Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds

All you have are holy links. All I need are these three sources:

1) Engineering specs of masks.
2) Size of viruses.
3) Basic mathematics.

Those three sources tell me that "masks work against viruses" is a BS claim.

 

What you are calling a BS study is a review of all relevant studies on masks. So it includes the data from the SINGLE study you claim debunks the review of 78 individual studies (including studies on N95 type masks).

The conclusions of the review are no surprise to me. I predicted this would be the case and I was one of only two or three PF members who wasn’t anti mask during the pandemic.

Masks CAN prevent infection. But only if they are used correctly. And masks were not only used incorrectly during Covid, they couldn’t have been used more incorrectly if we had tried. The problem isn’t with masks it’s with people. People who gave incorrect advice on masking and people stupid enough to take that advice even though it clearly conflicted with science.

The wrong masks were used in the wrong places at the wrong times. You can’t mandate mask usage in places infection is least likely to occur and never recommend mask usage where infection is most likely to occur and expect efficacy at the population level. It’s not possible. You can’t recommend ineffective masks while intentionally prohibiting the use of available effective masks and expect efficacy at the population level. It’s not possible. You can’t tell people ineffective masks protect them and others, leading to more social interactions than would occur otherwise and expect efficacy at the population level.

The public health community created an environment where it’s impossible for masking to have efficacy at the population level. Perhaps it was mass incompetence. Perhaps it was intentional. But it was anti science and I spent untold hours on PF trying to correct disinformation from the CDC etc. Unfortunately, government is more sacrosanct than science to the vast majority and we got this result. It’s sad public health entities failed to protect and instead destroyed public health.

 

They didn’t “get it wrong”. It was intentional.

 

Well I was replying to a particular poster who tries to divert mask talk by bringing up P100's, as if that had ever been the issue.

 

I hear you.

 

More Mask Masquerades

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Dr. Anthony Fauci is making the media rounds again, saying he hopes people will comply if mask recommendations return
• 
  
• In January 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered the wearing of masks on public transportation. A court order issued in mid-April 2022 ultimately blocked enforcement of the order. So, it has now been legally clarified that the CDC cannot mandate anything. They can only make recommendations, which Fauci also recently confirmed

• The 2023 Cochrane review of “Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses” found masking had no effect on confirmed infection rates. The review also found no difference between medical/surgical masks and N95/P2 respirators
• Fauci is still doubling down on masking, saying masks work “on an individual level” even though randomized controlled trials show it makes no difference on the population level
• If mask recommendations are renewed this fall, do not comply

From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. A virtuoso of contradiction, Dr. Anthony Fauci — then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a prominent face of the White House COVID-19 response team — publicly flip-flopped on the usefulness and need for masks multiple times.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...922&foDate=false&mid=DM1467457&rid=1918613836

 

The study I quoted was far more applicable. The BS study itself admitted it wasn't applicable because, as I quoted, there was poor adherence. You cannot conclude from studies with poor adherence the effects of masks, and the study even admitted this. The OP was a misuse of a very limited study (limited in the sense of answering the question of how effective masks are, at least). The study I quoted, did a much better job of answering the question. And the answer was it helped some, though certainly would have helped more if better masks and better masking was used.

 

Nah. Your study was over a short period of time before variants came on the scene. It is based on self reporting of mask use and infection.

The review you refer to as BS included RCTs as well as observational studies.

One observational study over a short time period is not more informative than a review of multiple RCTs. It might be better at confirming a bias, but that’s about it.

We do agree the advice given on masking was not based on science. That’s why there is such limited effects in all studies. If one is a fireman and wears bunker gear in the shower but not when fighting a fire, that firefighter is going to get burned. No two ways about it.

 

You're not looking at this deeply enough. The conclusion of the OP study is this: "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks."

The conclusion is that the data was inconclusive. It was inconclusive because of poor adherence and other factors. Basically, it's not useful for this purpose. I'll possibly get into the other study later, but countering this point of yours is easy. The OP study literally does not say anything about mask effectiveness. More concisely: Garbage in, garbage out. I am glad they were at least honest enough to acknowledge this in their conclusions, though.

 

Not deeply enough? LOL. I’m the guy who was telling folks they were wearing the wrong masks in the wrong places during the pandemic, not after it was over. In real time.

Both studies have limitations. All studies do. The limitations of your study are many. As are the limitations of the review. Both are good at emphasizing lack of adherence and improper material usage. That’s their strengths.

The point should never be that masks aren’t effective. The point taken from both your study and the review should be that masks are effective, but only if used in a manner in accordance with tenets of epidemiology.

No population level study should be used to show masks can’t be effective. I agree with you on that point. They should be used to show the problem is with human behavior and that if used properly they can protect the wearer and others. I repeatedly told people during the pandemic that masks CAN be effective but rarely are.

