Latest 'Gold Standard' Review Puts The Final Nail In The Coffin For Masks

I said most aren't. Are you disputing that?

 

Oh well let's just change the argument to what they were doing in hospitals, since your argument would work nowhere else.

Hospital workers didn't avoid getting sick. They got sick quite often.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002809/

Look at pictures from everywhere but hospitals.

 

Are you arguing for me now?

I'm just enjoying you trying to pantomime us into "people were wearing these, no, really they were".

 

You think all these people are stupid...?

Beside the point. I wouldn't require masks.

 

That doesn't mean the good PPE some wore wasn't protective.

So, people don't like wearing masks. I'm not suggesting we demand they wear one. I can't speak for private employers and private business.

 

Oh well if a few people were wearing $100 respirators then logically the other 99.9% of cloth diaper wearers were just fine too.

I mean logically if hospitals were wearing their space suits, as evidenced by generic photos for patients with unknown medical issues, then clearly everyone else was protected by osmosis.

You got anything to rebut the actual argument?

I'll post it again for you.

"Interestingly, 12 trials in the review, ten in the community and two among healthcare workers, found that wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to influenza-like or COVID-19-like illness transmission," writes Tom Jefferson, a British epidemiologist and co-author of the Cochrane Library's new reporton masking trials. "Equally, the review found that masks had no effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza or SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Five other trials showed no difference between one type of mask over another."...

https://reason.com/2023/02/07/masks-covid-dont-work-cochrane-library-review-mandate/

 

The fact of the matter is the general public wasn't wearing them. So those are completely irrelevant.

Why do I care who you say you talked to?
You don't care what I saw I don't give a rip about who you spoke to

 

You like pics? I got pics.

Let's play "Where's 3M?" It's kind of like "Where's Waldo?".

 

All of this is just blather that I have already countered. You continue to deny mathematics, engineering specs, the size of viruses, the size of fine aerosols, the fact that said aerosols evaporate, and that viruses can and do exist outside of droplets and aerosols (and can do so for hours, and even past a day in the right conditions).

 

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

One of your favorites.

 

Do you have a study dealing with P100 or N100 respirators. 95% vs 99.97% is significant.

 

You forget I already dealt with the BS you're repeating.

 

You try and try.




All the healthcare personnel wearing respirators. Why?

 

How could I have missed that!

1. "OPINION CORONAVIRUS

Once and for all: Masks reduce the risk of spreading COVID
OPINION: A new review suggests masks don’t work in the community. But there are issues with its methodology and assumptions"
From your link

 

Has wearing the mask kept you healthy?

 

How would I be able to judge? I don't think I've had covid, but I can't know that, either.

When I wear a "mask," I use this P100 respirator...



... but I don't always wear a "mask."

 

Committing logical fallacies is not "dealing with it", dude.

 

Your issue, not his.

RQAA. (repetitive question already answered)

 

He is a Cult of the Mask member, so he will fervently believe (against all science, math, logic, engineering specs, etc) that his ceremonial garb is benefiting him.

 

So why are you even bothering with it at all?

So why worry about it?

For something so mild that you don't even know whether you've had it or not, why do you bother with a mask?

Why even bother with one at all? I'd think you'd either always wear it or never wear it, not just "pick and choose"...

 

lol, only in your mind. You are simply wrong about evaporation transmission and generally how infection works.

 

How is that Scott Morefield's piece isn't more than an opinion piece? Morefield wrote "The Cochrane Review's latest examination of a plethora of masking and other Covid intervention studies conducted before and during the Covid-19 pandemic should put the final nail in the coffin of the belief that widespread masking could have altered the trajectory of the outbreak.". There is absolutely nothing in the Cochrane review that supports his comment regarding widespread masking. This is his opinion.

