Wow, fantastic article. Well resourced and good discussion. I’ve found anyone arguing in favor of masks fall back on Petri dish experiments with masks and completely ignore the application Aspect, of which we have ample data on now (that they choose to ignore or hide)
Except the sourced studies were very poor and the author got basic information wrong. For example, the meta analysis wasn't even a meta analysis by their own admission and hand selected only 12 studies out of 279 papers, including an under-powered study and one from 1918.
The other problem, is I've personally read papers that the author denies exists, such as a study which looked at the protective efficacy of masks when worn while a family member is sick. I actually read that study and it clearly showed that among the families with mask adherence there was a greatly reduced risk of contracting the flu. These studies he mentioned also didn't address the multiplicative effectiveness of masks or "herd immunity", which many studies have found. Rather, they only looked at a few inconclusive studies which attempted to determine whether wearing a mask protects the wearer. This doesn't necessarily relate to the effectiveness of mask use as public policy, and even the review he linked admitted that there is evidence for this.
He also got the basic material science on masks wrong, claiming that small particles can not be stopped because masks are rated for pm2.5 sized particles, analogous to a strainer. The reality is masks are most effective at stopping very small particles and very large particles due to electrostatic forces. It's actually the PM2.5, medium sized particles which are hardest to stop because they are small enough to fit through fibers while being large enough that they can escape electrostatic forces, which is why masks are bench-marked in pm2.5.
There are some other fallacies, such as minimum effective dose, which I won't get into, but suffice to say the larger the inoculate, the more likely you are to get sick and the higher the chance of developing serious symptoms. Also, it ignores the math of epidemiology. In other words, you don't need to prevent all infections to wipe out a disease. You only need to reduce its transmission rate below 1, meaning the average infected person infects on average less than 1 new person. Drawing an example, that means if combined measures reduce the transmission of a disease with a transmission rate of 2 by 60%, you would not simply have 60% fewer cases, you would essentially eliminate community spread as new infections trend towards zero.
In summary, the thesis that "The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses" is patently false, and even the linked studies do not make that assertion.
In summary: You complain about sources yet you cite none.
And you literally are proving my point that your arguing mechanisms without (1) data that shows masks significantly reduce infection rate in the population (2) is a result of a asymptomatic carriers wearing said masks and (3) results in fewer deaths in the population being studied as a DIRECT result of the illness.
Masks reduce the chance of contracting a respiratory infection by up to 80% for the wearer. These are some studies I went through several months ago, there are many more now but I don't feel like spending my evening collecting links which you could find yourself if you actually bothered looking.
Home-made cloth masks reduce permeation even of tiny 0.02 µm–1 µm particles by 50%, with surgical masks reducing permeation by 75% even during real-world activities.
Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection.
Surgical masks prevent the wearer from being infected when living with someone who has the flu.
In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious.
role of facemasks and hand hygiene in the prevention of influenza transmission in households: results from a cluster randomised trial; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22280120
Results suggest that household transmission of influenza can be reduced by the use of NPI, such as facemasks and intensified hand hygiene, when implemented early and used diligently.
Hand hygiene and facemasks seemed to prevent household transmission of influenza virus when implemented within 36 hours of index patient symptom onset.
These findings suggest that face masks and hand hygiene may reduce respiratory illnesses in shared living settings and mitigate the impact of the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic.
a 50% compliance in donning the device resulted in a significant (at least 50% prevalence and 20% cumulative incidence) reduction in risk for fitted and unfitted N95 respirators, high‐filtration surgical masks, and both low‐filtration and high‐filtration pediatric masks.
An 80% compliance rate essentially eliminated the influenza outbreak.
The sensitivity analysis after excluding the trial by Loeb et al18 showed a significant effect of N95 respirators on preventing respiratory viral infections (RR=0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.98, P < .05). A similar effect was observed for surgical masks.
Quality commercial masks are not always accessible, but anecdotal evidence has showed that handmade masks of cotton gauze were protective in military barracks and in healthcare workers during the Manchurian epidemic.
study helps to establish that in developing countries, where resources could be a constraint for providing disposable face masks, the fabric face masks can also be used equally effectively
N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Surgical masks are effective for bacteria NOT viruses. This is precisely why they have never been recommended for flu like viruses. These studies you cited are the type of scientifically poor studies the University of Minnesota talked about.
Or we could do it the old fashioned way and let the healthy in society get it 1st...if you think everyone is going to wear a mask, not touch their face, and wear it correctly youbare delusional...mask mandates have exacerbated the spread by giving people a false sense of security
the whole "masks make people behave with more risk" is an old debunked lie, and in real terms it means you'd rather people stay home than go to work and go about their business. If that were remotely true it would have spread like wildfire through countries with high mask use, but it hardly spread at all, causing very few fatalities in masked countries.
