Preface. The use and requirements of masks have become incredibly political and partisan. Unfortunately, far too much of science, knowledge, journalism, and even epistemology are becoming political.
The following is presented as is, for information only. — charles rotter
Guest post by Leo Goldstein.
Abstract
A survey of peer-reviewed studies shows that universal mask wearing (as opposed to wearing masks in specific settings) does not decrease the transmission of respiratory viruses from people wearing masks to people who are not wearing masks.
Further, indirect evidence and common sense suggest that universal mask wearing is likely to increase the spread of COVID-19.
This paper agrees that wearing masks in specific settings (such as healthcare facilities) achieves protective effects, although the masks should not be home-made, must be worn correctly, replaced frequently, and not overestimated.
Theory
Introduction
Recently, the CDC has recommended universal mask wearing (UMW) in public settings. Some state governments have even issued orders mandating near-universal mask wearing. The recommendations apply to cloth mask, including disposable masks from non-woven materials, not surgical masks.
The UMW recommendation is expressed in (Brooks et al., “Universal Masking to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Transmission—The Time Is Now,” 2020) co-authored by CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, and on the CDC website (CDC, “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19),” 2020). The CDC website states:
“CDC recommends that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings and when around people who don’t live in your household… Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. Cloth face coverings are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings.
Cloth face coverings are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the cloth face covering coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control.”
Notice the expression “may help prevent.” This kind of expression is used in the marketing of echinacea and similar products, and it is effectively a non-statement alongside “may not help” or “may harm.” Unfortunately, “may help” is widely used as an affirmative recommendation for universal mask wearing.
When Masks are Useful
In many situations, wearing a face mask is certainly an effective source control measure. Mask wearing for infection source control is firmly established in some medical procedures. For example, surgeons wear surgical masks during procedures to protect patients’ open body cavities from infection via germs from the surgeon’s mouth and nose. Surgeons have to change their masks at least hourly and between patients[LG1] (Kelsch, “Changing Masks,” 2010). Other professional examples include hairstylists, massage therapists, and nail technicians working with clients. Such uses are collectively referred to here as “Situation A.”
The next level of mask wearing includes patients waiting in clinics or undergoing certain procedures as well as people visiting nursing homes et cetera. The common feature of these situations is that people wear masks for short periods of time, with a clear purpose and sometimes under medical personnel’s supervision. This might be called “Situation A— “.
Some people might voluntarily wear masks in public settings to protect themselves and others. Such uses are referred to here as “Situation B.” On such uses, professional opinions differ. Some institutions (including the CDC and the US Surgeon General) say the benefits of Situation B mask wearing are uncertain and that harm may result from these uses because members of the general public might be unable to properly wear and handle masks.
Notice the differences between Situations A and B. When professionals (like surgeons) wear masks during a professional activity (like surgery), they:
- Are trained and used to wearing masks.
- Handle masks properly (including masks’ replacement, disposal, and disinfection).
- Wear masks for a specific task and a short amount of time.
- Use masks to protect against the forward spread of the germs. Surgical and cloth masks do not protect against germs spreading in other directions.
Members of the public, however, are likely not trained in proper mask wearing and handling—despite good intentions. A mask’s usefulness and potential dangers depend highly on the wearer’s actions.
When people are forced or even subtly encouraged to wear masks for long periods, they wear masks differently. Some people position their mask to cover only their mouth but not their nostrils, though nostrils have higher viral concentration, see Leung et al. below. Some people frequently remove and replace their masks. When removing their masks, some people fold or roll masks so that the interior and exterior sides come into contact. Some people drop their masks into a purse, pocket, or glove box only to use them again at their next stop. After a few cycles, the masks’ interior and exterior become interchangeable. Even if a wearer has no infection, their mask can pick up coronavirus and other germs from the air and from dust particles. These masks can then spread the virus because every time the wearer exhales, the coronavirus and any other germs that have accumulated in the mask spread into the air. This kind of masking wearing is referred to here as “Situation C.”