The link I provided unpicked the meaning of the Cochrane review in a much more unbiased manner by looking at what was and what wasn't included, meaning, other possible conclusions etc. (here is a link to the original article -- https://theconversation.com/yes-mas...ovid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992). It may be just opinion but it is based on other research, science and critical thinking.

The Cochrane review states:

• No firm conclusions can be drawn related to bias, variation in outcome measurements, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies (as in people didn't follow instructions, people didn't wear their masks as requested, people didn't wear them properly... )
• There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. What they are saying is that the true effect of face masks may be different from the observed estimates of the effects. They aren't saying masks don't work.
• They state that there is a need for large well-designed studies that address many of the interventions directed at decreasing virus transmission in multiple settings and populations as well as the impact of adherence of effectiveness.

From the link I provided, it’s obvious that there are problems with the review’s methodology and its assumptions about transmission. The Cochrane review is also opinion related to the research they looked at. Science allows scrutiny and questioning.

The article that I linked to states that a meta-analysis should only be done if the research being analyzed addresses the same research question. The recent Cochrane review has failed to do so.

I believe the article that I provided made some very good points -- like the difference between the use of respirators (N95s) and surgical masks. Both have different functions and different efficacy. The respirators like N95 fit close to the face and are engineered to do more than filter -- see this video on how they work --



The N95s do much more than filter and cut out 95% or more of potential infectious particles (watch video linked to above). Surgical masks are loose fitting and air leaks through gaps, so obviously less effective but that doesn’t make them ineffective. They are not regulated like the N95s.

So how does one actually study if surgical vs N95 vs N100 masks would be effective in decreasing the number of covid cases within the population? The best way to come to a conclusive answer would be unethical. You would have to have different groups assigned to different mask types and you would have to have a large enough sample to make the results meaningful. You would have to make sure each group was wearing their assigned mask in the proper manner. Then they would have to expose all these people to the same amount of coronavirus and then measure how many from each group got infected and so on. There would be a huge number of variables to control for and of course risking the death of a small percentage of them. Then of course you would have to have a control group(s) with no virus present as well.

Obviously, this can't be done so researchers have to rely on studies that don’t control the variables, use different mask types, and where the subjects have low adherence. They use a lot of estimates. There should also be some credence given to epidemiological statistics and real world data from the pandemic. They fail to include statistics where masking is prevalent and has been for years.

As the link I provided stated, the Cochrane review combined RCT's where face masks or respirators were worn part of the time to RCT's where they were worn all the time. What does that say. Well, it supports the fact if you are only wearing a mask for a short time, you are more likely to become infected than if you are wearing them all the time. This was related to health care workers and basically to be protected, it is better to wear masks all the time.

It has been repeatedly shown that N95 respirators provide significant protection against respiratory infections over surgical masks. Have there been any community studies where one part of the population wore only N95 masks and the other was to wear surgical masks to see any difference in the number of infections?

There have been RCT's within communities that have found face masks reduce the risk of infection:

A large RCT in the community in Bangladesh found that face masks reduced the risk of infection by 11 per cent overall and 35 per cent in people over 60 years. In contrast, in hospitals, N95s reduce risk by 67 per cent against bacterial infections and 54 per cent against viral infections.

Is this anything akin to a final nail in any coffin? It's not an all or none proposition. Masks assist in decreasing exposure to virus particles, that’s obvious. An eleven percent reduction within a large group of people is something and certainly shows masking did have an effect. The people in Bangladesh were instructed on proper mask use.

The article that I provided also discussed the idea that in a study of masking, where you know some people aren't wearing a mask, you can't conclude masks don't work when the study shows no difference between the groups. You can conclude that mask advice didn't work, as they said. Would a study include people in their results of a drug study who chose not to take the drug when they were in the group being given the drug. No, they would have to be analyzed as part of the placebo group.