And like I said, you fundamentally misunderstand epidemiology. You only need to reduce risk, not eliminate all transmission to eliminate a disease. Vaccines aren't 100% effective either, they work because they reduce the transmission rate below 1, so it burns out and cannot survive in a community rather than growing exponentially. Whether or not all people avoid touching their face is inconsequential, any virus particles on the mask rather than in your lungs translates to a reduction in the probability of infection. When multiplied by a population this reduces the transmission rate - and this has been employed highly successfully in every one of the most successful countries which have controlled the pandemic with reliable data. This is basic math, logic, and months of empirical data from many countries.
I think HCQ should be made OTC and preventing doctors from prescribing medicine is a perfect example of government overreach.
The media should be shamed for how they covered HCQ. It's one of the biggest scandals that nobody really talks about because the guilty parties own the platforms. The mass media and silicon valley tech-monopolies are enemies of the people.
So youre saying touching your face an average of 16 times an hour with a mask on isnt acting with increased risk? And do you think people are properly washing their masks or using surgical masks for the recommended 30-60 minutes before disposing of them?
Increasing risk relative to not wearing the mask? Absolutely not, that makes no logical sense. The virus primarily replicates through ACE2 receptors, which are mostly found in your lungs. A virus particle that ends up on the surface of your mask is a virus particle that you would have inhaled. A virus that lands on your mask and is picked up on your fingers and then breathed in from your finger or rubbed into your eyes is a lot smaller risk than directly breathing in that viral particle.
And do you think people are properly washing their masks or using surgical masks for the recommended 30-60 minutes before disposing of them?
Again, epidemiology is about reducing risk to lower the rate of transmission over a population. Workplace guidelines are about providing the absolute lowest acceptable risk for the individual.
I live across the street to a major hospital and I don't know a single doctor who wouldn't laugh off the assertion that masks don't work. Heck, I don't know a single person in real life who wouldn't laugh at that. This is only a political issue in the west and it's pretty apparent to me from the outside looking in that the west has been played for the purpose of economic sabotage. Conflicting, misleading, and bad coverage of mask use is not a mistake. Originally it was mostly assumed to be about protecting mask supplies, but I think there is a good chance it's about economic and political sabotage. Trump does not benefit from the pandemic being prolonged and worsened by widespread disinformation on masks, and Trump himself has said he would wear a mask if those around him weren't regularly tested. Not sure why this of all issues is still so prevalent.
I can tell you know how to read and understand scientific papers, and I've combed through a lot of them myself.
The precise problem here isn't lack of data, rather the challenhe is to apply the data in proper context. Both sides get this confused.
Medical masks do physically block viruses, and it does seem that they can stop viral transmission in certain controlled situations, but what's happening right now is universal mask application throughout the day "in the wild".
There are a lot more variables in that equation than filtering efficiencies and isolation of a single sick family member.
Just one example out of many is how universal mask use may weaken the immune system overall because it reduces antigen/pathogen exposure. Basically, everyone's immune systems get rusty. This sort of ill effect may negate or even outweigh the benefits.
Adult conversation, supplied loads of citation as requested, dont see the point in down voting. Wish more conversations resulted in this regardless of the topic or agreement. So thanks for that.
data that shows masks significantly reduce infection rate in the population
I figured I would address this individually as I've been in Asia during the pandemic. Rather than rehashing what I wrote several months ago, I'll just quote my original comment from 2 months ago.
The virus hasn't been able to take hold of fully masked populations. I call that a pretty easy solution. There's no country which has full make use where the virus had continued out of control.
Let me break it down so you can understand:
Yesterday there was about:
1 new case in Taiwan,
20 in Hong Kong,
200 in Japan,
40 in Korea
They have been fully back to business as usual for months. Taiwan and Japan never really even locked down at all.
Total population: 210 million
Total new cases: about 260
Now compare that with the US, where people still refuse to wear masks.
Total population 330 million
Total new cases: 46,000 new cases in the US.
46 thousand versus less than 300 per day. Trump himself said that he would now wear a mask if he wasn't tested daily along with everyone he meets. The disinformation and conflicting news which you have bought into was spread by the media, the WHO, the CDC, and Fauci (who was a Clinton supporter). They are yanking the public back and forth with conflicting opinions and information to try and create chaos in order to make it impossible to stop the pandemic before the election and you are playing into their hands. The evidence is crystal clear if you could step out of your bubble.
In summary, I think you've fallen for anti-mask disinfo meant to be economic sabotage on the west and initially spread through the WHO.
