American public health experts, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, have struggled over the past couple of months to push a specific narrative on the public: Wearing a mask doesn’t so much protect you from being infected with SARS-CoV-2, but if you are infected, wearing a mask could stop you from passing the virus to someone else.
The mainstream media has backed up these assertions with vague references to “science” and “research”, while a coalition of celebrities and progressive activists have tried to tar anybody who doubts this narrative – or, worse, refuses to wear a mask at all times outside their home – as a “denier”.
Well, if everybody who is skeptical of the “masks save lives, period” is a “denier”, then how does one explain the Dutch government’s decision to refuse to mandate mask wearing (the only place where masks must be worn in the Netherlands is on public transit).
On Thursday, Reuters reported that the Dutch government had decided the day before that it would not advise the public to wear masks to slow the spread of coronavirus because their effectiveness has not yet been proven.
The decision was announced by the Netherlands Minister for Medical Care Tamara van Ark following a review by the country’s National Institute for Health. Following a resurgence in cases over the past week or so, the Dutch government has decided it will instead seek better adherence to social distancing rules.
“Because from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks, the Cabinet has decided that there will be no national obligation for wearing non-medical masks” Van Ark said.
Many European countries have made masks mandatory in public indoor stores and in crowded outdoor places. The US has generally followed suit, though some overzealous governors and local officials are also requiring people to wear masks in most outdoor scenarios, even when they aren’t in a large crowd. And NY Gov Andrew Cuomo has pledged to launch an “investigation” into a “drive thru” concert on Long Island where the Chainsmokers and “DJ D-Sol” provided entertainment. This, despite the fact that a growing body of research and experience suggests that outdoor gatherings don’t present a major risk of spread. Case in point: Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio are allowing protests to continue unabated, without question, despite the complete absence of evidence to suggest that COVID-19 cares about your personal politics.
Last week, nearby Belgium made face masks mandatory in more public places, and in England they have become compulsory in shops.
Even President Donald Trump has done an about-face on masks, swallowing his tremendous ego and donning a mask for the press.
However, in the Netherlands, masks are mandatory only on public transport. And Van Ark and her peers on the government committee aren’t the only experts to question whether masks contribute anything. Anne Wensing, a virologist at the University Medical Center Utrecht, has also questioned whether masks “actually contribute anything extra.”
The Dutch government insists that it’s strictly following the advice of the experts in the so-called Outbreak Management Team, which doesn’t believe in the general use of masks.
Dutch virologist Jaap van Dissel from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment said Wednesday that masks can lead to a “false sense of security”. When wearing masks, people might not follow other social distancing rules like keeping their distance which also help prevent spread.
Mask-wearing may also prompt people to touch their face more frequently, putting them at risk of accidentally infecting themselves while adjusting their masks.
Belgium and the Netherlands both managed to flatten the curve. However, it’s become clear that it’s tilting upward once again.
As Politico points out, there are also questions about legality surrounding compulsory mask wearing.
Moreover, legal experts in the country are skeptical about the legality of compulsory masks. One law professor, Jan Brouwer, told NRC that a widespread mask mandate goes against the constitution. According to Brouwer and other experts, there needs to be a separate law on masks to make this regulation possible.
But critics charge that the evidence is sufficient to implement masks in places such as hairdressers, reports NOS. In a letter to Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Health Minister Hugo de Jonge, a group of experts, including epidemiologist Arnold Bosman, called for quick action.
Belgian virologist Marc Van Ranst, meanwhile, warned the Dutch government on Wednesday that it will have to make masks mandatory in crowded places if the Dutch want to avoid a complete lockdown.
“As in Belgium, the corona curve in the Netherlands has been increasing since July 10,” he told local media. “If the number of infections continues to rise, you will not be able to avoid a face mask obligation.”
Over the past week, almost 1,400 new COVID-19 cases were reported, or 342 more than the prior week, in the Netherlands.
Those who insist that masks can stop the outbreak (yes, many Americans have apparently bought into this notion, despite little in the way of evidence to back it up) might benefit from reflecting on how we go there. As Politico reports, the science surrounding wearing a face mask in the community has evolved during the pandemic. In March, the WHO said that healthy people don’t need to wear masks unless they’re caring for a sick person.
Then in early April, the WHO changed its view, saying that in countries where other preventive measures are hard to adopt, the widespread use of masks could be useful. After that, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control issued a new recommendation signaling support for masks. Last month, the WHO issued advice suggesting masks worn in public could help stop the spread of the virus. During the early days of the outbreak, some countries like the Czech Republic and Slovakia saw promising results as they mandated mask wearing. In April and May, Greece, Spain and Germany mandated masks in spaces where social distancing was impossible – including shops.
Research suggests that social distancing measures, including the selective wearing of masks, help slow the spread of the outbreak. But the notion that “science” has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that wearing masks in public can protect the wearer and/or – more importantly – innocent bystanders simply isn’t true.
Which begs the question: Why is the media so determined to sell it as fact – and denounce all who question as demented loons or, worse, self-dealing snakeoil sellers – when dissent is still so obviously warranted?
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
First, they shut the country down and destroyed the economy and then came up with wearing masks that don’t work. What’s the next bright idea? Vaccines that cause more harm than good?
Face masks or goggles. This is how you will be required to dress to go out in public:
Why not wear a Halloween mask? Since the “type” of mask has not been codified, a Halloween mask, preferably one with a “message” might get (some) people to think. It IS a mask…
I have a “Guy Fawkes” mask as used in the movie “V For Vendetta” that has been used to gain access to stores. The bewildered looks of the official store “mask screener” speaks volumes.
Try it…you’ll like it.
The alternative is to wear a mask to gain access, then take it off once inside of the store. You can always claim that you are “light-headed” because of the mask. I don’t think that a store employee would push the issue further.
We have to “monkey-wrench” the system. The above suggestions are a start.
The premise underlying the mask debate is that the viral transmission must be delayed or even stopped. Shouldn’t governments be doing just the opposite at this stage ?
Since the curve has been flattened, giving hospitals time to ramp up, and since case mortality rates are now known with reasonable accuracy, shouldn’t they be allowing as many as possible of the healthy, non-elderly segments of the population to be exposed to the virus so as to achieve “herd” immunity as soon as possible?
Natural antibodies in healthy people are superior to vaccines, and when the number of such people in a given population exceeds a certain threshold, the virus loses its ability to find new hosts and peters out. In this way the infirm and aged would be better shielded as well. Let nature run its course.
Besides, it’s patently unrealistic to expect a vaccine that is both effective and safe to be developed in less than a year, if ever. And we now know that hydroxychloroquinone (Sp?) is a tried and true drug that can prevent viral replication if administered early after infection.
But, of course, a healthy and prosperous citizenry is not the objective.