The authors state that mask-wearing goes up substantially, to over 70 per cent, if there is an actual mandate in place. The problem with this, how can you conclude masks did or didn't make a difference? If the numbers show no difference, the next thing would be to consider why. How many people were wearing surgical masks as opposed to N95, how many people were wearing them properly, what environments were taken into account, were they wearing them all the time, etc, etc, etc. What percentage were infected? Were they doing any other interventions? Were there no differences due to masks not working or due low adherence, or due to improper wear. You can’t just automatically make assumptions.

They also stated that:

a comprehensive review of the evidence would also include other types of study besides RCTs. For example, a large systematic review of 172 various study designs — which included 25,697 patients with SARS-CoV-2, SARS, or MERS — concluded that masks were effective in preventing transmission of respiratory viruses.

Well-designed real-world studies during the pandemic showed that any mask reduces the risk of COVID transmission by 50 to 80 per cent, with the highest protection offered by N95 respirators.

Many lab-based studies have shown that respirators are superior to masks at preventing airborne respiratory infections and indicated the incremental superiority from a single- to a two-layered cloth mask to a three-layered surgical mask in blocking respiratory aerosols.

The person who wrote his biased opinion piece related to the final nail in the coffin totally ignores that masks are important protection against serious infections for individuals and the population as a whole.

There have been real world examples that masks have been helpful in decreasing transmission within communities. This data is useful:

• A large, well-designed cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh in late 2020 found that surgical or cloth mask distribution, role-modeling, and active mask promotion tripled mask use to 42.3% in intervention villages compared to 13.3% in comparison villages. In villages receiving mask interventions, symptomatic seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by approximately 9% relative to comparison villages. In villages randomized to receive surgical masks, symptomatic seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was significantly lower (relative reduction 11.1% overall). The results of this study show that even modest increases in community use of masks can effectively reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19).

Can you imagine the decrease if they had all been provided with N95 masks?

• A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk of infection.
• In a study of 124 Beijing households with > 1 laboratory-confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mask use by the index patient and family contacts before the index patient developed symptoms reduced secondary transmission within the households by 79%.
• A study examining SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rates among eight public K-12 school districts in Massachusetts (70 schools with >33,000 enrolled students) during the 2020–21 school year found an unadjusted secondary attack rate of 11.7% for unmasked versus 1.7% for masked interactions.
• A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.
• In a nationwide analysis of data collected during July 1-September 4, 2021, U.S. counties without school mask requirements experienced larger increases in pediatric COVID-19 case rates (18.53 per 100,000 per day more cases) after the start of school compared with counties with school mask requirements.
• An investigation of a high-exposure event in the U.S., in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.
• Investigations involving infected passengers aboard flights longer than 10 hours strongly suggest that masking prevented in-flight transmissions, as demonstrated by the absence of infection developing in other passengers and crew in the 14 days following exposure.

These are just a few real world examples that show masking does make a difference. No nails in coffins here.

Scott Morefield is a biased idiot. He seems to be under the belief, as some in this thread seem to be, that the concept of masking relates to absolute prevention rather than risk reduction. They lump all masks as being the same. I see so many refusing to use a mask or denigrate their use simply because a mask is not one hundred percent effective. That's idiotic and it's idiotic to believe that masks are ineffective and have no effect on transmission. People take cholesterol medication to reduce the chances of having a heart attack. Condoms are used to decrease the chances getting STD's and for pregnancy prevention even though they are not 100 percent effective. People wear seat belts in order to decrease the chance of dying in a car accident even though people die while wearing seat belts. Nothing is 100 percent, not even masks. The point is that they provide a barrier to decrease the chance of infection and they do.

As already said:

The stupidity of the statement below is obvious when some critical thinking is applied.

The Cochrane Review's latest examination of a plethora of masking and other Covid intervention studies conducted before and during the Covid-19 pandemic should put the final nail in the coffin of the belief that widespread masking could have altered the trajectory of the outbreak.

