In May, Wisconsin had its own test of mask effectiveness, when 'we went from masks, to no masks, and there (was) no significant difference in cases.
Masks have become the center of political debate in Wisconsin, with Republican lawmakers going after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' mask order in court. While some GOP lawmakers acknowledge mask-wearing can help in the fight against the spread of the coronavirus, they have generally opposed any mandate for them. That includes state Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), who in an Oct. 11, 2020, appearance on WKOW's Capital City Sunday show offered this argument: 'According to what the governor is saying, logic would tell us, if we are wearing masks, we should see a reduction in cases if we went into, you know, from no masks to a mask. Or, if we went from a mask mandate to no masks, the governor's logic would mean that we should see a significant decrease in cases. 'Well, we've actually had that test take place, because back in May, the Legislature did not implement the mask mandate after it went away. And if you look at the numbers, we went from masks, to no masks, and there's no significant difference in cases.' We've looked at the science behind mask wearing, rating False a claim from a GOP Assembly member that wearing masks had been 'proven ineffective.' But in this case, it's less a science question than a history lesson. Is Kapenga right that in May 'we went from masks, to no masks, and there (was) no significant difference in cases'? In a word: No. Kapenga off with his timeline When asked for backup for the claim, Kapenga's office said the senator was referring to the natural experiment that took place when the state was placed under lockdown and what happened once Evers' stay-at-home order was lifted. But that stay-at-home order, which began in March and ran until blocked by the Supreme Court in May, did not include a mask mandate. The governor's mask mandate did not begin until Aug. 1, and remains in effect. Indeed, it's the very thing Republicans are in court fighting now. On Oct. 12, 2020, St. Croix County Circuit Judge R. Michael Waterman denied a motion to suspend the mask mandate. That measure has been appealed. While we are looking here at the timeline claimed by Kapenga, it's worth a brief look at his broader argument -- that, if the mandate were successful, it should have resulted in sudden and dramatically lower case counts. 'In the roughly ten and a half weeks since the first mask mandate was enacted, the average daily positive test rate and the daily positive case rate have risen faster than when the state had no mandate or lockdowns,' Kapenga said in the email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. But that suggests that the mask mandate is being strictly followed, when in many parts of the state it is being largely ignored -- including at campaign rallies for Trump. And it ignores the fact that case counts have stayed lower in Milwaukee County, where the City of Milwaukee instituted a mask ordinance weeks earlier. And that in other states, a drop in cases did follow the institution of mask orders.
Our ruling Kapenga claimed that in May, Wisconsin effectively had a test of mask effectiveness when 'we went from masks, to no masks, and there (was) no significant difference in cases.' But Kapenga has his orders and lawsuits wrong. What was lifted in May, under a Republican lawsuit that went to the state Supreme Court, was Evers' stay-at-home order. The governor's mask mandate did not begin until Aug. 1, and remains in effect. We rate this claim False.
115234-proof-16-60568a04ea75ada8ae866aa95537fa62.jpg