I was walking past a lady at least 4 to 5 feet apart and I could smell her perfume. At that moment I realized the virus could also pass through my mask. Duh.
Yet our betters will make sure we'll be wearing masks for decades to come...
I'm betting against our 'betters'.
Wow, fantastic article. Well resourced and good discussion. I’ve found anyone arguing in favor of masks fall back on Petri dish experiments with masks and completely ignore the application Aspect, of which we have ample data on now (that they choose to ignore or hide)
We have u/Hempaid to thank for this contribution.
Except the sourced studies were very poor and the author got basic information wrong. For example, the meta analysis wasn't even a meta analysis by their own admission and hand selected only 12 studies out of 279 papers, including an under-powered study and one from 1918.
The other problem, is I've personally read papers that the author denies exists, such as a study which looked at the protective efficacy of masks when worn while a family member is sick. I actually read that study and it clearly showed that among the families with mask adherence there was a greatly reduced risk of contracting the flu. These studies he mentioned also didn't address the multiplicative effectiveness of masks or "herd immunity", which many studies have found. Rather, they only looked at a few inconclusive studies which attempted to determine whether wearing a mask protects the wearer. This doesn't necessarily relate to the effectiveness of mask use as public policy, and even the review he linked admitted that there is evidence for this.
He also got the basic material science on masks wrong, claiming that small particles can not be stopped because masks are rated for pm2.5 sized particles, analogous to a strainer. The reality is masks are most effective at stopping very small particles and very large particles due to electrostatic forces. It's actually the PM2.5, medium sized particles which are hardest to stop because they are small enough to fit through fibers while being large enough that they can escape electrostatic forces, which is why masks are bench-marked in pm2.5.
There are some other fallacies, such as minimum effective dose, which I won't get into, but suffice to say the larger the inoculate, the more likely you are to get sick and the higher the chance of developing serious symptoms. Also, it ignores the math of epidemiology. In other words, you don't need to prevent all infections to wipe out a disease. You only need to reduce its transmission rate below 1, meaning the average infected person infects on average less than 1 new person. Drawing an example, that means if combined measures reduce the transmission of a disease with a transmission rate of 2 by 60%, you would not simply have 60% fewer cases, you would essentially eliminate community spread as new infections trend towards zero.
In summary, the thesis that "The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses" is patently false, and even the linked studies do not make that assertion.
In summary: You complain about sources yet you cite none.
And you literally are proving my point that your arguing mechanisms without (1) data that shows masks significantly reduce infection rate in the population (2) is a result of a asymptomatic carriers wearing said masks and (3) results in fewer deaths in the population being studied as a DIRECT result of the illness.
Masks reduce the chance of contracting a respiratory infection by up to 80% for the wearer. These are some studies I went through several months ago, there are many more now but I don't feel like spending my evening collecting links which you could find yourself if you actually bothered looking.
National Institutes of Health http://archive.is/5Vm12
International Journal of Infectious Diseases http://archive.is/1Mwcb
role of facemasks and hand hygiene in the prevention of influenza transmission in households: results from a cluster randomised trial; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22280120
Facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households: a cluster randomized trial.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19652172
Mask use, hand hygiene, and seasonal influenza-like illness among young adults: a randomized intervention trial.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20088690
Journal of the American Medical Association http://archive.is/cvUQ7
National Institutes of Health http://archive.is/GMOaG
Emerging Infectious Diseases (the journal of the CDC) http://archive.is/spCh6
Modeling the Effectiveness of Respiratory Protective Devices in Reducing Influenza Outbreak https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30229968/
Influenza Virus Aerosols in Human Exhaled Breath: Particle Size, Culturability, and Effect of Surgical Masks https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6993921/
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jebm.12381
Simple Respiratory Mask https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3373043/
What Hospitals Should Do to Prepare for an Influenza Pandemic https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/bsp.2006.4.397
How effective are face masks in operation theatre? A time frame analysis and recommendation https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788/7862
N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2749214
Surgical masks are effective for bacteria NOT viruses. This is precisely why they have never been recommended for flu like viruses. These studies you cited are the type of scientifically poor studies the University of Minnesota talked about.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
Or we could do it the old fashioned way and let the healthy in society get it 1st...if you think everyone is going to wear a mask, not touch their face, and wear it correctly youbare delusional...mask mandates have exacerbated the spread by giving people a false sense of security
the whole "masks make people behave with more risk" is an old debunked lie, and in real terms it means you'd rather people stay home than go to work and go about their business. If that were remotely true it would have spread like wildfire through countries with high mask use, but it hardly spread at all, causing very few fatalities in masked countries.