When people are told to wear masks in specific situations to protect vulnerable individuals—for example, in pharmacies, nursing homes, and medical buildings—most people are careful to follow rules and recommendations. However, when people are ordered to wear masks everywhere and all the time, proper mask use and handling become significantly less probable. It is possible to enforce mask wearing, but it is impossible to enforce proper mask handling.
Mask Effects
The coronavirus spreads via droplets and aerosols that are exhaled by contagious persons with or without symptoms. Technically, it is also transmitted by fomites, but fomites originate in exhaled droplets and aerosols. In the best-case scenario, a cloth mask catches large droplets and some of the forward-moving aerosol. Neither surgical nor cloth mask restrains aerosols from escaping at the sides, top, and bottom of the mask.
Masks redirect aerosol flow to all sides. Though we take protective measures, none of these measures protect against viral-loaded aerosols—especially when they can settle downward from above. For example, we know not to sneeze or cough in other people’s direction. And recently, we have also become accustomed to keeping six feet of distance away from others in a frontal arc. Moreover, clerks, cashiers, and other service providers are usually protected by plexiglass barriers. But because these measures fail to protect against viral-loaded aerosols, even ideally worn and cared-for masks might cause more harm than benefits.
Additional Downsides of Wearing a Mask during the COVID-19 Outbreak
All masks make breathing more difficult, requiring more effort to inhale and exhale and potentially causing more viral load to be expelled into the air. Moreover, when a non-contagious person wears a cloth mask, his or her mask accumulates the coronavirus and other germs from the environment. If a contagious person wears a cloth mask, the mask also accumulates some viral load with each breath, and soon, it might discharge more viral load with each exhalation than the contagious person would otherwise exhale—and in more directions.
Masks cause heavier, deeper, and more forceful breathing as well as straining—all of the attributes believed to have caused exceptionally bad outcomes in the case of a church choir in Seattle (Read, “A choir decided to go ahead with rehearsal. Now dozens of members have COVID-19 and two are dead,” 2020). Deeper breathing allows the coronavirus to go deeper into the lungs, causing infection to take hold faster. The article explains:
“Jamie Lloyd-Smith, a UCLA infectious disease researcher, said it’s possible that the forceful breathing action of singing dispersed viral particles in the church room that were widely inhaled.”
As of now, hundreds of thousands of people are breathing similarly forcefully through masks in public spaces, and other people are inhaling what mask wearers expel. Read’s article contains another illustrative passage:
“Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech and an expert on airborne transmission of viruses, said some people happen to be especially good at exhaling fine material, producing 1,000 times more than others.”
This finding had been described in an unrelated study (Edwards et al., “Inhaling to mitigate exhaled bioaerosols,” 2004).
The Math of Viruses and Cases
The idea that cloth masks can significantly decrease transmission of the coronavirus faces a mathematical challenge. Viral load, or titer, is usually expressed as log10 of the number of viruses per unit of volume, and it is the best unit for estimating a virus’s ability to infect people. On the log10 scale, an emission decrease like 40% hardly registers. The same is true of a 60% increase. Unfortunately, masks can cause much higher emissions. A virus-contaminated mask worn by a healthy person, shedding viruses during breathing, would increase the viral load in a room from 0 to a non-zero level that may be sufficient to infect another person.
Literature Review
Unsurprisingly, academic literature shows an absence of benefits for universal mask wearing as source control and does not address the possible harms.
(Xiao et al., “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures,” May 2020) is the only systematic revie[LG2] w focusing on whether face masks decrease the transmission of viral respiratory disease in a nonhealthcare setting. With a focus on source control, the authors find that masks cannot decrease transmission in this context—or, at least, cannot have a significant effect—and that masks might even increase transmission. There is no reason to believe the results for COVID-19 differ from the results for influenza.
