Originally posted by dadudemon
So as we can see from my post, the actual research does not support mask wearing as an effective measure to halt the spread of the coronavirus and other respiratory illnesses.Consider that the recommendations from the WHO and CDC have changed multiple times on mask wearing.
But don't take my word for it, take Dr. Fauci's word for it:
Originally posted by dadudemon
And for those who may be science deniers, here's the best research on whether or not masks really can prevent respiratory illnesses (the answer is a solid no with the data pointing, in some cases, to situations where it increases the chances for respiratory illnesses):
Don't fall for the junk science where people put masks on and cough on a petri dish - that's not real world science. Real world science measures actual outcomes with random controlled trials among a representative population sample. [/B][/QUOTE]
You should probably cite more recent and more relevant studies. Like ones actually involving Covid-19 studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/
A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients
The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks;_pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.
The use of face masks was protective for both health-care workers and people in the community exposed to infection, with both the frequentist and Bayesian analyses lending support to face mask use irrespective of setting
These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations._
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301
Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis
This meta-analysis of the 21 studies provided the latest state-of-art evidence on the efficacy of masks in preventing the transmission of RVIs. Our data show that the protective effects of masks against RVIs were not only significant for both HCWs and non-HCWs, but also consistent between Asian and Western populations
Originally posted by dadudemon
So as we can see from my post, the actual research does not support mask wearing as an effective measure to halt the spread of the coronavirus and other respiratory illnesses.Consider that the recommendations from the WHO and CDC have changed multiple times on mask wearing.
But don't take my word for it, take Dr. Fauci's word for it:
Okay, but back in May (the same month) he also said this:
And in June he said this:
So which is it?
Because TBH, if I can't be sure of either, wearing a mask really seems like the lesser or two evils here.
Originally posted by -Pr-Yeah, but that's because you have common sense, tbh, WHO has been pretty consistent re masks and I think Fauci would have been, except... politics.
Okay, but back in May (the same month) he also said this:And in June he said this:
So which is it?
Because TBH, if I can't be sure of either, wearing a mask really seems like the lesser or two evils here.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0👆 I don't get DDM and his gaslighting. It is almost Ethneo level of stupid some of the stuff he is pushing now. Also most of the stuff he propagates are dated studies from 2011, or specialised examples like aerosol droples which face shields and masks in combination are most effective in dealing with. Gaslighting of the highest order. Ush would ban people for this tbh. Good thing tkmes change.
Don't fall for the junk science where people put masks on and cough on a petri dish - that's not real world science. Real world science measures actual outcomes with random controlled trials among a representative population sample.
You should probably cite more recent and more relevant studies. Like ones actually involving Covid-19 studieshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301
Originally posted by -Pr-
Okay, but back in May (the same month) he also said this:And in June he said this:
So which is it?
Because TBH, if I can't be sure of either, wearing a mask really seems like the lesser or two evils here.
Easy, stay with the science:
From the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:
curated by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Note: A COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers (μm); influenza virus size is 0.08 – 0.12 μm; a human hair is about 150 μm.
*1 nm = 0.001 micron; 1000 nm = 1 micron; Micrometer (μm) is the preferred name for micron (an older term)
1 meter is = 1,000,000,000 nm or 1,000,000 microns
Droplets
Virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. Larger respiratory droplets (>5 μm) remain in the air for only a short time and travel only short distances, generally <1 meter. They fall to the ground quickly. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
This idea guides the CDC’s advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance.
Virus-laden small (<5 μm) aerosolized droplets can remain in the air for at least 3 hours and travel long distances. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?articleTools=true
Air currentsIn air conditioned environment these large droplets may travel farther.
However, ventilation — even the opening of an entrance door and a small window can dilute the number of small droplets to one half after 30 seconds. (This study looked at droplets from uninfected persons). This is clinically relevant because poorly ventilated and populated spaces, like public transport and nursing homes, have high SARS-CoV-2 disease transmission despite physical distancing. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
Objects and surfacesPerson to person touching
The CDC’s most recent statement regarding contracting COVID-19 from touching surfaces: “Based on data from lab studies on Covid-19 and what we know about similar respiratory diseases, it may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose or possibly their eyes,” the agency wrote. “But this isn’t thought to be the main way the virus spreads. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0522-cdc-updates-covid-transmission.html.
