For your reading pleasure:
https://www.iflscience.com/lockdowns-masks-and-social-distancing-unequivocally-help-stop-the-spread-of-covid-70408?fbclid=IwAR0xLOn35goPyCXC_KqIZ52W3r9Nq6FBTK4vDbn3eL2a_kNNsk-aKtxXlGI
And here we have the problem with current media, and the State funded medical folks.
The headline: "Lockdowns, Masks, And Social Distancing "Unequivocally" Help Stop The Spread Of COVID"
But that's not what the report says. First of all, despite quotation marks the word Unequivocal or Unequivocally does not appear anywhere in the linked study EXSUM.
What it says is:
Masks and face coverings:
The weight of evidence from all studies suggests that wearing masks, particularly higher quality masks (respirators), supported by mask mandates, generally reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies consistently, though not universally, reported that mask wearing and mask mandates were an effective approach to reduce infection
Social distancing and ‘lockdowns’:
Most effective of all the NPIs were the social distancing measures. Stay-at-home orders, physical distancing, and restrictions on gathering size were repeatedly found to be associated with significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with more stringent measures having greater effects.
The Study goes on to say:
However, the results reported in the three national and regional case studies cannot simply be replicated in other countries and regions. The national and regional contexts for NPIs varied significantly around the world, according to geographical, political, demographic, socio-economic and regulatory factors. The nature of the national implementation of NPIs and their resulting effectiveness can only be understood in the context of a series of other extremely important interacting factors
Cross-country comparisons of the effectiveness of NPIs are affected by multiple factors, most notably differences in demographic factors, healthcare systems, levels of economic prosperity, degrees of trust between citizens and public authorities, and testing and reporting of cases of COVID-19. Different countries or regions were differentially affected by COVID-19with particular impacts on those with olderpopulations12; higher levels of obesity; greater incidence of chronic non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease; larger concentrations of lower income and larger households; and higher population densities. Countries also differed in their categorization of COVID-19 deaths. For instance, Belgium included all deaths where COVID-19 was suspected to contribute, resulting in higher reported death rates early in the pandemic15,while others included only deaths inhospitals16. There were also stark differences in the availability of testing and thereby the numbers of reported cases
....
There is clear evidence from studies conducted during the pandemic that the stringent implementation of packages of NPIs was effective in some countries in reducing the transmission of COVID-19. There is also evidence for the effectiveness of individual NPIs, although, especially as the pandemic progressed and the virus became more transmissible, NPIs became less effective in controlling the transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Future assessments should also consider the costs as well as the benefits of NPIs, in terms of their impacts on livelihoods, economies, education, social cohesion, physical and mental wellbeing, and potentially other aspects. Drug regulators are able to make recommendations on the use of drugs based upon evidence of their effects and side effects. Similarly, policymakers will be able to make the best policy decisions on NPIs, which are in the main complex social interventions, if they have access to better evidence regarding their broader health and societal impacts. They could consider these alongside their effects on reducing the transmission of the infectious agent
Bolding Mine.
But in general none of those articles communicated the actual Executive Summary findings, much less the actual study. They pulled snippets to support their editorial conclusions, and neglected to mention the 25% (literally 5 of 20 pages) of the report summary talking about the problems with getting data, comparing data, and that the report was neglecting important considerations. Just so Politico could say: "COVID lockdowns and masks worked, period" as they transparantly try to spin up support for more society wide interventions.