(Martin,” Response to Greenhalgh et al.,”2020) deserves to be quoted here:
“First, the evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in reducing viral transmission is very weak. Few studies examine the use of face masks in community settings; those that do find no evidence of reduced transmission compared with no face masks. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: both recent systematic reviews cautiously suggest that in some circumstances, wearing of face masks may be warranted. They also note, however, the absence of systematic study of harms.”
(MacIntyre et al., “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers,” 2015) is not directly relevant here because they investigate mask wearing for wearers’ protection. Nevertheless, they find that for healthcare workers, wearing cloth masks is worse than not wearing any masks. Wearing surgical masks was beneficial in the study.
References on the CDC website and in Brooks et al.
This subsection covers all the references in the CDC recommendations and Brooks et al. (the CDC team). Many sources address asymptomatic and aerosol transmission of the Wuhan coronavirus, which are not in doubt anymore, so they are left out here. The rest of the sources include some anecdotal cases, examples of lab-tested masks or mask fabrics, and studies showing masks’ effectiveness in hospital settings, followed by attempts to extrapolate these results for universal mask wearing. Many studies, or their interpretations, combine multiple fallacies.
Healthcare workers and patients wearing masks in hospital undoubtedly decreases virus transmission. However, this effect cannot be generalized to make a case for universal mask wearing. But (Wang et al., “Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers,” 2020) miss an elephant in the room. The drop in new infections started before their implementation of masks, probably because healthcare workers started taking hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis See(Goldstein, “JAMA Rejected my Comment on Masks and HCQ,”2020). The effectiveness of COVID-19 prevention among healthcare workers via hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis is also shown in (Chatterjee et al., “Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India,” 2020). It is unfortunate that Brooks et al. (the CDC team including CDC Director Dr. Redfield) selected this irrelevant and erroneous study as a cornerstone for their article.
(Schwartz et al., “Lack of COVID-19 transmission on an international flight,” 2020)
provides anecdotal evidence. Worse still, its evidence is probably incorrect. It describes a COVID-19 patient wearing a mask on a January 22 flight. After the flight, six passengers became sick[LG3] with COVID-19 symptoms. They tested negatively, probably because of high ratio of false positives in the tests at that time.
(Hendrix, “Absence of Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists After Exposure at a Hair Salon with a Universal Face Covering Policy — Springfield, Missouri,” May 2020)
provides similarly anecdotal evidence on the absence of coronavirus transmission from the two stylists described in the study, at least one of whom was capable of transmission, to their clients. The stylists wore masks, so this case constitutes Situation A. The stylists’ clients wore masks, too.
(National Academies of Sciences, “Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic (April 1, 2020),” 2020)
confirms that the coronavirus can spread via aerosols [LG4] generated by a person’s exhalation. They also state, “These findings suggest that surgical face masks [not cloth masks —LG] could reduce the transmission of human coronavirus and influenza infections if worn by infected individuals capable of transmitting the infection.” Even this limited suggestion, pertaining only to surgical masks, is based solely on Leung et al., discussed below.
(Leung et al., “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks,” 2020)
examines the exhalation of patients with any of three types of virus (flu, coronavirus, and rhinovirus) collected over 30-minute intervals with no forced cough. The researches attempted to collect some, but not all, sideways flow. This semi-realistic testing demonstrated a lower effectiveness for even surgical masks. Detection of the virus was:
- In droplets, masks versus no masks: 11% versus 21%.
- In aerosols, masks versus no masks: 26% versus 46%.
The surprising aspect of Leung et al.’s study is surgical masks’ apparent low effectiveness in blocking virus-laden droplets. Droplets are supposed to hit masks, even as aerosols escape along the mask’s four sides, and remain inside the mask. Surgical masks retain over 99% of the exhaled droplets that hit them. Only 17 persons were infected by coronaviruses, none of which were the COVID-19 pathogen. Leung et al. also finds: “On average, viral shedding was higher in nasal swabs than in throat swabs”
(Johnson et al., “A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficacy of Surgical and N95 Masks to Filter Influenza Virus in Patients with Acute Influenza Infection,” 2009)
confirms that surgical masks significantly reduced the forward flow of the virus when flu patients coughed into a testing device. The authors stressed that participants wore masks for only for three to five minutes and that side flow was not collected.
