A plethora of narratives have spawned since the start of the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, from the narrative that it originated from a guy eating a bat in a Wuhan market (more and more evidence points to the Virology institute in Wuhan being the most likely source) to the narrative that it disproportionately affects minorities (because to the Left, everything, including an unconscious virus, is racist).
From the narrative that getting the Chinese coronavirus is a borderline death sentence to the narrative that wearing 27 masks will keep you safe (to be fair, the virus can’t get in if oxygen can’t either). Fake narrative after fake narrative has spawned and been propagated by the Left and the fake news media to scare the population into being submissive little puppies who will obey daddy government’s every order.
However, two studies showcase how fake a couple of these narratives are with the very thing that these Leftists supposedly clamor for: science and evidence-based data.
First, let’s begin with the study relating to mask mandates and usage as they relate to the spread of the Chinese coronavirus.
The lead of this study, Damian D. Guerra, assistant professor of biology at the University of Louisville, “hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates.”
In essence, the researchers hypothesized that the running assumption made by the Left and many other people that mask mandates and usage lead to lower transmission rates was true. However, unlike fake Twitter scientists, the researchers sought out to do what actual researchers and scientists usually seek: evidence that their hypothesis is wrong.
If scientists just look for evidence that their hypothesis is right, they run the risk of ignoring evidence that it is wrong, which brings bias into their hypothesis and makes for bad science. But if they search for evidence that their hypothesis is wrong and can’t find any, they lead people to understand that their hypothesis, by virtue that there is no evidence to show it’s wrong, is correct.
This is what the researchers did for mask mandates and usage, and lo and behold, they found evidence that their hypothesis that mask mandates and usage lead to lower transmission rates is incorrect.
“Contrary to our hypothesis,” the authors found, “early mandates were not associated with lower minimum case growth. Maximum case growth was the same among states with early, late, and no mandates. This indicates that mask mandates were not predictive of slower COVID-19 spread when community transmission rates were low or high.”
They continued: “We wondered if mask mandates were associated with smaller or slower surges in case growth. Differences between minimum and maximum case growth were similar among early, late, and no mandate states, and surges from minimum to maximum growth occurred at similar rates. These findings suggest that mask mandates are not predictive of smaller or slower shifts from low to high case growth.”
In simple terms, the mask mandates, as we have known for quite some time, did nothing to prevent the spread of the virus. People were forced to accept (and ashamedly, some willingly accepted) a severe reduction in their personal freedoms in exchange for the IDEA of safety, not even actual safety.
It didn’t matter if your state forced upon you (unconstitutionally) the wearing of masks or not, because both methods led to the same results, as we have known for some time thanks to other studies.
“Case growth,” the study continues, “was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeastern states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states.”
In other words, actual mask usage did little in the way of slowing the spread of the virus, only being somewhat useful with low transmission rates. Ultimately, this is what the authors found: “Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.”
So, as we have known for quite some time, the narrative that masks “save lives” or whatever else is utterly fictitious and they provide seemingly little to no protection from the virus.
However, there are good news for those who do actually get the virus (particularly seeing as 99.9% of people tend to survive it).
A different study, this time from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found that “months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies for a while.”
One narrative among the many that came about from this pandemic is that those who get the virus do not get permanent immunity from it. This was a narrative spawned to argue that even those who have had the virus still need to get vaccinated. However, much like the other narratives, this one is also false.
Matter of fact, the study sort of acknowledges this false narrative:
“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived. But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”
The study also goes into a more in-depth analysis of how our body fights the virus once we have had it, talking about cells which patrol the bloodstreams for the virus and cells which work in the bone marrow to trickle out antibodies for decades.
This is generally how the body works and why sane people talk about herd immunization outside of vaccinations. Prior to a vaccine being available for public consumption, herd immunization is the best defense against such viruses. Usually, that plan is no longer necessary if there is a vaccine which treats the virus, but we have no such vaccines. We have Chinese coronavirus vaccines, but as we have known for a while, they do not actually treat the virus and, as we have learned from the previous article, have an 11x higher likelihood of killing someone than the virus itself.
So those are two studies which, in a sane world, would put to rest the narratives and ideas that mask mandates/usage are beneficial and that natural immunization is not long-lasting. We see evidence to the contrary for both cases with both of these studies. But as we live in an insane world and those involved in this pandemic are ideologically and/or financially tied to it, there will be those who call these studies “conspiracy theories” as they usually do.
“Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...