That's an NYT opinion. The reality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12041/

The source is cited literally in the first line of the article:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

Unlike your study from November 2020, this one is from January 2023.

There's a lot of dark money flowing into rewriting history to say that any response to COVID—which has killed >1 million Americans and disabled millions more—was an overreaction so the next pandemic won't disrupt businesses so much. That's what this op-ed is part of, nothing more, nothing less.

That's why this really simple thing became so controversial. I mean, if a virus sticks to droplets then it's better to put less droplets into the air. Masks do that. Easy? Should be.

Do you have any evidence for such claims or is it just another conspiracy theory?

As for what mask do, if it was that easy, there wouldn't be the need of so many studies. But that is not even the claim here. The article says mask mandates make no difference.

Even if we assume that masks work, people wear them wrongly, they reuse them instead of using clean ones, fidget with them and then touch other parts of their face. There are plenty of reasons why a mandate could not work.

The source says the interpretation is bullshit. https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventio...

The key line from the study that that cites:

> The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions

Source: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

They asked people to wear masks, and they didn't wear masks, so they had trouble concluding things about masks.

This New York Times article prompted the Cochrane review to issue a statement:

> The Cochrane Review 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' was published in January 2023 and has been widely misinterpreted.

Source: https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventio...

That's a right-wing commentator's oped. It's by no means the opinion of "the New York Times".

So, right-wing means wrong? He cites a study in the first line of the article.

The cited study is misrepresented.

https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventio...

> Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

The actual conclusion is simply that there's no evidence to support that they work (or don't work). Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement given that it's hard to prove a negative.

"It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses."

Yes, right wing means wrong because they fund bogus studies. Plenty of those around. There's a lot of money into going into mishandling this.

Cochrane is right wing funded now?

They were simply pointing out the obvious political bias, and that this was an opinion piece, crafted explicitly to sway opinion, not to present neutral facts.