Last month, The Cochrane Library published their findings from a review of available data on the effectiveness of masking as a protective measure against the spread of COVID and other respiratory illnesses, and those findings were that masking may not be nearly as effective as The Science™ maintained for so long.
Some were able to accept this new information and proceed accordingly, but some couldn’t help but just dig their heels in even harder and demonize Cochrane for actually taking a scientific approach to the issue. Go ahead and put New York Times columnist and Columbia Professor Zeynep Tufekci into the latter category. Tufekci has a new opinion piece up in the Times today all about how “the science is clear that masks work” and Cochrane has admitted that they “misrepresented” their findings:
NEWS: Cochrane says lead author of a mask review misrepresented its findings, apologizes for summary statement that was imprecise and says they will update it.
They say their review did NOT find masks don't work.
Plus, I examine the actual evidence.https://t.co/wi7eKZSSbi pic.twitter.com/jy2L6wETSH
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) March 10, 2023
It will be publicly available. I am breaking the news in the piece, but will add a link to their public statement when they post it. https://t.co/PtbqJjrIIH
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) March 10, 2023
Masks are a tool, with a time and place.
People can have opinions about mandates and their time and place, but we should not deny or misrepresent the evidence, including the uncertainties.
In this case, kudos to Cochrane for correcting the record. Hope people notice.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) March 10, 2023
Recommended
“Correcting the record.” Is that really what Cochrane did, though? We’ll get that in a minute.
Discussing masks seems to bring out weird stuff.
It's a tool. It's not a magic wand. We have vaccines and treatments, which is great. But no need to go on a warpath against masks and misrepresent the evidence base.
Worn correctly and consistently, they help. Not that hard.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) March 10, 2023
Know what’s even less hard than that? Being honest about what Cochrane actually said. And yet, Zeynep can’t bring herself to do it.
NYT got this quote from Cochrane and turned it into this headline. Outright fraud. pic.twitter.com/psnGBI7CLv
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) March 10, 2023
Here is the full Cochrane statement NYT misleadingly (irony!) calls a correction.
Does ANYONE want to defend this as the basis for the headline: "Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work"????https://t.co/EIxO9uua5L pic.twitter.com/aI6CeiktaG
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) March 10, 2023
That … doesn’t sound like Cochrane is admitting to misrepresenting their findings. We’ve read it a few times and we’re still not seeing anything like that.
According to the New York Times, it is outrageously wrong to simplify "there is no evidence policy interventions to increase mask use reduce viral transmission" to "masks don't work," but it's totally legit to invert it to "the Science Is Clear That Masks Work."
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) March 10, 2023
Cochrane’s statement clarifies that their findings do not make it clear that masks are very effective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses. That’s not the same as saying that masks work.
I find this kind of headline intentionally dumb
Masks work… to do what?
To protect medical workers in a clinical setting? Yes! They work!
To stop the spread of a respiratory virus in the general population? No, they don't. pic.twitter.com/d3WNmB1ymB
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) March 10, 2023
Do masks slow down a respiratory virus in the population? Maybe, there is confounding evidence for and against that
But you can't mask everyone all the time. You can't mask a population & hope the illness simply passes by
We've known this for 100 yearshttps://t.co/29gEznsv1a pic.twitter.com/gQPnvkyJ7p
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) March 10, 2023
That’s why it’s a headline and not an article. It’s also not a twitter thread fleshing out what she means by “work”, which I know you saw because you were just commenting in that thread
— Will Pierce (@greatistheworld) March 10, 2023
Nice try, buddy. But no:
Her thread at no point indicates that masks might not work and when people suggest she softens her certainty, she rejects every proposal pic.twitter.com/t5PsjgoatG
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) March 10, 2023
Zeynep Tufekci is the one misrepresenting information here.
It’s truly infuriating that the author demands strict adherence to the words of the study for critics of mask mandates, but the headline and the text takes maximal rhetorical liberty from the same conclusions for supporters.
— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) March 10, 2023
My favorite part of this has a been watching as studies designed to generate the definitive pro-mask mandate conclusion get hyped before publication, then reach totally uncertain conclusions, then get criticized as non-definitive and overly confounded by those who had hyped them… https://t.co/y8Xq4G5UBk
— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) March 10, 2023
So weird how that happens.
And so weird how the pro-mask-mandate brigade only doubles down even in the face of narrative-busting evidence.
Look…at this point it is quite clear that the @nytimes science journalists are heavily biased, politically motivated, and often, not very understanding of the science.
I mean…there is a litany of examples where they got it wrong…and still refuse to admit it.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 10, 2023
If they could admit that they’d let their zeal to own the cons get in the way of their ability to think critically, we might at least be able to respect them just a little bit. But they’d sooner rip out their own fingernails with their teeth than even mouth the words “mea culpa.”
The piece today is mostly spin, which is fine. But the Cochrane post said, quite clearly, that they take no position on whether masks work; but do show that mask mandates did not work.
That is still, today, the correct scientific conclusion.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 10, 2023
Nothing the Times says at this point is going to change that.
To change that position, you have to provide high quality studies (preferably RCT) that change the conclusions.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 10, 2023
At this point, if you trust the NYT science page blindly, I don't know what to tell you.
Read the studies for yourselves. Learn how to read studies…its not that hard! And you'll be smarter than all of these reporters.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 10, 2023
I mean…the @NYTScience page apparently…can't even read this correctly.
Why we should trust them…is beyond me. They are just not very good at their jobs. pic.twitter.com/n2ZuUM6dAe
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) March 10, 2023
Unless you think of their job as willfully misleading the public in order to push a left-wing agenda. Because in that case, few do it better.
You knew NYT would hammer until they cracked Cochrane's science with politics, but it sure is sad to see.
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) March 10, 2023
***
Related:
Author calls out NYT over their ‘editorial demand for fraud’ when it comes to the science on masking
***
Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