Chinese study with data taken from swabs on surfaces around the hospital
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885_article?deliveryName=USCDC_333-DM25707
The surfaces where tested with the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, which greatly amplifies the viral genetic material if it is present. That material is detectable when a person is actively infected. This is thought to be the most reliable test.
Computer mouse (ICU 6/8, 75%; General ward (GW) 1/5, 20%)
Trash cans (ICU 3/5, 60%; GW 0/8)
Sickbed handrails (ICU 6/14, 42.9%; GW 0/12)
Doorknobs (GW 1/12, 8.3%)
81.3% of the miscellaneous personal items were positive:
Exercise equipment
Medical equipment (spirometer, pulse oximeter, nasal cannula)
PC and iPads
Reading glasses
Cellular phones (83.3% positive for viral RNA)
Remote controls for in-room TVs (64.7% percent positive)
Toilets (81.0% positive)
Room surfaces (80.4% of all sampled)
Bedside tables and bed rails (75.0%)
Window ledges (81.8%)
Plastic: up to 2-3 days
Stainless Steel: up to 2-3 days
Cardboard: up to 1 day
Copper: up to 4 hours
Floor – gravity causes droplets to fall to the floor. Half of ICU workers all had virus on the bottoms of their shoes
Filter Efficiency and Fit*Data from a University of Illinois at Chicago review
HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters – 99.97 – 100% efficient. HEPA filters are tested with particles that are 0.125 μm.
Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles)
N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret (a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge. An electret generates internal and external electric fields so the filter material has electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes. As flow increases, particles will be collected less efficiently.
N95 – A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained.
But even these have problems: many have exhalation valve for easier breathing and less moisture inside the mask.
Surgical masks are designed to protect patients from a surgeon’s respiratory droplets, aren’t effective at blocking particles smaller than 100 μm. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VLXWeZBll7YJ:https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/957730O/respirators-and-surgical-masks-contrast-technical-bulletin.pdf+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min.
N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected).
T-shirts had 10% efficiency,
Scarves 10% to 20%,
Cloth masks 10% to 30%,
Sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and
Towels 40%.
All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.
Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm).
N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%.
Medical masks – 55% efficiency
General masks – 38% and
Handkerchiefs – 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.
Conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.
N95 masks protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control transmission.
Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients.
Cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as personal protective equipment (PPE).
“Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn’t they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”*The first randomized controlled trial of cloth masks. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was 97% and medical masks 44%, 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%), 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%).
Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.
The virus may survive on the surface of the face- masks
Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. A contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.
Cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
*A study of 4 patients in South Koreahttps://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish. “Both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
*Singapore Study – Few people used mask correctly
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601
Overall, data were collected from 714 men and women. About half the sample were women and all adult ages were represented. Only 90 participants (12.6%, 95% CI 10.3%-15.3%) passed the visual mask fit test. About three-quarters performed strap placement incorrectly, 61% left a “visible gap between the mask and skin,” and about 60% didn’t tighten the nose-clip.
*A 2011 randomized Australian clinical trial of standard medical/surgical masks
Medical masks offered no protection at all from influenza.
Conclusions from Organizations
The World Health Organization (WHO):
“Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings
As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.”
“Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take masks away from those in health care who need them most, especially when masks are in short supply.”
“Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.”
WHO acknowledges that most people do not use masks properly.Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0131-2019-novel-coronavirus.html
“We don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness,” said on January 31. “And we certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new virus.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/maskguidance.htm
In March 5, 2019 regarding the flu: “Masks are not usually recommended in non-healthcare settings; however, this guidance provides other strategies for limiting the spread of influenza viruses in the community:
cover their nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing,
use tissues to contain respiratory secretions and, after use, to dispose of them in the nearest waste receptacle, and
perform hand hygiene (e.g., handwashing with non-antimicrobial soap and water, and alcohol-based hand rub if soap and water are not available) after having contact with respiratory secretions and contaminated objects/materials.
From the New England Journal of Medicinehttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
Final Thoughts
Surgical masks – loose fitting. They are designed to protect the patient from the doctors’ respiratory droplets. The wearer is not protected from others airborne particles
People do not wear masks properly. Most people have the mask under the nose. The wearer does not have glasses on and the eyes are a portal of entry.
The designer masks and scarves offer minimal protection – they give a false sense of security to both the wearer and those around the wearer.
**Not to mention they add a perverse lightheartedness to the situation.
If you are walking alone, no mask – avoid folks – that is common sense.