(Konda et al., “Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks,”2020)
found that surgical mask material [LG5] intercepts about 99% of droplets and large (>300 nm) aerosol particles. But in tests were holes were made that had an area of only 1%, the effectiveness dropped by 60%! Cotton and other common materials have lower filtration effectiveness, although cotton quilt and high-TPI cotton are quite effective, and using multiple layers further increases effectiveness to nearly 99%. But the gaps in masks are much larger than 10%, so only large droplets expelled forward are captured. The CDC does not claim otherwise. Also, that finding suggests that an individual who needs to wear a mask should neither try to use a homemade mask nor use a surgical mask for COVID-19.
(Ma et al., “Potential utilities of mask-wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2,” 2020)
has an inaccurate title. The study tests mask fabrics’ filtering ability, not actual masks worn by real persons.
(Aydin et al., “Performance of Fabrics for Home-Made Masks Against the Spread of Respiratory Infections Through Droplets,”2020)
is another study of fabrics. They also explain why a mask may stop large droplets but allow small droplets and aerosols to escape: “when an infected individual coughs, sneezes, or talks into a mask, the droplets that would hit the inside of the mask are relatively large, and have high momentum.”
(Davies et al., “Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks, “2013)
is a study of an unusual type of mask:tightly fit (like a respirator) homemade masks. As expected, these masks decreased the number of exhaled germs, but nobody recommends or uses tightly fit masks for COVID-19.
(Anfinrud et al., “Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering,” 2020)
visualizes droplets motion, consistently with the belief that large forward moving droplets are intercepted by a mask.
(Hatzius, “Goldman Sachs | Insights – Face Masks and GDP,”2020)
is not a scientific paper, one passage merits attention here:
“By our estimates, the increase in distancing our Effective Lockdown Index (ELI)—a combination of official restrictions and actual social data—subtracted 17% from US GDP between January and April, and other countries with even more aggressive restrictions saw even larger economic effects.”
(Greenhalgh, “Face coverings for the public,” 2020)
study’s declared methodis narrative rebuttal. Accordingly, it reports no scientific findings.
(Fisher, “Factors Associated with Cloth Face Covering Use Among Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States,” April and May 2020)
, published on the CDC website on July 14, reports statistics on how many people wore masks. These statistics are irrelevant to the question of whether masks were useful or harmful.
References
- Anfinrud, Philip; Stadnytskyi, Valentyn; Bax, Christina E.; Bax, Adriaan: Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering, in: New England Journal of Medicine, 2020, vol. 382, no. 21, pp. 2061–2063, available at: https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMc2007800, accessed: 07/23/2020.
- Aydin, Onur; Emon, Md Abul Bashar; Cheng, Shyuan; Hong, Liu; Chamorro, Leonardo P.; Saif, M. Taher A.: Performance of Fabrics for Home-Made Masks Against the Spread of Respiratory Infections Through Droplets: A Quantitative Mechanistic Study, in: medRxiv, 2020.04.19.20071779, available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.19.20071779v2, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Brooks, John T.; Butler, Jay C.; Redfield, Robert R.: Universal Masking to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Transmission—The Time Is Now, in: JAMA, 2020, available at: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.13107, accessed: 07/23/2020.
- CDC: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), in: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html, accessed: 07/23/2020.
