Monday, May 29, 2023

Pseudoscientific COVID Rituals Still Going Strong in Blue Jurisdictions

Pseudoscientific COVID Rituals Still Going Strong in Blue Jurisdictions

Pseudoscientific COVID Rituals Still Going Strong in Blue Jurisdictions
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Imagine, in 2023 — after all we’ve learned about natural immunity, the so-called vaccines’ total inefficacy in preventing transmission, and the futility of masking (not to mention its harmful effects on cognition and its social costs) — still insisting on quasi-religious COVID-19 rites.

Via The Washington Free Beacon:

“The Washington, D.C., bar will require all applicants to wear masks when they sit for the city’s 12-hour bar exam in July, according to test instructions reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

“At this time applicants will be required to wear a mask fully covering their mouth and nose during the exam,” the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which administers the test, told registered test-takers in a Thursday memo. “Any additional COVID-19 safety and health procedures will be announced closer to the exam.”

The requirement comes on the heels of a German study that found masks expose users to toxic levels of carbon dioxide, which can cause “difficulty concentrating,” “reduced cognitive performance, impaired decision-making and reduced speed of cognitive solutions.

The D.C. bar is supposedly directed by the most high-minded, rational, well-educated members of society. Yet somehow they overlooked, or willfully ignored, the fact that their fascistic masking policies don’t actually produce any legitimate public health good.

Related: Three Years of COVID Democrat Tyranny That We Should Never Forget

I recently got into a thing with some Zero COVID cult members on Twitter who were beside themselves over, of all things, Taylor Swift having a concert where not all attendees were forced to mask.

To buttress my point, I was forced to resort to quoting Slate which in turn quoted a study from the Cochrane Review that just totally annihilated the masking story: “The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”

If you don’t quote Slate or The Atlantic or Buzzfeed to them, they won’t even consider the material.

Via Slate:

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference,” the review authors concluded of their work comparing masking with non-masking to prevent influenza or SARS‐CoV‐2. What’s more, even for health care workers providing routine care, “there were no clear differences” between medical or surgical masks versus N95s.

But as the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The review doesn’t show that masks definitely do not reduce the spread of COVID—only that studies to date have not proven that they do.

See that little rhetorical trick the Slate people did there? They obviously have to soften the devastating blow to their readers’ cherished masking narrative or else risk too much blowback. So they try to couch the study’s finding by saying that it didn’t prove masking works, but it didn’t prove masking definitely doesn’t work!

Of course, this is unscientific nonsense. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not the one challenging it. You can’t prove Walter White isn’t a Martian baking meth on Mars and the whole Breaking Bad series was actually inspired by true events.

Ironically, I’m pretty sure there’s probably some logic puzzle along these lines on the Bar Exam — or, if not, then definitely the LSAT — that all of these Washington Bar lawyers must’ve passed to get their licenses.

No comments:

Post a Comment