Remember – children under 2 should not wear masks – accidental suffocation and difficulty breathing in some
If wearing a mask makes people go out and get Vitamin D – go for it. In the 1918 flu pandemic people who went outside did better. Early reports are showing people with COVID-19 with low Vitamin D do worse than those with normal levels. Perhaps that is why shut-ins do so poorly. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v4
If you are sick, stay home!
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
No more junk science, right?
I see wearing masks as a sign that you've fallen for the placebo.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
👆 I don't get DDM and his gaslighting. It is almost Ethneo level of stupid some of the stuff he is pushing now. Also most of the stuff he propagates are dated studies from 2011, or specialised examples like aerosol droples which face shields and masks in combination are most effective in dealing with. Gaslighting of the highest order. Ush would ban people for this tbh. Good thing tkmes change.
Originally posted by dadudemonDisagree, I feel the studies propagated by Jaden, myself and others are more valid than studies from 2011.
To the above posts I made, this is why the science should always be based on real-world outcomes that are RCTs and not selective research with suggestions.Actual outcomes.
You have a large body of science that is no better than junk science.
And then RCTs that are representative.
Originally posted by -Pr-
You say that like yours is the only valid example.And that worries me, tbh.
I'd be worried to if I didn't read anything I just posted and called it "only valid example."
Unless, of course, I was seeking out a confirmation bias and didn't want to read what I just posted.
Edit - Do you understand why only RCTs should be used for this, especially when completing a meta-analysis?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd be worried to if I didn't read anything I just posted and called it "only valid example."Unless, of course, I was seeking out a confirmation bias and didn't want to read what I just posted.
Edit - Do you understand why only RCTs should be used for this, especially when completing a meta-analysis?
I actually did read what you posted, but thanks for being presumptuous nonetheless.
I understand why they're important, yes, but not why you think they're the only valid method of analysis.
Originally posted by dadudemon*Cringe*
I'd be worried to if I didn't read anything I just posted and called it "only valid example."Unless, of course, I was seeking out a confirmation bias and didn't want to read what I just posted.
Edit - Do you understand why only RCTs should be used for this, especially when completing a meta-analysis?
Originally posted by jaden_2.0👆 because such an RCT would pur people at risk. Obviously.
Probably because they didn't know a lot about this particular virus and there still needed to be large scale meta-analysis done on previous studies of similar viruses.Even now the biggest meta study isn't conclusive and it went through 170+ previous and recent studies and came to the conclusion that different types of masks help to differing degrees, more so if implemented with some degree of social distancing but that the analysis had a low certainty rating because none of the studies were randomised control trials (which you couldn't do ethically with people anyway)
Originally posted by -Pr-👆
I actually did read what you posted, but thanks for being presumptuous nonetheless.I understand why they're important, yes, but not why you think they're the only valid method of analysis.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I actually did read what you posted, but thanks for being presumptuous nonetheless.
I didn't make any presumptions. I was basing it off of your post where you said the following:
Originally posted by -Pr-
You say that like yours is the only valid example.
When there was not a singular example but a massive list of studies and an emphasis by me to look for quality RCT research.
The fact that you referred to it as a single example would lead any reasonbile person to conclude that you didn't read my multiple posts and included studies.
If we could just consider it a linguistic misunderstanding, then why did you make a singular reference twice in the same post?
"only"
"example"
When you use those words, there is no reasonable conclusion to make other than the fact that you simply did not read my posts, which is large aggregation of various research, because of your use singular-wording usage.
If I am wrong and you were referring to multiple posts and multiple studies I have posted with singular references, my apologies. But that does not seem like a reasonable conclusion for anyone to make based on the wording you used.
Do you agree my conclusion from your post is reasonable?
Originally posted by -Pr-
I understand why they're important, yes, but not why you think they're the only valid method of analysis.
Not me who thinks they are important, the entire medical community.
Random Controlled Trials are the gold standard for science:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235704/
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are prospective studies that measure the effectiveness of a new intervention or treatment. Although no study is likely on its own to prove causality, randomization reduces bias and provides a rigorous tool to examine cause-effect relationships between an intervention and outcome. This is because the act of randomization balances participant characteristics (both observed and unobserved) between the groups allowing attribution of any differences in outcome to the study intervention. This is not possible with any other study design.In designing an RCT, researchers must carefully select the population, the interventions to be compared and the outcomes of interest. Once these are defined, the number of participants needed to reliably determine if such a relationship exists is calculated (power calculation). Participants are then recruited and randomly assigned to either the intervention or the comparator group.1 It is important to ensure that at the time of recruitment there is no knowledge of which group the participant will be allocated to; this is known as concealment. This is often ensured by using automated randomization systems (e.g. computer generated). RCTs are often blinded so that participants and doctors, nurses or researchers do not know what treatment each participant is receiving, further minimizing bias.
