This isn't "Masks aren't 100% preventative", because that implies that masks other than N95 masks are at all preventative. They're not, they're 0% effective at protecting you from Corona. That's just the fact of the matter, they protect you about as much as the goggles protected Rainier Wolfcastle's eyes. Do they prevent the particles from escaping your mouth and into the wider world? Debatably not, the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine seems to be indicating that the masks themselves aren't really helping in that regard and that they may even cause infections to some degree due to improper handling of masks and other such carelessness. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
I would like to preface my reply by asking if you have a more recent article about masks. This is what I found: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-masks-on-or-off/ Based on this article from cebm, there is no research that puts the debate clearly on one side. Most of the tests indicate poor reporting, based on line 28. "[...]most of the trials were poorly reported and carried out during seasons of influenza-like illness when viral circulation is variable." The article also indicates that blind studies may have been impossible during the March trials. At the end of the article, the writer indicates that there is no definite answer as to whether masks do or don't work.
No more recent than that off the top of my head, all my recent stuff is about lockdowns and their effectiveness https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911 https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/07/was-...nds-stay-home-order-was-ineffective-12668944/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...says-lockdown-merely-delaying-inevitable.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ckdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-course-pandemic-JP-Morgan-study-claims.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53498133 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-lockdown-death-rates-us-study-a9635891.html https://time.com/5844768/peru-coronavirus/ (for anyone who wants to read those) Most of the trials were poorly reported, not all. As for the findings? It is incredibly unlikely, if not impossible, that they would or could completely rule out masks entirely, with the only likely outcomes being either "there is evidence to suggest that wearing masks is effective" or "we have not found any evidence to suggest that wearing masks is effective and we're still looking.", which the latter seems to be true in this case. You can't prove a negative, only a positive, so if by now they've found zero evidence of a positive it seems unlikely one is going to turn up at this late stage. By all means social distancing is effective, I won't question that, but masks by themselves don't protect against Corona, have zero proven benefits in any which way for preventing the spread of Corona by themselves, and can cause harm by people improperly using them.
OK, from all the nagging ranting about masks are 0% effective, I've got to chime in a cent too. You're basically saying that masks are ineffective because there are no "positives", yes? How would one test this? You would need to isolate a group of people and perform a spread test with an diseased person in the mix over a period of time. You can't just say because there aren't studies done, that it is 0% effective. Which study shows that it's ineffective? That's a guilty until proven innocent view that you're having with 0% leeway and no lawyers allowed. If something is in the air, a mask should stop it or at least deter it up to a certain degree. Saying a mask is 0% effective is like telling people gas masks are made up. They're heavy duty masks, but still something along the chain of escalation. I'm not saying everyone should wear gas/filter masks but something is something. If you wear nothing, you'll protect yourself against nothing. If you wear something, you'll protect yourself against SOMETHING. I'm not saying it's 100% effective in any way shape or form, but having a denier say that it's 0% effective is total bull. Ridiculous example for a ridiculous rant: If you wear a wetsuit, water does not flood your clothing as it sticks to your skin and doesn't allow for that to happen. You're dry under it. If you wear a shirt and jeans, water does flood your clothing. You're wet under it. If you wear nothing, you're at least not weighed down, but you're still fully exposed to the water and get wet. Exchange wetsuit for fitted mask and you've got the same principal. I mean, if you really want to be isolated, you could order a full body PPE set from CDC or your countries equivalent and enter a disinfectant chamber after every outing. You could even order a personal Mr. Raines type wheeled oxygen tank and scurry it around. Heck, you could put on a diving suit and helm and walk around in that.
Thanks for all the articles. It seems that there are too many problems, and not enough solutions. I just have one more question. If most masks are not effective, should people just not use masks when working or shopping?
Surprised that people on NU also claim that masks don't make any sense... To those wondering, wearing a mask for CoVid is like wearing a condom while having sex. Does it decrease the chance of having babies? Definitely. But is it 100% effective by itself? No. But does it mean you won't wear it for safety? Please use condoms while having sex. Similarly, masks provide you a better chance of staying safe. Anyone who would like to link articles countering this claim is requested to link up to academic articles, and not journalistic articles. Pop science is good for awareness, not for debate.
If you're coughing a lung out, by all means use a mask (ideally N95) or better yet stay at home. If it makes you feel better, feel free to use a mask. Just don't use a mask as a substitute for social distancing or think that you're now safe from Covid unless it's an N95 mask and don't use one with very poor hygiene practices and then Pikachu face me when it causes you problems.
