The article linked by ET explains it very well.
– “So why is Prof Heneghan conflating the two questions — whether masks protect the wearer, and whether masks prevent or reduce the spread of infection in the community — with the unvoiced implication of spread to others? That is a very political question, and the Spectator is a political magazine. You might wonder if the Spectator tends to the right-wing libertarian view, where government “edicts” are frowned upon as a breach of liberty. Making mask-wearing compulsory is such a breach, for example. You might even wonder if Prof Heneghan is looking for articles that support this view.
– It’s very clear, if you pay close attention to what the researchers described, and you understand how statistics “work”, you will come to entirely different conclusions to those described in Prof Heneghan’s article. But if you only read Prof Heneghan’s article you could come to the conclusions he does. This is another example of Fast and Slow Thinking in Politics (here) in action. Scientific papers by their very nature are turgid and indigestible; it takes effort to read them. Articles in the Spectator are for a general readership, where the readers do not stop to think or question things that seem so blatantly obvious. And so mischief and misunderstanding spreads.”
Nothingontop, I have come to the same conclusion as Factcheck.org. Do you claim that I too am being paid to lie? Do you claim that I am part of the conspiracy?