The Atlantic calls out CDC's 'flawed case' for school masking: Its go-to study based on 'very shaky science'

close

Video

New York mask mandate set to go into effect December 13

Fox News correspondent Bryan Llenas discusses what individuals and businesses can expect from New York's mask mandate.

A piece published in The Atlantic is calling out the CDC's ongoing guidance urging mask-wearing at schools, suggesting its claim that no masks would triple the risk of COVID outbreaks is "based on very shaky science."

"Scientists generally agree that, according to the research literature, wearing masks can help protect people from the coronavirus, but the precise extent of that protection, particularly in schools, remains unknown—and it might be very small," David Zweig wrote on Thursday. "What data do exist have been interpreted into guidance in many different ways. The World Health Organization, for example, does not recommend masks for children under age 6. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends against the use of masks for any children in primary school."

CDC CHIEF SAYS OMICRON CASES EXPECTED TO GROW, WHITE HOUSE REMAINS ‘CONFIDENT’ SCHOOLS WILL SAY OPEN

After drawing attention to the CDC's "especially aggressive stance" recommending masks for all children two and older, he pointed to "stunning new statistic" CDC director Rochelle Walensky repeatedly cited in recent months alleging in a study of schools in Arizona that those without mask mandates had "3.5 times" as likely to experience COVID outbreaks as those who implemented masks. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky gives her opening statement during the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on "Next Steps: The Road Ahead for the COVID-19 Response" on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., November 4, 2021. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

"But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC’s back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading," Zweig wrote before citing medical experts who say "You can’t learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study," some calling the research "so unreliable."

"Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDC—which showed a dramatic more-than-tripling of risk for unmasked students—ought to be excluded from this debate. The Arizona study’s lead authors stand by their work, and so does the CDC. But the critics were forthright in their harsh assessments," he continued. 

The study found there were "16 outbreaks" among 210 masked schools while 113 out of the 480 schools that had no mask mandate experienced such viral spreads, but Zweig warned "the study’s methodology and data set appear to have significant flaws."

COVID-19 PANDEMIC DEATH TOLL TOPS 800,000 IN U.S.

The first red flag Zweig pointed out was the timeframe of the study which was "during July 15–August 31, 2021," which he learned "only a small proportion of the schools in the study were open at any point during July" while "Some didn’t begin class until August 10; others were open from July 19 or July 21." 

"That means students in the latter group of schools had twice as much time—six weeks instead of three weeks—in which to develop a COVID outbreak," Zweig explained. 

Atlanta, Georgia, USA - August 28, 2011: Close up of entrance sign for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sign located near the 1700 block of Clifton Road in Atlanta, Georgia, on the Emory University campus. Vertical composition. (iStock) (iStock)

The authors behind the study were largely dismissive of Zweig's concerns of its flawed study, acknowledging that while the exposure times did vary across the Arizona schools, "It is highly improbable that this difference alone could explain the strong association observed between mask policies and school outbreaks."

Medical experts Zweig spoke with pushed back, one saying "If schools with mask mandates had fewer school days during the study, that alone could explain the difference in outbreaks."

CHILDREN'S COVID-19 CASES UP 32% FROM TWO WEEKS AGO, PEDIATRICIANS REPORT

Others criticized how the study cited outbreaks among schools rather than individual cases among students and that an outbreak was defined as two or more cases among students and staff within a 14-day period that are "epidemiologically linked," calling the parameters of the study "problematic" since "It doesn't tell us that the transmission occurred in school."

One expert highlighted how students are all considered "close contacts" to infected students in Maricopa County's guidelines, with Zweig writing, "As a result, students in Maricopa schools with mask mandates may have been less likely than students in schools without mandates to get tested following an initial exposure," which would lead to "detection bias" that would "grossly affect the study’s findings."

ISTOCK

Zweig also inspected the schools that may have been involved in the study, which he said included 40 "virtual learning academies," roughly 20 preschools and roughly 90 "vocational programs associated with otherwise-listed schools."

The authors of the study admitted to Zweig online schools were included in the story by mistake and blamed potential misclassification errors on the Arizona Department of Education.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Still, the publication and agency endorsement of the Arizona study is especially demoralizing," Zweig wrote. "How did research with so many obvious flaws make its way through all the layers of internal technical review? And why was it promoted so aggressively by the agency’s director? I reached out to Walensky’s office to ask about the study, noting its evident limitations and outlier result. How, if at all, does this research figure into the agency’s continuing guidance for schools around the country? The CDC did not respond to my inquiries."

Zweig added, "With Biden in the White House, the CDC has promised to 'follow the science' in its COVID policies. Yet the circumstances around the Arizona study seem to show the opposite. Dubious research has been cited after the fact, without transparency, in support of existing agency guidance."