Pennsylvania psychologist Gerald A. Solfanelli believes New York Times article offers the ‘definitive answer’
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
Despite President Biden’s recent declaration that COVID-19 has finally and thankfully entered its endemic stage, many people continue to debate the efficacy of face masks to help prevent viral spread.
I believe that November’s NYT article finally offers the “definitive answer” to the COVID face mask question. Even though there have been numerous similar studies, I refer to the NYT article (“When Can the Covid Masks Finally Come Off?” – archive.ph/Ea9oJ) as the “definitive” answer to the mask question, because ironically it was published by the NYT to actually promote mask use.
As I began reading the NYT article, which is based upon recent research, however, I was curious as to why it appeared to be so nonspecific: Masks are a “valid strategy to reduce Covid-19;” “…mask mandates curb the spread of the virus;” Dr. Luby’s study (same Stanford researcher interviewed for the article) found that mask-wearing led to “declines in Covid cases.” How valid? Reduce by how much? Curb by how much? Decline by how much? The article never actually says.
After reviewing Dr. Luby’s study (bit.ly/3HHetuG), the results show an actual benefit of only about 9.5 percent.
Unlike bacteria, we know that you actually need an electron microscope to even see a virus. Therefore, wearing a face mask (other than a N-95) would be nearly analogous to a screen door on a submarine!
The fact that people tend to re-wear masks, is also problematic with respect to increasing the likelihood of sustaining bacterial or viral infections (including infection from SARS-CoV-2). In 2020, Dr. Fauci had even said that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.
Therefore, any potential benefit of that meager 9.5 percent is undoubtedly negated!
Gerald A. Solfanelli, M.S.
Pennsylvania psychologist
ThePsychologist.com
EmotionalWealth.com
Also read:
- POLL: How would you rate the accessibility of Vancouver city officials for addressing community concerns?
How accessible are Vancouver city officials to community concerns? - Opinion: New audit offers another reason lawmakers should leave the state’s paid-leave program behindElizabeth New (Hovde) critiques Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program, highlighting audit findings of double-dipping and program inefficiencies.
- Opinion: WA turns redder, despite faulty media reports that said otherwiseWAGOP highlights gains in Washington’s November 2024 election, challenging claims the state turned “bluer.”
- Opinion: New FCC Chairman indicates shakeup for internet policyFCC Chairman Brendan Carr signals major shifts in internet policy, from net neutrality to rural broadband and tech regulations.
- Opinion: John Ley pens letter to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg
John Ley challenges the I-5 Bridge Replacement project, urging Secretary Pete Buttigieg to reconsider federal funding.
