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:
- Opinion: Senate shenanigans – Income tax debate, double-standards
Elizabeth New writes that Senate Bill 6346 would impose a 9.9% tax on income above $1 million and is likely headed for a legal challenge if approved by the House. - Letter: ‘The intent of the proposed County Council resolution appears to be a general condemnation of our federal immigration enforcement officers’
Washougal resident Mike Johnson criticizes a proposed Clark County Council resolution regarding federal immigration enforcement in this letter to the editor. - Opinion: Ecology’s war on private wells
Nancy Churchill argues a Department of Ecology lawsuit and related legislation threaten long-held private well water rights across Washington state. - Letter: After ignoring the students, Ridgefield School District outed them
Rob Anderson and a concerned Ridgefield parent allege Ridgefield School District repeatedly failed to redact student names in public records releases tied to a cheer coach investigation. - Opinion: Democrats signal retreat on the death tax as exodus fears mount
Mark Harmsworth argues recent moves on estate and other tax policies reflect mounting concerns about high earners and businesses leaving Washington state.
