One Agency Is Melting Down Over Trump's Win
They Fell for It: Why a Conservative Podcast Is Making Fun of Axios...
CNN Reporter's Take on Trump Supporters and How They See the Network Is...
The One Line CNN's Scott Jennings Used to Shut Down a Testy Journalist
There Appears to Be a Planned and Organized Pogrom Happening in Amsterdam
'From the Jailhouse to the Texas House': Candidate Who Defied COVID Restrictions Wins...
KJP Pressed to Explain Biden's Past Rhetoric About Trump With His Post-Election Messaging
How Trump's Win Is Already Having an Impact on Illegal Immigration
Why Trump Won
Good News: Americans Are No Longer Listening to Mass Media
France's Largest Newspaper Had This to Say About Trump's Win
Donald Trump Just Won a Mandate. And It's Huge.
Restoration in Progress
The Aftermath
An Open Letter to the Left's Unremarkable, Bitter, Woke, Visionless, Out-of-Touch Leadersh...
Tipsheet

New Lancet Study Destroys the CDC's Justification for School Mask Mandates

AP Photo/Denis Poroy

The Lancet, a world-renown medical journal, is out with a new study debunking a highly-cited CDC study that was used to support mask mandates in schools.

Specifically, the study not only replicates the CDC study, which found a “negative association” between masks and pediatric cases of Covid-19, it also extends the study to include more districts over a longer period of time. In the end, the new study had nearly “six times as much data as the original study.”

Advertisement

“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the study finds. “These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement