Theresa Tam, Canada’s top bureaucrat in the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), missed her vocation. Her real calling is that of a professional, though sometimes incoherent, scold..Who can forget her 2020 New Year’s message to the country?.Don’t ring in the new year in person or with a glass of bubbly. Use “mocktails,” mindfulness and video chats. The real message: don’t have fun.".In September 2020, she advised Canadians to mask up during sexual encounters (no kissing!) and helpfully added “the lowest risk sexual activity during COVID-19 involves yourself alone.”.She did not say whether “involving yourself alone” carried any risk of going blind, as I was informed when I was a cub-scout..A month later she told Canadians: “this kick at the curve is a bit different. This time, we’ve got to bend it like Canadians: give it the old double-double by layering personal risk assessment and prevention practices and reconfiguring and downsizing our in-person ContactBubble as and where possible.”.It was clear that Tam was intensely concerned about something, but PHAC provided no one to interpret her gibberish..Last Tuesday she was back at it, on a stage in Ottawa along with some other 'experts' to tout a new vaxx produced by Moderna..“There is strong evidence showing that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the potential risks,” said her colleague, Supriya Sharma..One would hope so..Sharma indicated the basis of her confidence was “data.” That was it. No details..Again, the real message was clear: we are in charge. Sharma assured everybody that the new vaxx was tailor-made for the XBB.1.5 Omicron subvariant. Good to know..Moreover, Health Canada was up to the job though there was lots of false information out there. So, trust us, not them..An attending CTV reporter remarked on the stage filled with socially distanced masked persons: “You’re all masking, which is lovely to see.” This gratuitous observation reminded us of the importance of the mainstream media in spreading the original panic about the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They are primed to do so again..And in fact, the most amazing aspect of this press conference was not so much the reiteration of the claims of experts to know stuff but the fact that all the people on stage were in fact wearing surgical masks..This made for some comical pictures as the masks ballooned out and then collapsed as the speakers inhaled and exhaled while delivering their grim message..On this occasion Tam’s remarks were not as unintelligible as her prior speaking in tongues about kicking the curve and the old double-double, but they were just as detached from reality..Masking, she said, “is a layer of protection. We hope people have developed the habit to be able to use masks as needed during the respiratory virus season, not just for COVID.”.She went on: “I do think now is the time to get your masks ready if you don’t already have them.” And she concluded, “masking might actually make a difference.”.Or it might not..Here are two pieces of evidence unmentioned by the performers on stage in Ottawa — or indeed, by my distinguished colleagues in the med school at the U of C..The first is the problem of size..The average virus is around 0.1 micrometres or microns, which is quite small..The size of things that most masks are effective at filtering out is 0.3 to 10 microns, which is a lot bigger. That is, the holes in the masks are bigger than the size of the viruses they are supposed to keep out..This awkward fact has led several observers to remark masks are as useful at filtering viruses out of your respiratory tract as a chain-link fence is at filtering mosquitoes out of your back yard..A second set of facts is more serious. Earlier this year, an outfit called the Cochrane Library showed masking had no discernable effect in reducing transmission of, or increasing protection against, SARS and SARS-like viruses..This organization, named after Archie Cochrane, a Scottish physician and 'father' of evidence-based medicine, is not to be confused with the public library in Cochrane, Alberta..This Cochrane Library conducts analyses of medical data, both its own and that of others. The Cochrane Library also looks at analyses by other organizations, which is called a 'meta-analysis.'.One such meta-analysis dealt with 78 randomized control trials involving 610,000 persons that were focussed on the usefulness of masking..Randomized controlled trials are, so to speak, the gold standard of scientific data analysis because (to use this example) researchers put participants in different groups and observe the difference that wearing or not wearing a mask makes..The results, they said, were “inconclusive.” More specifically, “wearing a mask may make little to no difference” in COVID transmission. This was based on 9 studies involving 276,917 persons..The words “inconclusive” and “may make little or no difference” are pretty clear. You don’t need a PhD or even an MD to know what they mean..In other words, Tam and her fellow experts staged a theatrical event. It was not even a press conference, which notionally involves the transmission of accurate information..“Look at us!” the participants said. “We’re doing something! So should you!” And the mainstream media (as usual) were complicit in this sham.