- Chatterjee, Pranab; Anand, Tanu; Singh, Kh Jitenkumar; Rasaily, Reeta; Singh, Ravinder; Das, Santasabuj; Singh, Harpreet; Praharaj, Ira; Gangakhedkar, Raman R.; Bhargava, Balram; Panda, Samiran: Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19, in: Indian Journal of Medical Research, 2020, vol. 151, no. 5, p. 459, available at: http://www.ijmr.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-5916;year=2020;volume=151;issue=5;spage=459;epage=467;aulast=Chatterjee;type=0, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Davies, Anna; Thompson, Katy-Anne; Giri, Karthika; Kafatos, George; Walker, Jimmy; Bennett, Allan: Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?, in: Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 2013, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 413–418, available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55#, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Edwards, David A.; Man, Jonathan C.; Brand, Peter; Katstra, Jeffrey P.; Sommerer, K.; Stone, Howard A.; Nardell, Edward; Scheuch: Inhaling to mitigate exhaled bioaerosols, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2004, vol. 101, no. 50, p. 17383, available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/50/17383.abstract.
- Fisher, Kiva A.: Factors Associated with Cloth Face Covering Use Among Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, April and May 2020, in: MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 69, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e3.htm, accessed: 07/23/2020.
- Goldstein, Leo: JAMA Rejected my Comment on Masks and HCQ, available at: https://defyccc.com/jama-declined-comment-masks-hcq/, accessed: 07/23/2020.
- Greenhalgh, Trisha: Face coverings for the public: Laying straw men to rest, in: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2020, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jep.13415, accessed: 07/23/2020.
- Hatzius, Jan: Goldman Sachs | Insights – Face Masks and GDP, in: Goldman Sachs, 2020, available at: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/face-masks-and-gdp.html, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Hendrix, M. Joshua: Absence of Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists After Exposure at a Hair Salon with a Universal Face Covering Policy — Springfield, Missouri, May 2020, in: MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 69, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Johnson, D.F.; Druce, J.D.; Birch, C.; Grayson, M.L.: A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficacy of Surgical and N95 Masks to Filter Influenza Virus in Patients with Acute Influenza Infection, in: Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2009, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 275–277, available at: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/2/275/405108, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Kelsch, Noel: Changing masks, in: Registered Dental Hygienist (RDH) Magazine, 2010, available at: https://www.rdhmag.com/infection-control/personal-protective-equipment/article/16407656/changing-masks, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Konda, Abhiteja; Prakash, Abhinav; Moss, Gregory A.; Schmoldt, Michael; Grant, Gregory D.; Guha, Supratik: Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks, in: ACS nano, 2020, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 6339–6347, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252#
- Leung, Nancy H.L.; Chu, Daniel K.W.; Shiu, Eunice Y.C.; Chan, Kwok-Hung; McDevitt, James J.; Hau, Benien J.P.; Yen, Hui-Ling; Li, Yuguo; Ip, Dennis K.M.; Peiris, J.S. Malik; Seto, Wing-Hong; Leung, Gabriel M.; Milton, Donald K.; Cowling, Benjamin J.: Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks, in: Nature Medicine, 2020, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 676–680, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
- Ma, Qing-Xia; Shan, Hu; Zhang, Hong-Liang; Li, Gui-Mei; Yang, Rui-Mei; Chen, Ji-Ming: Potential utilities of mask-wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2, in: Journal of Medical Virology, 2020 available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jmv.25805, accessed: 07/23/2020.
- MacIntyre, C. Raina; Seale, Holly; Dung, Tham Chi; Hien, Nguyen Tran; Nga, Phan Thi; Chughtai, Abrar Ahmad; Rahman, Bayzidur; Dwyer, Dominic E.; Wang, Quanyi: A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers, in: BMJ Open, 2015, vol. 5, no. 4, p. e006577, available at: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.abstract.
- Martin, Graham: Response to Greenhalgh et al.: Face masks, the precautionary principle, and evidence-informed policy, 2020, available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-43, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Rapid Expert Consultation on the Possibility of Bioaerosol Spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the COVID-19 Pandemic (April 1, 2020), Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25769/rapid-expert-consultation-on-the-possibility-of-bioaerosol-spread-of-sars-cov-2-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-1-2020.
- Richard Read: A choir decided to go ahead with rehearsal. Now dozens of members have COVID-19 and two are dead, in: Los Angeles Times, 2020, available at: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak, accessed: 07/22/2020.