Could you stop water with a chain link fence? How about 10 chain link fences stacked together in any way you like? By your logic it must be possible to scoop water up using a flat piece of chain link fence. What if you tried to cross a desert using a chain link fence to carry water for you as opposed to using a plastic bottle or simply staying at home? Let's say that the virus can get stuck to your mask: what's to stop a virus that you don't have from getting stuck to your mask and then through poorly taking care of said mask it's now kept pressed against your nose and mouth for X length of time. What I'm getting at here, is you can make a chain link fence damp and call that "something" for stopping water, but if you go around acting like it's a perfect solution for stopping water and treated it as all you needed then it will cause more problems than it 'solves'. Cloth masks make people feel unjustly safe and take risks they otherwise wouldn't take, while more than a few people don't keep their masks properly clean.
The problem with that analogy is that condoms are designed to prevent sperm from passing through them, cloth masks are certainly not designed to prevent Covid from passing through them. It would be like using a condom made out of paper instead of latex as your only protection and then acting surprised when you become a father. Only an N95 mask is the 'Latex Condom' of masks. By all means feel free to check out the articles from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine that were linked on the first page, or the video of two doctors and a professional mask fitter / tester discussing the effectiveness of masks and their purposes that was linked on the first page.
I feel like this is both correct and wrong. No mask can stop a virus. Rather, all masks try to prevent transport of respiratory droplets which are used by viruses to move from one person to another. Are cloth masks even useful at all? Yes. To put a graph like analogy, an N95 mask is expected to prevent 95% of the droplets from being released. An N60 mask goes down to about 60%. Now, what about a cloth mask? I don't want to put a statistic, but there is a definite improvement compared to no mask at all. Context: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252?goto=supporting-info Spoiler: Abstract The emergence of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system can result in a significant demand for face masks. This includes the use of cloth masks by large sections of the public, as can be seen during the current global spread of COVID-19. However, there is limited knowledge available on the performance of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks. Importantly, there is a need to evaluate filtration efficiencies as a function of aerosol particulate sizes in the 10 nm to 10 μm range, which is particularly relevant for respiratory virus transmission. We have carried out these studies for several common fabrics including cotton, silk, chiffon, flannel, various synthetics, and their combinations. Although the filtration efficiencies for various fabrics when a single layer was used ranged from 5 to 80% and 5 to 95% for particle sizes of <300 nm and >300 nm, respectively, the efficiencies improved when multiple layers were used and when using a specific combination of different fabrics. Filtration efficiencies of the hybrids (such as cotton–silk, cotton–chiffon, cotton–flannel) was >80% (for particles <300 nm) and >90% (for particles >300 nm). We speculate that the enhanced performance of the hybrids is likely due to the combined effect of mechanical and electrostatic-based filtration. Cotton, the most widely used material for cloth masks performs better at higher weave densities (i.e., thread count) and can make a significant difference in filtration efficiencies. Our studies also imply that gaps (as caused by an improper fit of the mask) can result in over a 60% decrease in the filtration efficiency, implying the need for future cloth mask design studies to take into account issues of “fit” and leakage, while allowing the exhaled air to vent efficiently. Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles.
http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com/download/whichmask.mp4 0% effective, vs 99% effective (if fitted properly).
I am neither telling you to wear chain mail nor your grans hand knitted socks or knickers on your face. Can you stop water with toilet paper? Yes. Can it last long and stop a lot of it? No. That's why there are estimates of recommended time for usage. Does that mean it's 0% effective? No. And having them repeat their stance while they wring&replace my words in their own deluded nonsense way is total bull. If you noticed, I mentioned shirt and jeans as one of the example. Let's change the format shall we? Because it seems you're having trouble processing common sense. Instead of submerging into water, imagine rainfall. Is that more imaginable for you?
How about you try to understand the core of my point instead of insults and coming up with more useless analogies? Masks are not a substitute for other measures like social distancing. People who treat them as such shouldn't wear one at all as the false confidence they give is harmful in those cases and they should go back to respecting social distancing if they can't manage both while keeping their masks properly cleaned. There it is as simply as I can make it.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ Oxford Study : "Masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers” ~ Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, July 23rd 2020.
Why would I have to understand the core of your point when you're arguing against the core of mine that doesn't encroach on yours in the least except to point out that your use of absolutes when saying it is 0% effective is bogus, total hogwash, bull excrement and to not hit back your manipulation of my words trying to victimize.