RCTs can be analyzed by intentionto-treat analysis (ITT; subjects analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized), per protocol (only participants who completed the treatment originally allocated are analyzed), or other variations, with ITT often regarded least biased. All RCTs should have pre-specified primary outcomes, should be registered with a clinical trials database and should have appropriate ethical approvals.
RCTs can have their drawbacks, including their high cost in terms of time and money, problems with generalisabilty (participants that volunteer to participate might not be representative of the population being studied) and loss to follow up.
Why is this important for respiratory infections and masks? Because we could be, over and over again, measuring any other variable besides masks. Refer to the study that reviewed flights and COVID-19 infections.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.20143826v2
Recent research results and data generate the approximation that, when all coach seats are full on a US jet aircraft, the risk of contracting Covid-19 from a nearby passenger is currently about 1 in 7,000. Under the middle seat empty policy, that risk falls to about 1 in 14,000. Risks are lower in flights that are not full.
If you'll notice, there's nothing about a mask in this study. But it was recently used to support the notion that masks should be used on flights. That makes little sense. This is also why the RCT would have been a far more effective research tool in this case especially if part of the study was mask wearing and types of masks. It's very difficult to design RCTs but in this case, you could easily do so with willing airlines with sampling personnel at the ingress and egress points of the flights including measures to remove bias from the sample taking (to make it legitimate RCT).
But what will get your goat about that study: if everyone is required to wear a mask, then why do fewer people on a flight reduce infections when they are no where near 6 feet apart? Is it possible that infections occur during close proximity regardless of mask wearing? According to the science, yes. The masks are ineffective and it is frequent close proximity that is the problem. The evidence is in for social distancing but not masks.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't make any presumptions. I was basing it off of your post where you said the following:When there was not a singular example but a massive list of studies and an emphasis by me to look for quality RCT research.
The fact that you referred to it as a single example would lead any reasonbile person to conclude that you didn't read my multiple posts and included studies.
If we could just consider it a linguistic misunderstanding, then why did you make a singular reference twice in the same post?
"only"
"example"
When you use those words, there is no reasonable conclusion to make other than the fact that you simply did not read my posts, which is large aggregation of various research, because of your use singular-wording usage.
If I am wrong and you were referring to multiple posts and multiple studies I have posted with singular references, my apologies. But that does not seem like a reasonable conclusion for anyone to make based on the wording you used.
Do you agree my conclusion from your post is reasonable?
Not me who thinks they are important, the entire medical community.
Random Controlled Trials are the gold standard for science:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235704/
Why is this important for respiratory infections and masks? Because we could be, over and over again, measuring any other variable besides masks. Refer to the study that reviewed flights and COVID-19 infections.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.20143826v2
If you'll notice, there's nothing about a mask in this study. But it was recently used to support the notion that masks should be used on flights. That makes little sense. This is also why the RCT would have been a far more effective research tool in this case especially if part of the study was mask wearing and types of masks. It's very difficult to design RCTs but in this case, you could easily do so with willing airlines with sampling personnel at the ingress and egress points of the flights including measures to remove bias from the sample taking (to make it legitimate RCT).
But what will get your goat about that study: if everyone is required to wear a mask, then why do fewer people on a flight reduce infections when they are no where near 6 feet apart? Is it possible that infections occur during close proximity regardless of mask wearing? According to the science, yes. The masks are ineffective and it is frequent close proximity that is the problem. The evidence is in for social distancing but not masks.
You know what, I did misspeak, so I apologise. I actually did read your posts (the last couple of pages worth at least).
I assume you'll now apologise for being so high and mighty in your reply?
The sad thing is, I actually want you to be right. It would save me a whole lot of concern of worry because I actually am massively at risk of catching this disease.
And to go down the CDCs page on recommending masks:
Considerations for Wearing Cloth Face Coverings
Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19
Here is a breakdown of all the research they cited for their page:
1. Rothe C, Schunk M, Sothmann P, et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(10):970-971.This study is about transmission from one person exposed to four people- “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.” There is nothing in this study about masks related to benefits or risks of wearing one.
2. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(12):1177-1179.
