdoor transmission is “less than 10 percent,” while technically not false, is misleading and easily misinterpreted. The authors of the review, Dr. Nooshin said, were “very clear” that the “less than 10 percent” figure was neither a precise estimate nor a summary number.
The “meta-analysis” cited by Dr. Walensky was a systematic review; all but one of the studies on which it was based had put the risk of outdoor transmission at less than 1 percent. There’s even some question the particular study that yielded the “less than 10 percent” estimate was flawed.
Extreme Caution vs. Actual Risk
“Substantially less than 1 percent” is how Dr. Nooshin characterized the actual risk of outdoor transmission based on the studies she and her colleagues reviewed.
TREND FORECAST: The hard data that the chances of catching the virus outdoors is less than 1 percent is virtually ignored by politicians and the mainstream media. Thus, most people obediently swallow what they are being fed and follow their lying leaders.
As we have continually detailed, all of this goes to the question of cost vs. benefits, which is at the heart of why the precautions against COVID-19 have proven more harmful than the disease. We addressed the downsides of mask-wearing and other precautions (particularly concerning children) – downsides the CDC seems to intentionally ignore – in our 16 March article, “CDC: KEEP MASKS ON KIDS, IGNORE EMOTIONAL SCARRING.”
Moreover, the draconian lockdown rules, which are again being imposed in countries around the world, such as Australia, Japan, South Africa, Malaysia, etc., have destroyed the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions.
Even the NYT article characterizes the CDC’s outdoor mask policies as “extreme caution” and likens them to “staying out of the ocean to avoid sharks.” But the CDC just might respond to that by saying, “You’re gonna need a bigger mask.”
Thus, we maintain our forecast for strong anti-establishment political movements with “Freedom” being the foundation upon which they will be built.