The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science – Reason

On September 28, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky shared the results of a new study that appeared to confirm the need for mask mandates in schools. The study was conducted in Arizona over the summer, and published by the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: It found that schools in counties without mask mandates had 3.5 times more outbreaks than schools in counties with mask mandates.

The significance of that finding should have raised eyebrows, according toThe Atlantic's David Zweig. "A number of the experts interviewed for this article said the size of the effect should have caused everyone involved in preparing, publishing, and publicizing the paper to tap the brakes," he wrote in a new article that explores the study's significant flaws. "Instead, they hit the gas."

His article demonstrates quite convincingly that the study's results are suspect:

But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC's back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading. "You can't learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study," Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me. His view echoed the assessment of eight other experts who reviewed the research, and with whom I spoke for this article. Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDCwhich showed a dramaticmore-than-triplingof risk for unmasked studentsought to be excluded from this debate. The Arizona study's lead authors stand by their work, and so does the CDC. But the critics were forthright in their harsh assessments. Noah Haber, an interdisciplinary scientist and a co-author of a systematicreviewof COVID-19 mitigation policies, called the research "so unreliable that it probably should not have been entered into the public discourse."

It turns out that there were numerous problems with the study. Many of the schools that comprise its data set weren't even open at the time the study was completed; it counted outbreaks instead of cases; it did not control for vaccination status; it included schools that didn't fit the criteria. For these and other reasons, Zweig argues that the study ought to be ignored entirely: Masking in schools may or may not be a good idea, but this study doesn't help answer the question. Any public officialincluding and especially Walenskywho purports to follow the scienceshould toss this one in the trash.

In other COVID-19 news, the CDC is now recommending the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines over Johnson & Johnson due to the rare blood-clotting issues relating to the later. According to Fox Business:

Regulators eventually decided that the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine outweighed the risks, but theFDA released new datathis week showing that more cases have occurred in the summer and fall.

Women between the ages of 30 and 49 are most affected by the blood clotting issue at a rate of about 1 in 100,000 shots.

Health officials have confirmed 54 cases of the blood clots, nine of which have been fatal, CDC official Dr. Isaac See said Thursday. Two more deaths are suspected to be related to the blood clotting issue.

The J&J shot doesn't seem to provide much protection against the now-surging omicron variant, in any case.

Speaking of omicron, the latest COVID-19 variant is spreading throughout the U.S., and is already causing a wave of shutdowns on some college campuses, including Cornell University, Stanford University, Georgetown University, New York University, and Princeton University. That these campuses all saw cases spike despite 95 percent vaccination rates likely means that the vaccines are not doing nearly enough to slow and stop infection, though they still seem to offer significant protection against severe disease and death.

That will end up being key: In Washington, D.C., for instance, high vaccination rates meant that while the delta wave did cause a spike in cases, the city's death rate did not increase at all.

Hopefully, we see something similar with omicron, though everyone should prepare for Democratic officials to bring back mask mandates (and maybe lockdowns) in response to rising cases. Mayor Muriel Bowser will probably reinstate D.C.'s mask mandatejust as soon as her own holiday parties are over.

Last week, a British court ruled that Julian Assange could face extradition to the U.S. Assange's legal team has argued that doing so would put Assange's health in grave danger: He has already suffered a mini stroke, and his brother has said, "I have no doubt he will die" if extradited.

For years, the founder of WikiLeaks hid in the U.K.'s Ecuadorian embassy to evade government authorities who want to prosecute him for publishing the Chelsea Manning leaks, which revealed horrific wrongdoings perpetrated by the U.S. military. The effort to punish Assange is a blow to freedom of the press and the First Amendment, and one that all civil libertarians ought to oppose.

One MSNBC columnist, Frank Figliuzzi, is treating the possible extradition of Assange as a potential window intothe Mueller investigation:

Former President Donald Trump already faces a future filled withlegal battlesin multiplefederal, state and local jurisdictions fromGeorgiato theDistrict of ColumbiatoNew York stateandManhattan. And, now, a British court decision againstWikiLeaks founder Julian Assangecould resurrect the two seminal questions from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation: Did Trump obstruct justice, and did his campaign collude with Russia? Assange, an Australian citizen sitting inHer Majesty's Prison Belmarsh in southeast London, may hold the key that reopens the prosecutive possibilities.

Liberals should be howling about the unjust persecution of Assange, not salivating at the near-zero chance that he would provide new information that would bring back the possibility of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.

The Republican Party is paying Trump's legal expenses, according toThe Washington Post:

The Republican Party has agreed to pay up to $1.6 million in legal bills for former president Donald Trump to help him fight investigations into his business practices in New York, according to Republican National Committee members and others briefed on the decision.

The party's executive committee overwhelmingly approved the payments at a meeting this summer in Nashville, according to four members and others with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private meeting of the executive committee.

That means the GOP's commitment to pay Trump's personal legal expenses could be more than 10 times higher than previously known.

Last month, the GOP said in campaign-finance filings that it had paid Trump's personal attorneys $121,670 in October. More payments have been made since then. A party official said Thursday that the RNC paid $578,000 in November to attorneys known to be representing both Trump and his businesses.

Original post:
The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science - Reason