Mask Holes Win

“A question shadowing suits such as these is whether there is a First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency. Like all courts to address this issue, we conclude there is not,”

“Skeptics are free to — and did — voice their opposition through multiple means, but disobeying a masking requirement is not one of them. One could not, for example, refuse to pay taxes to express the belief that ‘taxes are theft.’ Nor could one refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet as a symbolic protest against a state law requiring them.”

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals

First let me say that when the pandemic first started and little was known about the virus. I gave my family N95 masks that I had for other uses. however, it became clear to me early on that the size of the virus meant that even the N95 was not going to be very useful.

We live in a free society or we do not. This ruling and other moves by the government are at their basis tyrannical. I did not wear a mask for COVID and I will not. Not for my job, not because a government tells me to. I will not comply with any mandate, I will do what I believe will protect myself and my family. I take responsibility for my actions and understand the risks I am willing to take.

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. 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. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

This was a bad challenge, that said, the ruling is wrong. It is wrong for one major reason. There is NO evidence that masks (even N95s) are effective against COVID-19. In FACT there is quite a bit of evidence that they do not work, especially when not worn correctly or when reused as almost everyone did, removes any logic from the argument. This ruling suggests that the government can force you to wear a hat or other fashion accessory without evidence of its ability to protect you or others. The fact that the Appeals court used a motorcycle helmet as an example is on its face an absurdity. I have the right to endanger myself, I am free and own my own body! Even if you believe (falsely) that forcing me to wear a mask will some how protect you from me, that does NOT give you a right to force it upon me.

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”

Thomas Jefferson