Study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm?s_cid=mm7010e3_w

At first glance this proves liberal points. It depends on your knowledge level and how you read it. I'm sure they would ignore the data and quote all the parts where they insert their propaganda about how masks "slow the spread" etc. However, if you actually look at the data, it shows that mask mandates pretty much do nothing. First of all, this is not a single study on the efficacy of masks, but a meta-analysis of a few data points with the intention of trying to figure out whether mask mandates 'slow the spread' or not. This means that they take data from many counties about the mandate, and compare it to cases and deaths. In some counties, like in Texas, the cases went down or stayed flat. In others, cases went up. In a meta-analysis, they attempt to determine whether the overall numbers are statistically significant compared to random chance.

Which is where we come to the following quote: "Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates" This is a highly misleading statement by the authors, considering the point of a meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis, scientists start with an idea, then they take a bunch of data points and try to determine whether the results are due to random chance, or if they are too significant to be random results. In this study, they find that out of all the counties where cases either were flat, went down, or went up, cases decreased overall by 1 to 3 percent after a mask mandate. THAT RESULT is accurate with statistical significance. Meaning they are fairly confident the percentages are due to a cause and not random chance. But the numbers themselves ARE NOT statistically significant. If a mask mandate reduces transmission by 1%, now only 99 people instead of 100 will get it. That's not a significant reduction.

And again, this is not a study that proves masks or mask mandates work. it's a meta-analysis in which the authors have decided that their findings are probably not due to random chance, and thus mask mandates MIGHT reduce spread and deaths by 1 to 3 percent. Maybe. Also again, they conveniently leave out the counties in their study where cases went up or flat after a mandate...the inherent flaw in all meta-analyses. Meta-analyses are actually a point of controversy in the scientific community for this very reason...it's easy for the authors to leave out or ignore results they don't want people to know about. They also ignore any possibility that the results are caused by anything other than the mask mandate. Simply because a mask mandate happened, and cases appeared to go down in some counties after that, does not necessarily mean one caused the other.