This study is about viral load in 17 patients: “We analyzed the viral load in nasal and throat swabs obtained from the 17 symptomatic patients in relation to day of onset of any symptoms”. There is nothing in this publication to support or evaluate healthy people wearing masks.
3. Pan X, Chen D, Xia Y, et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2020.
You can kind of tell by the title of this study but their conclusion: “To prevent and control this highly infectious disease as early as possible, people with family members with SARS-CoV-2 infection should be closely monitored and examined to rule out infection, even if they do not have any symptoms. In the case of this family, since the time between presentation and identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection was short, more studies are needed to observe the symptoms and test results of infected individuals in greater detail.” Again, there is nothing in the study that supports the use of wearing a mask!
4. Bai Y, Yao L, Wei T, et al. Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020.
Yet another study that has nothing to do with healthy people wearing masks. “A familial cluster of 5 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Anyang, China, had contact before their symptom onset with an asymptomatic family member who had traveled from the epidemic center of Wuhan.”
5. Kimball A HK, Arons M, et al. Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility — King County, Washington, March 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020; ePub: 27 March 2020.
This analysis suggests that symptom screening could initially fail to identify approximately one half of SNF residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Unrecognized asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections might contribute to transmission in these settings. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, SNFs and all long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2, including restricting visitors except in compassionate care situations, restricting nonessential personnel from entering the building, asking staff members to monitor themselves for fever and other symptoms, screening all staff members at the beginning of their shift for fever and other symptoms, and supporting staff member sick leave, including for those with mild symptoms.”
This citation (read it here) again provides no evidence that healthy people wearing masks prevents the spread of infection or that wearing masks is a safe and effective measure.
6. Wei WE LZ, Chiew CJ, Yong SE, Toh MP, Lee VJ. Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore, January 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020;ePub: 1 April 2020.
I know you will be shocked to learn that yet again the CDC is citing research that offers no science to support healthy people wearing masks. “Investigation of all 243 cases of COVID-19 reported in Singapore during January 23–March 16 identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases.”
7. Li R, Pei S, Chen B, et al. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science (New York, NY). 2020.
The transmission rate of undocumented infections per person was 55% the transmission rate of documented infections (95% CI: 46-62%), yet, because of their greater numbers, undocumented infections were the source of 79% of the documented cases. These findings explain the rapid geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 and indicate that containment of this virus will be particularly challenging.”
Ready for the shocker? You already guessed what it is? Right. Nothing about the safety or effectiveness of wearing a mask in Study #7 either.
So what have we established? That the CDC’s change in recommendations about mask wearing is based on nothing more than that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible, something every scientist who studies viruses already knew. I’m sure the CDC realizes that most people won’t take the time to actually read the science. But I do.
As you can see, none of these seven studies supports that wearing a mask is effective or safe in preventing transmission. They only support that transmission is person to person and this is the case for numerous viruses.
https://jennifermargulis.net/healthy-people-wearing-masks-during-covid19/
Originally posted by dadudemonJust wow... really DDM. ❌
And to go down the CDCs page on recommending masks:Here is a breakdown of all the research they cited for their page:
https://jennifermargulis.net/healthy-people-wearing-masks-during-covid19/
Originally posted by -Pr-
You know what, I did misspeak, so I apologise. I actually did read your posts (the last couple of pages worth at least).
That's all you'd need to read, then. Any other study that does not use RCTs runs the risk of measuring other variables and self-reporting/testing bias.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I assume you'll now apologise for being so high and mighty in your reply?
I apologize for being high and mighty in my reply. I consistently see people try to participate in these discussions while ignoring the actual content of posts. So I always am skeptical of the honesty of people participating when it seems they dismissive.
Originally posted by -Pr-
The sad thing is, I actually want you to be right. It would save me a whole lot of concern of worry because I actually am massively at risk of catching this disease.
Based on the quality research available to us, the results are in for social distancing but not masks including N95 masks. Just avoid people.
In an extremely controlled study:
In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7153751/
And the findings were so disturbing that the editors forced them to retract the study with the excuse of that the researchers did not express results with a Limit of Detection value. The researchers collected additional data with the LoD corrections: the editors still refused to allow the study to be updated with better data that accounted for LoD.
Who would be comfortable publishing highly controlled research that shows COVID-19 is readily found on both the outside and inside of masks? With how often people are messing with their masks and then touching other things, the results speak to a very shitty scenario and ethics would come into question.