The Zero COVID people — members of an insular online cult who subscribe to the unfounded belief that COVID-19 can be defeated if enough draconian restrictions are enforced — have tepidly begun to party. And, wow, do they know how to let their hair down.
Here, a gender-fluid (they/them pronouns with purple hair) member of the cult named Dr Sho Jacobs — who, according to her Twitter bio, is an associate professor of biology at Canada’s University of Guelph — explains the protocol she and her friends enforced at a recent party.
It’s wild — and blatantly and ironically pseudoscientific in the extreme.
I went to a party last night.
Here's how we reduced the #COVID19 risk:– we all wear masks in public spaces and at work
– we planned well in advance and monitored our health
– we use Enovid
– we met on an outdoor, heated patio and we measured the ventilation
– we put on… https://t.co/RCY13vV3nH pic.twitter.com/KDBjURyR9m— Dr Sho Jacobs (@shoshanahjacobs) March 10, 2023
Her Tweet was inundated with excellent retorts, including a reference to the recently published meta-analysis on masking in the Cochrane Review, a prestigious medical journal previously respected by the Zero COVID people until it published data that contradicted their narrative. The results read thusly:
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks...
The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. [emphasis added]
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Read the fucking
Cochrane Review— Chester "Snake" Turley 🇨🇦🇺🇲 (@Nogreatreset1) March 11, 2023
Related: ‘Object Sexuality’: At the Intersection of LGBTQ+++™ Ideology and Autism
The Zero COVID people and their collaborators in Public Health™ were dismayed at the findings, as relayed via Toronto Star:
Several hectored-sounding science organizations fired back, arguing that, thanks to a combination of weak studies and a murky central question, that the review didn’t say what some people thought it did. “There are several reasons why this conclusion is misleading,” read an online post from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. “No, That New Study Doesn’t Show that Masks Are Useless,” was the headline in Yale Insights.
The problem for them is that the study absolutely finds that masking “makes little or no difference” to COVID transmission. The only issue the Zero COVID people can cite is that the findings have an impact on public discourse, which they would prefer to dominate with their pseudoscience, as explained by one activist cited by Toronto Star:
The onus here should be on the editor of the Cochrane Review… who should have known how an article like this would be perceived by people who, after several years of evolving recommendations, are hungry — if not a bit touchy — about any new information, particularly about masks, the use of which has become a “powder keg,”… Scientists and those who write about them need to keep in mind that the communication landscape is hugely different than it used to be… The scientist of the 21st century needs to realize that even academic publications, which used to be for scientists only, are increasingly being blasted out on Twitter and discussed by people. [emphasis added]
In other words, if a study indicates anything contrary to the established story from the trusted Public Health™ authorities, it should be censored communist-style for the sake of social harmony.
