C-Span Caller Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About How the Left Feels...
Another Poll Shows Kamala Picked the Wrong Horse in Tim Walz
This Is Not The America We Were Promised
Do We Really Believe the Biden Camp Never Responded to This Offer From...
The True Threat To Democracy Is Democrats, All Of Them
Words and Deeds
Joe Biden, 20 Years Ago, Blocked the Potential First Black Female on the...
Trump's Republican Party Is the 'Big Tent' Party
The Real Relationship Between Trump-Style Tariffs and Economic Growth
'Candygram for Hezbollah, Candygram for Hezbollah….'
The Haitian Horror Story No One's Talking About
We Are Letting Others Control Our Devices and Thus Our Lives
Epistemology Politicized
Leaving the Left: A Black Woman’s Escape from the Progressive Abyss
Virginia Democrat Silent As Biden-Harris Border Crisis Creeps Into State
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