Oklahoma has provided an Epidemiological report every week, where they show data from cities w/ & w/out mask mandates

I want to draw your attention to this part, because it’s important:

The growth rate, during the biggest surge in cases, was the lowest in non-masked cities

There are many things to parse here, but growth rate is what the CDC loves to use in their “masks work” “studies”

And again, the no-mask areas did better in growth rate during the biggest surge in cases in Oklahoma.

For reference, 11/1 is marked, and the graph ends 1/12.

Let me repeat. During the biggest surge in cases in Oklahoma, non-mask cities did the best.

The point isn’t even the exact numbers, it’s that if masks were as important of an intervention as we’ve been told, this should not be possible.

There’s simply no reasonable explanation for why this should happen if masks worked as well as the experts claim.

Density age doesn’t work, because it was completely irrelevant in Collier vs. Yuma or Imperial. Same with age.

There is no way this should happen.

Apparently Oklahoma has been publishing this information to show the impact of masks (whoops!!), but that report I referenced, published on 1/14, was the last one they’re going to do. Check for yourself. 1/21 and 1/28 have no mask section. https://oklahoma.gov/covid19/newsroom/weekly-epidemiology-and-surveillance-report.html

Just like in Florida, where no-mask counties did better. Just like in Arizona, where masks made no difference in neighboring counties over their surge.

Just like in Mississippi and Alabama where the statewide mandate expiring in MS still lead to better results than AL.

I’ve said it before…if the CDC had such strong ecological evidence that masks worked, they would have better examples than the misleading garbage from Arizona & Kansas.

But they don’t have better evidence because they’re not working. And they never have to acknowledge it.