Widespread masking likely would have altered the trajectory of the outbreak if certain things had been made known to the world sooner. I would say that if another pandemic occurs, if governments were to provide some rational guidance to the population regarding masks, there would be less transmission. Information should include:

• the necessity of wearing a mask and the rationale for doing so
• selection of the proper masks
• how to properly wear a mask
• use of the mask in different situations
• disposing of the mask
• and other prevention and control measures that should not be neglected.

It's also important to understand there isn't just one measure that can provide complete protection to the public. I work in the medical field so I truly understand the value of masks, how to wear them, when to wear them, what type to choose and all the other things that might help decrease chance of infection. I wore a mask shopping etc even before the pandemic was officially announced. I remember the government giving no advice about masks except to wear one and then waffled about the need because there might be a shortage for health care professionals. I remember a stupid waitress constantly pulling her mask down when speaking to us, a lady removing her mask to cough all over some produce, people only covering their mouths, people wearing them below their chins, contaminating their hands while removing and all that stuff. Why, because no advice was given. So it's no wonder, masking seemed not to have much of an effect on transmission but who can say conclusively with such bad adherence and improper use. And then you have idiots like Morefield making unfounded and biased statements. Real world examples show otherwise.

 

Here, I found a study that found a way around the limitations of the Cochrane study that shows masking is effective (while explaining why mask mandates don't have an easily measurable effect).

Mask wearing in community settings reduces SARS-CoV-2 transmission | PNAS

quick summary with quotes:

"We find that population mask wearing notably reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission (mean mask-wearing levels corresponding to a 19% decrease in R). We use the largest wearing survey (n = 20 million) and obtain our estimates from regions across six continents. We account for nonpharmaceutical interventions and time spent in public, and quantify our uncertainty. Factors additional to mask mandates influenced the worldwide early uptake of mask wearing...
...
studies in community settings report inconsistent results [H. M. Ollila et al., medRxiv (2020); J. Brainard et al., Eurosurveillance 25, 2000725 (2020); T. Jefferson et al., Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11, CD006207 (2020)]. Most such studies focus on how masks impact transmission, by analyzing how effective government mask mandates are. However, we find that widespread voluntary mask wearing, and other data limitations, make mandate effectiveness a poor proxy for mask-wearing effectiveness...
...
Epidemiological studies often use government mask mandates as a proxy for mask wearing. However, the existing literature on the relationship between mandates and actual levels of mask wearing has shown surprisingly weak effects. For example, studying US states, ref. 22 failed to find a statistically significant relationship between mandates and subsequent wearing,
...
There are several limitations to this analysis: Our wearing data are a proxy for true levels of wearing, and additionally do not capture changes in the quality of mask use, or the heterogeneity in mask type or venue. This is of particular concern at high levels of self-reported wearing: At 100% self-reported wearing, any additional benefit in wearing (quality of mask, frequency of use, and venue) is impossible to capture with these data. Moreover, it is difficult to untangle voluntary wearing from wearing caused by mandates.
"

 

Much better than cloth FWIW. Any downside to use?
And how often do you have to clean it?

 

There has been a lot to be afraid of during C19 affair. Fear sells.

“Shortly after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, markets collapsed and economies around the world plunged into recession.”

“One year later, things couldn’t be more different: a record 493 new billionaires joined the list this year, propelled by a red-hot stock market and unprecedented economic stimulus. Among those newcomers are at least 40 new entrants who draw their fortunes from companies involved in fighting Covid-19. Some, such as Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and BioNTech cofounder Uğur Şahin, have become household names thanks to the vaccines they helped develop. Others got rich making everything from personal protective equipment and diagnostic tests to antibody treatments and software that helps authorities schedule vaccination campaigns, which will be essential in reopening economies and returning to normal life.”
FORBES, Meet The 40 New Billionaires Who Got Rich Fighting Covid-19, By Giacomo Tognini, Forbes Staff, BILLIONAIRES 2021, Apr 6, 2021. (emphasis mine)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacom...o-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=2192c24d17e5