And like I said, you fundamentally misunderstand epidemiology. You only need to reduce risk, not eliminate all transmission to eliminate a disease. Vaccines aren't 100% effective either, they work because they reduce the transmission rate below 1, so it burns out and cannot survive in a community rather than growing exponentially. Whether or not all people avoid touching their face is inconsequential, any virus particles on the mask rather than in your lungs translates to a reduction in the probability of infection. When multiplied by a population this reduces the transmission rate - and this has been employed highly successfully in every one of the most successful countries which have controlled the pandemic with reliable data. This is basic math, logic, and months of empirical data from many countries.
And you’re forgetting weighting factors. Here in the US many people weigh personal liberty a lot higher than some epidemiology study.
We value options, not mandates. HCQ = option. Mask requirement = mandate
I think HCQ should be made OTC and preventing doctors from prescribing medicine is a perfect example of government overreach.
The media should be shamed for how they covered HCQ. It's one of the biggest scandals that nobody really talks about because the guilty parties own the platforms. The mass media and silicon valley tech-monopolies are enemies of the people.
So youre saying touching your face an average of 16 times an hour with a mask on isnt acting with increased risk? And do you think people are properly washing their masks or using surgical masks for the recommended 30-60 minutes before disposing of them?
Increasing risk relative to not wearing the mask? Absolutely not, that makes no logical sense. The virus primarily replicates through ACE2 receptors, which are mostly found in your lungs. A virus particle that ends up on the surface of your mask is a virus particle that you would have inhaled. A virus that lands on your mask and is picked up on your fingers and then breathed in from your finger or rubbed into your eyes is a lot smaller risk than directly breathing in that viral particle.
Again, epidemiology is about reducing risk to lower the rate of transmission over a population. Workplace guidelines are about providing the absolute lowest acceptable risk for the individual.
I live across the street to a major hospital and I don't know a single doctor who wouldn't laugh off the assertion that masks don't work. Heck, I don't know a single person in real life who wouldn't laugh at that. This is only a political issue in the west and it's pretty apparent to me from the outside looking in that the west has been played for the purpose of economic sabotage. Conflicting, misleading, and bad coverage of mask use is not a mistake. Originally it was mostly assumed to be about protecting mask supplies, but I think there is a good chance it's about economic and political sabotage. Trump does not benefit from the pandemic being prolonged and worsened by widespread disinformation on masks, and Trump himself has said he would wear a mask if those around him weren't regularly tested. Not sure why this of all issues is still so prevalent.
I can tell you know how to read and understand scientific papers, and I've combed through a lot of them myself.
The precise problem here isn't lack of data, rather the challenhe is to apply the data in proper context. Both sides get this confused.
Medical masks do physically block viruses, and it does seem that they can stop viral transmission in certain controlled situations, but what's happening right now is universal mask application throughout the day "in the wild".
There are a lot more variables in that equation than filtering efficiencies and isolation of a single sick family member.
Just one example out of many is how universal mask use may weaken the immune system overall because it reduces antigen/pathogen exposure. Basically, everyone's immune systems get rusty. This sort of ill effect may negate or even outweigh the benefits.
Adult conversation, supplied loads of citation as requested, dont see the point in down voting. Wish more conversations resulted in this regardless of the topic or agreement. So thanks for that.
I figured I would address this individually as I've been in Asia during the pandemic. Rather than rehashing what I wrote several months ago, I'll just quote my original comment from 2 months ago.
The virus hasn't been able to take hold of fully masked populations. I call that a pretty easy solution. There's no country which has full make use where the virus had continued out of control.
Let me break it down so you can understand:
Yesterday there was about:
1 new case in Taiwan, 20 in Hong Kong, 200 in Japan, 40 in Korea
They have been fully back to business as usual for months. Taiwan and Japan never really even locked down at all.
Total population: 210 million
Total new cases: about 260
Now compare that with the US, where people still refuse to wear masks.
Total population 330 million
Total new cases: 46,000 new cases in the US.
46 thousand versus less than 300 per day. Trump himself said that he would now wear a mask if he wasn't tested daily along with everyone he meets. The disinformation and conflicting news which you have bought into was spread by the media, the WHO, the CDC, and Fauci (who was a Clinton supporter). They are yanking the public back and forth with conflicting opinions and information to try and create chaos in order to make it impossible to stop the pandemic before the election and you are playing into their hands. The evidence is crystal clear if you could step out of your bubble.
In summary, I think you've fallen for anti-mask disinfo meant to be economic sabotage on the west and initially spread through the WHO.
I was walking past a lady at least 4 to 5 feet apart and I could smell her perfume. At that moment I realized the virus could also pass through my mask. Duh.