Both the review and your short study pre delta show us the potential for masks was squandered. I know you are used to arguing with folks who are anti mask. I’m not one of them. Again, I was one of only 2-3 PF members who is NOT anti mask. Even the most ardent mask nazis refused to follow the science on mask material and wearing behavior. That’s why all studies show so little effect when potential is so great. Even the most mask loving folks misused them in almost every conceivable way. That’s what we should focus on. Not the minuscule differences in results between studies.

 

Oh for CRIPES Sake, anyone who trusts anything GOVT pushes has got holes in their heads... ,

 

Key quote: "There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference." Do you agree or disagree?

 

How did you become "aware" of this?

 

Can you support this claim?

 

The author stated in an interview that masks don't work. His own work does not support this claim, as noted by the editor of the publication it was published in. I cited a study earlier that is against that claim. Other studies have either been limited/inconclusive (like his own) or have shown a variable benefit to masks. That's what I refer to.

 

I call you out again "Joyce Martino".

I call your words out as evidence of stereotypical Russian trolling/spam using Covid 19 as a cover.

You know where to find me.

https://www.hsaj.org/articles/16533

https://www.voanews.com/a/russian-anti-vaccine-disinformation-campaign-backfires/6318536.html

https://www.axios.com/2021/02/17/coronavirus-misinformation-china-russia-iran

 

False. You need more than those 3 things. You need the direction of the incoming droplet, the size of the vapor droplet carrying the virus and the source of the transmission (ie. is the host source actually wearing the mask). You also need to know the volume of virus within the area, whether it is indoors or outdoors.
1) Perhaps you think viruses travel perfectly orthoganal to the mask, magically weaving their way through the holes without contacting the fabric at all!
2) Perhaps you bizarrely think that masks offer zero protection!
3) Perhaps you don't understand the attractive forces involved.
“Electrostatic charge contributes as much as 95% of the filtration efficiency” Molina, A., Vyas, P., Khlystov, N., Kumar, S., Kothari, A., Deriso, D., ... & Prakash, M. (2020). Project 1000 x 1000: Centrifugal melt spinning for distributed manufacturing of N95 filtering facepiece respirators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13494. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13494.pdf
4) Perhaps you don't understand that two people wearing a mask increases the overall effectiveness.

 

Right, they don't work, not because they're not capable of filtering out the bugs, but because people constantly fiddle and adjust them because they are uncomfortable to wear and difficult to talk through, they give people rashes, they rarely fit properly so all the bugs that are on the outside of the mask get on your hands and fingers or you breath them into the cracks of a poor fit and eventually ends up in your mouth after you eat your bologna sandwich for lunch.

 

Correct observations. But that is only why they don't work as well as they could.

 

https://www.cfr.org/article/judging-how-us-states-performed-covid-19-pandemic-depends-metric

Hmmmm. Florida ranked 19, Massachusetts 22. It isn't just that Florida, that didn't follow the hysteria did better than Mass, which did: it is that it is even close. Our response to Covid was fueled by a hoax.

 

Then why were many N95 masks originally designed with exhaust valves to release exhaled air with less resistance?

 

They were originally designed for industrial use — mining, construction, and painting — to block out particulate matter.

 

Ummm. Not just industrial use. Many medical grade N95s being used in the healthcare professions pre-pandemic were valved.

The notion masks are to protect others but not the wearer is patently absurd. Valved masks to protect the wearer and be more comfortable to wear for long periods have existed in the healthcare arena for years before Covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/respirators/exhalationvalve/default.html

The reason masks are designed with valves to release unfiltered exhalations is because those masks weee designed to protect the wearer of the mask. I don’t know where this idea that masks are to prevent infection of others but not to protect the wearer came from, but it’s not based on science.

Of course now much evidence exists these valved masks aren’t effective for protector others. A sample from way back.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/11/new-airflow-videos-show-why-masks-exhalation-valves-do-not-slow-spread#:~:text=However, masks with exhalation valves,NIST research engineer Matthew Staymates.

Are you really a healthcare professional?

 

https://ge.usembassy.gov/meet-the-u-s-scientist-who-invented-the-n95-mask-filter/

“The N95 mask was originally designed for construction workers in dusty environments, where it could block microparticles.”

 

I agree N95 type masks were originally developed for non medical use. But even medical use masks early in the pandemic were designed with valves.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90496717/what-is-a-mask-valve-and-why-are-cities-banning-them

Why? Because masks are designed to protect the wearer. Always have been since their inception. That’s what I’m trying to explain to science deniers represented by posts such as this.

I’m glad we can agree the idea masks are not to protect the wearer, but only others is absurd and dangerous disinformation. Whether referring to original masks for industrial use or original designs for Covid (medical) use.

Do you share the opinion of ignorant SOBs on Fox or do you accept that masks are designed to protect only others? What were you told by your profession?