CDC Director Rochelle Walensky "encourages" wearing masks in lieu of the onslaught of respiratory infections

If they didn't work before, why would they work now?

Originally, I was going to dedicate today to a post on Christmas trees and that oh, so familiar piney smell that reminds us of the holidays.

Unfortunately, I didn’t realize that Christmas trees were not typically pine trees, which are also not the same as fir and spruce trees (the trees commonly used as Christmas trees). So that means a bit more digging into the literature to find the appropriate information.

However, I did come across this new report from CDC Director Rochelle Walkensky, “encouraging” mask wearing as RSV, flu, and COVID cases continue to mount:

Click on the image for the link to the study.

According to the report, Wallensky was in a call with reporters on Monday, and in that call she encouraged people to wear masks especially in areas of high COVID surge (emphasis mine):

The Centers for Disease Control Prevention on Monday encouraged people to wear masks to help reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses this season as Covid, flu and RSV circulate at the same time.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, in a call with reporters, said wearing a mask is one of several everyday precautions that people can take to reduce their chances of catching or spreading a respiratory virus during the busy holiday season.

"We also encourage you to wear a high-quality, well-fitting mask to prevent the spread of respiratory illnesses," said Walensky, adding that people living in areas with high levels of Covid transmission should especially consider masking.

If this sounds a little bit insane at this point, it should.

This all comes about at a time where many parts of the world are thinking about bringing back mask mandates, and in actuality are almost mandating a return to mandates.

Some talks in Canada indicate that various provinces would like a return to mask mandates. A few counties in California, such as Los Angeles County, seem as if they may reinstate mask mandates as well in the near future.

I’ve reported on the concerning fact that mask zealotry seems to be seeing a resurgence, all predicated on this fear of respiratory illness:

Masking zealotry is making a resurgence once again.

But this also comes about at a time when China is seeing protests and demands to end their almost 3-year lockdown as COVID cases continue to surge.

I recommend Peter’s Substack All Facts Matter as he’s been covering most of the goings on in China the past few weeks:

China, having one of the strictest lockdown measures (which were widely adopted across the world), continues to see more cases and more unrest occurring. This should at least add some pause to this idea that masking may be of benefit if one of the most locked down countries in the world can’t even keep COVID out.

It’s all made more bewildering given the fact that, according to the Epoch Times and an attorney who sat in on Fauci’s closed-door deposition, Fauci couldn’t cite any studies in support of masking. The transcript of the deposition has recently been released, but I have not read them myself yet so take this comments with some criticism until further corroborated.

However, if true, could Wallensky definitively suggest that masking is one way to protect this holiday season? If the evidence doesn’t support masking for COVID, how could such a comment be made by the CDC Director.

This also doesn’t take into account that such arguments would require that we have evidence that suggests masking helps reduce the flu and RSV without relying on COVID data to make this argument. I highly doubt we have robust information for these other respiratory viruses, which would then raise further questions as to where the evidence is coming from to make such proclamations.

I do find these next comments rather concerning, as it may allude to something that is to may come in the future (emphasis mine):

"One need not wait on CDC action in order to put a mask on," Walensky said. "We would encourage all of those preventive measures — hand washing, staying home when you're sick, masking, increased ventilation — during respiratory virus season, but especially in areas of high Covid-19 community levels."

I try not to extrapolate and make assumptions, but I also can’t help but read this as hinting at forcing people into masking if they don’t listen, like a “mask, or else…” statement is being made here.

At the end of the day, one should be free to choose to wear a mask or not. However, the evidence and the fears over government control should make us reticent of these notions, especially as they wear this gloss of benevolence.

So right now we are facing a paradigm, but if let’s just play a thought experiment and see the issues with each line of thought for mask mandates:

• If masking does not work at preventing respiratory infections, then why continue to assume that bringing back masking will actually do any good, aside from being used as a way to reduce fear and anxiety. But if that were the case, I would argue that not watching the news and getting off the internet would be just as effective at alleviating fear, and even more effective to be honest. So why return to something to which we don’t have any evidence of actually being effective? The evidence doesn’t support it, and the reliance on credentials to make it so doesn’t actual mean the evidence and facts are there.

• But let’s propose that masking does work, and that masking was the reason for RSV and the flu having declined in recent years. Seeing the inundation in hospitals due to lack of 2-years worth of immunity, would it be proper to make an argument to prevent overwhelming hospitals by committing the same acts that may have put us in this position in the first place? This would essentially be putting a bandage over the inevitable, and would actually cause the wound to fester even further and make for worse issues down the line the longer it goes on. The more we prevent children from getting sick, the worse off they will become unless the argument being made is to enforce a perpetual, never-ending cycle of masking. So if masks were effective, then a return to masking won’t help out in the long run, but will just continue to cause more damage to children who may miss out on the most formative years in immune development.

To the last point, this notion of modern day sterility is rather concerning. We continue to learn that living a life free of pathogens is actually detrimental to our overall health. There’s a complex relationship between us and pathogens, and evidence suggests that we are more dependent on bacteria and even parasites than we originally thought. It’s likely that a modern lifestyle devoid of any pathogens may actually make us more fragile and susceptible to otherwise mild forms of illnesses.

Similar to our cognitive capabilities, and our physical being, we should be reminded that our immune system should be made antifragile through constant practice and exposure.

So be wary of such notions of returning to masking. Do as you see fit, but do so because it was your choice to do so, and don’t demand mandates to tell you how you should live your life.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists outside the mainstream.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent