Masks Had "No Statistical Impact." So who is pushing for them again?
The data says no, but the dogma says yes. Inside the quiet return of mask mandates in the NHS.
It feels like a flashback to 2020. With a sharp rise in flu cases across the UK this December—described by some health leaders as a “tidal wave”—Downing Street has once again issued statements regarding face coverings.
Just this week, a Downing Street spokesperson stated that wearing a mask to prevent the spread of respiratory illness is “something people can consider”. This follows an intervention from NHS leaders urging the public to “get back into the habit” of masking on public transport, explicitly invoking the behaviour of the pandemic era:
“We were all very good about infection control during Covid. And we really, really need to get back to that now”.
For many, this rhetoric signals a concerning return to pandemic-era interventions without a proper reckoning of their actual efficacy. Before we drift back into old habits, it is vital to look at the hard data we now have—data that was often absent or ignored when these mandates were first introduced.
🌊 The “Natural Experiment”: Did removing mandates stop the waves?
One of the most compelling arguments regarding the efficacy (or lack thereof) of community masking comes from simply observing what happened after the UK stopped mandating them.
When the UK removed mask mandates and social distancing rules, many models predicted a permanent “skyrocketing” of cases. That did not happen. Instead, we witnessed a massive “Natural Experiment”:
The Waves Continued: Even with zero restrictions, infection waves continued to rise and fall as they did during full lockdown. The virus followed a mechanical trajectory—peaking and crashing due to population immunity and seasonality, not cloth barriers.
The Comparison: The curves looked remarkably similar whether the population was under strict mandates or completely free. If mandates were the primary driver of suppression, their removal should have led to sustained, unchecked growth. The fact that the “post-mandate” waves looked just like “mandate” waves suggests the interventions themselves were not the deciding factor.
🏛️ The Government’s Own Admission (Jan 2022)
Perhaps the most telling evidence comes from the Department for Education’s (DfE) own attempt to justify the use of masks in schools. In January 2022, the DfE released an “Evidence Summary” to support the mask mandate in classrooms. However, buried in the document’s statistical appendix was a direct admission that the policy lacked significant evidence.
The “Buried” Stat: The DfE’s own analysis compared schools with mask mandates to those without. The result? The difference in absence rates was “non-statistical” (p-value 0.148)—meaning they could not prove the difference wasn’t just random chance.
The Admission: The report explicitly conceded that the government “cannot assess causality,” admitting they had no proof masks were responsible for any difference.
The Harm: While the benefit was unproven, the harm was clear. The same document reported that 80% of pupils said masks made it difficult to communicate, and 55% felt it made learning harder.
📊 The “Gold Standard” Surveillance: ONS Infection Survey
To understand the “real world” effect, we must look at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 Infection Survey—widely regarded as the “gold standard” of surveillance because it tested people randomly, regardless of symptoms.
In April 2022, the ONS analysed the characteristics of people testing positive. They compared the infection risk of adults who reported “Always” wearing a face covering at work or school against those who reported “Never” wearing one.
The Finding: The statistical model showed no significant difference in the likelihood of testing positive between the two groups.
The Takeaway: In the highest-quality surveillance study available, reporting 100% compliance with masking provided no statistically distinguishable protection against infection compared to zero compliance.
🌍 The Cochrane Review (2023)
Finally, we have the global “gold standard” of evidence-based medicine: The Cochrane Review. Published in 2023, this massive systematic review analysed 78 randomised trials with over 610,000 participants.
The Conclusion: For medical/surgical masks compared to no masks, the review concluded that wearing masks in the community “probably makes little or no difference” to the outcome of influenza-like or COVID-19-like illness.
The Stat: The Risk Ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.09), meaning there was no statistically significant effect observed.
🏥 Hospital Mandates Are Back
While community mandates have largely vanished, mask requirements have quietly returned to many hospitals across the country, including my local NHS hospital.
Speaking to staff on the ground, the frustration is palpable. Nurses and doctors are often required to wear masks for shifts lasting 12 hours or more, and the physical toll is significant. Studies confirm that prolonged use leads to adverse skin reactions for many staff, including acne (”maskne”), rashes, and dermatitis.
Beyond the skin issues, research points to headaches and breathing difficulties associated with wearing masks for such long periods. And naturally, there are significant communication barriers—masks interfere with non-verbal cues and speech clarity, making an already demanding job even harder for staff trying to care for patients.
🏁 Conclusion: Dogma vs. Data
It is easy to get stuck in the dogma of “we need to do something.” In times of rising illness, the instinct to reach for familiar tools is strong, and the social pressure to comply can be overwhelming.
However, I always prefer to take a step back and look at the evidence. While many people think these interventions have a significant impact, the highest quality facts—from the ONS surveillance data to the global Cochrane review—show that they do not.
Public health decisions should not be based on “vibes” or the need to be seen doing something; they should be guided by facts. And right now, the facts suggest we need to move forward, not backwards.
✍️ Jamie Jenkins
Stats Jamie | Stats, Facts & Opinions
📢 Call to Action
If this helped cut through the noise, share it and subscribe for free — get the stats before the spin, straight to your inbox (no algorithms).
📚 If you found this useful, you might also want to read:
📲 Follow me here for more daily updates:
I was very sad talking to a friend whose terminally ill father had been in their local hospital last week and she & her husband had been obliged to wear masks to visit. She commented at how distressing and her father who is deaf couldn’t understand a word she was saying.
But she hadn’t had the courage (or perhaps knowledge) to remind the staff that hearing impairment was always a listed exemption.
Having read a number of medical scientific papers on the benefit of keeping high the blood levels of vitamin D, it was disturbing the other day to watch on YouTube an excellent video by the retired nursing tutor Dr Campbell that a 2014 paper showed that a 'scoolboy' error was made when determining the level of supplement in the winter time. The current level set by the government is 400iu whereas the correct dose should be in the region of 8000iu to keep blood
levels at a reasonable level.
A chronic lack of vitamin D in winter is heavily implicated in the spike in winter infections. The problem being that proper research is not carried out because it is so cheap. Private companies obviously aren't going to put millions into research into something where they will make no money. The crying shame is the NHS could do the trials and save thousands of people from an early death and billions wasted on looking after them.