Well, I guess we’ve come full circle now. Yesterday, the New York Times published an op-ed that would have literally killed grandma two years ago. It’s so shocking that I’m worried it’s illegal or something, and you might not even believe me anyway. Here it is, I bring you the New York Times:

Tellingly, the article did NOT include a “editor’s note” explaining how in the interests of free speech they publish all views, even Nazis, and don’t agree with this one especially, or even a sidebar providing “more context” like the government thinks masks are great or whatever.

So … that’s right, it’s really over. The author, regular Times columnist Brett Stephens, allowed it’s POSSIBLE that SOME people might be disciplined enough to wear their masks “right” all the time, without ever slipping, even for a second, and so they — the rare good ones — could POSSIBLY see SOME benefit from masking, but for most people it’s a complete and utter waste of time:

[W]hen it comes to the population-level benefits of masking, the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust. Those skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks and occasionally censored as “misinformers” for opposing mandates were right. The mainstream experts and pundits who supported mandates were wrong. In a better world, it would behoove the latter group to acknowledge their error, along with its considerable physical, psychological, pedagogical and political costs.

That’s super-nice to hear, especially after what we’ve been through, but Stephens is not very optimistic that we will ever get our well-deserved apologies:

[T]he people who had the courage to say as much deserved to be listened to, not treated with contempt. They may not ever get the apology they deserve, but vindication ought to be enough.

I don’t know. I’m not sure vindication IS enough. I’m thinking some people and institutions need to be held accountable for their “errors.” How about you?

Take the CDC, for example. After noting that the CDC refused to change its mask guidance in the wake of the Cochrane Review, which is widely considered the “gold standard” of study reviews, and which found that the very best studies show masks DO NOT WORK, Mr. Stephens tore into the loathsome health agency:

The C.D.C.’s increasingly mindless adherence to its masking guidance is none of those things. It isn’t merely undermining the trust it requires to operate as an effective public institution. It is turning itself into an unwitting accomplice to the genuine enemies of reason and science — conspiracy theorists and quack-cure peddlers — by so badly representing the values and practices that science is supposed to exemplify.
…If [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] ever wonders why respect for the C.D.C. keeps falling, she could look to herself, and resign, and leave it to someone else to reorganize her agency.
It’s true that the spineless Times was too chickenhearted to run this story in the Science section where it belongs, instead sequestering it in the Opinion pages. But it DID run the story. And there’s a surprising advantage to running it as an op-ed. As an opinion piece, it could be much more critical of the CDC and Rochelle Walensky, and could offer kind words for misinformers, like me.

Happy as I am to see this information penetrating the liberal strongholds, I have to say: do you have ANY idea how helpful something like this might have been back when I was arguing to judges about the masks? What I would give for a time machine.