I am sorry mate, but if you read the paper I attached, check out the table. They have taken the efficiency for both when a mask is fitted properly vs not fitted properly. Doctors learn a lot of science, but they don't practice science. They practice it's application. The science itself comes from research, and such, purely medical doctors should not be considered to be academic experts for a purely scientific, and frankly statistical, matter. I honestly don't want to debate further about this topic. I hope that even if you don't wear a mask, you stay safe and manage to keep the folks around you safe. At the same time, do try to at least respect the legitimate concerns of others. If someone says they are not comfortable and would prefer some space, do give it to them!
A bunch of pen pushers in a laboratory vs the experts on the front line. Fine by me, trying to get my central point across here a futile task it seems. https://webmshare.com/play/rVK4N I'll just leave this here.
First, " Mask alone have no significant effect". This means that mask, in itself, does provides an effect, although the respective article stated that it is not significant if compares to a combination of mask and the proper self-protection procedure. This is, of course, based on an assumption that people use a proper mask in a proper and correct manner. Aside from that, in the middle of a global pandemic like this, this 'not significant' number might as well entails several hundred people. Second, As stated by the article that you've quoted, we are in need of further research regarding the effectiveness or the harm of using mask against Covid-19. Concrete evidence and data regarding covid 19 would probably only comes in several months or a year after this. But several studies have showed promising results regarding the usage of mask. Here's some snippets of them: " 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" - a recent entry published in Lancet " The reproduction or ‘R’ number – the number of people an infected individual passes the virus onto – needs to stay below 1.0 for the pandemic to slow. The study found that if people wear masks whenever they are in public it is twice as effective at reducing ‘R’ than if masks are only worn after symptoms appear. In all modelling scenarios, routine facemask use by 50% or more of the population reduced COVID-19 spread to an R less than 1.0, flattening future disease waves and allowing less-stringent lockdowns.” - an article about recent Cambridge studies" "one patient from Chongqing, China, did not wear a face mask in the first vehicle while wore a face mask in the second vehicle he took. One male patient with COVID‐19 found himself coughing. Unaware of the fact that he might have been infected with COVID‐19 and in a hurry, he did not manage to get a face mask before he took the coach bus from the city back to his county. Many passengers did not wear face masks on the same coach bus. The duration of this bus was 2 hours and 10 minutes, and there were 39 other passengers on the same coach bus. According to epidemiological survey, 5 other passengers on the same coach bus were infected. Upon arrival in the county, this male patient bought a face mask and took a minibus to his final destination wearing the mask. The duration of minibus was 50 minutes, and there were 14 other passengers on the same minibus. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention conducted an epidemiological investigation and close contact tracing management. The passengers on the minibus were screened and treated as suspected cases. A 14‐day medical observation period was conducted. During the observation period, passengers were taken temperature twice a day and and were asked whether they had respiratory symptoms such as fever and dry cough, or digestive symptoms such as diarrhea. All the passengers did not have fever, cough, or other abnormal symptoms, and two quantitative reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (qRT‐PCR) test results were negative. No passengers were infected COVID‐19 in the same minibus" - COVID‐19: Face masks and human‐to‐human transmission. Published in Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, vol 14 iss 4. "The rationale of public mask wear is to reduce community transmission from infected individuals, who can be pre‐symptomatic or asymptomatic but still be shedding virus and are therefore contagious. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation of mask wear by symptomatic persons and their contacts only may therefore be inadequate. Countries and cities, such as South Korea and Hong Kong, which adopted universal mask wear have much lower COVID‐19 incidence, an indirect evidence of its efficacy."- Universal public mask wear during COVID-19 pandemic : rationale, design and acceptability. Publishes in Respirology, vol. 28 iss. 5 Third, Your statement is quite questionable regarding the data about the usage of mask in cases of influenza, assuming that we're talking about "normal" influenza in here. Sunjaya and Jenkins in their paper stated that there is limited evidence from studies of other respiratory infections such as the avian influenza and seasonal influenza that homemade masks confer some degree of efficacy, ranging around 40–95% which although inferior to medical masks but certainly better than no masks at all. Another study shows that wearing face mask and using hand sanitizer shows a lower ILI in influenza, further info check here. And although it can't completely prevent influenza virus, it's seems that surgical mask still offer some filtration compared to using no mask, as can be found here. In conclusion, although further research are still required, initial studies shows that properly wearing a mask is more beneficial than wearing no mask at all. Especially, coupled by the proper "new normal" measures such as physical distancing and so on. And by the way, these "pen-pushers" that you're talking about has always provides interesting findings and novel innovations in many rigorously-selected, carefully peer-reviewed, highly prestigious international journals you knoww~ Have a nice day