- Schwartz, Kevin L.; Murti, Michelle; Finkelstein, Michael; Leis, Jerome A.; Fitzgerald-Husek, Alanna; Bourns, Laura; Meghani, Hamidah; Saunders, Andrea; Allen, Vanessa; Yaffe, Barbara: Lack of COVID-19 transmission on an international flight, in: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2020, vol. 192, no. 15, p. E410, available at: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410.abstract.
- Wang, Xiaowen; Ferro, Enrico G.; Zhou, Guohai; Hashimoto, Dean; Bhatt, Deepak L.: Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers, in: JAMA, 2020, available at: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12897, accessed: 07/25/2020.
- Xiao, Jingyi; Shiu, Eunice Y.C.; Gao, Huizhi; Wong, Jessica Y.; Fong, Min W.; Ryu, Sukhyun; Cowling, Benjamin J.: Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures – Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020 – Emerging Infectious Diseases journal – CDC, available at: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article, accessed: 07/22/2020.
Here’s a 2006 review on mitigation of viral pandemics that conveys the same message:
Inglesby, T.V., et al., Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 2006. 4(4): p. 366-375 https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2006.4.366.
Recommend against: lockdowns, school closure, quarantine of healthy people, travel restrictions, restricting social gatherings; surgical face masks in public
Recommend for: use of antiviral meds, quarantine of sick people only; early treatment; hand-washing.
Interesting quotes: “A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.””
“A review by a WHO Working Group on SARS also concluded that “entry screening of travelers through health declarations or thermal scanning at international borders had little documented effect on detecting SARS cases.””
It appears the CDC and WHO have neglected or forgotton all the hard-won wisdom learned from meeting past epidemics.
https://www.aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/10.1.1.552.1109.pdf
“Unfortunately, masks can cause much higher emissions. A virus-contaminated mask worn by a healthy person, shedding viruses during breathing, would increase the viral load in a room from 0 to a non-zero level that may be sufficient to infect another person.”
This is a crock. The virus must be wet. When it dries out it it disintegrates.
Where did you get this bogus DATA?
So, breathing out moist air continuously across an intercepted virus particle (encased in its droplet or aerosol) dries out the virus? How does moist breath dry the virus to the extent you claim? — I don’t think it does. That’s the crock.
“A virus-contaminated mask worn by a healthy person, shedding viruses during breathing…”
Wait, what?
Is the person healthy or infected?
Healthy people do not shed virus, and infected people cannot rightly be called exactly “healthy”.
As soon as any virus is not in a host, it begins to degrade.
The length of time intact virus can be found is dependent on several factors, but they always degrade at some rate, fast for some viruses, slower for others, and faster in some conditions, and slower in other conditions.
One would have to believe that there is no such thing as a minimal infective dose to believe that filtering out some amount of the virions makes no difference.
And that if the infective dose is above the minimum needed to cause an infection, that the amount of it has no bearing on how severe or mild a case one winds up with…in order to believe that reducing the amount of virus makes no difference.
IMO, those are very dubious things for anyone to believe.
I have read a huge number articles and papers and studies on this topic and related aspects since last February.
We discussed these issues here over a period of months back when we had little to go on but what has been gleaned over the past 60+ years on these topics.
No one knows the actual numerical amount of virions it takes to cause an infection, because they are simply too small to count, given that live virus cannot be distinguished visually from nonviable ones or particles that look similar but are something else.
But I read nothing that disputes the principle of infectious dose as a key parameter in contagion.
The number is smaller for some infectious microbes than for others, and from one person to another, given a huge variability in how susceptible different people are to getting infected no matter how much virus they are inoculated with.
It is known that hand washing makes a large difference in how likely someone is to get many types of illnesses. And it is known that such washing cannot possibly remove 100% of anything as small as a microbe.
So that leaves a distinct probability, in my estimation, that the difference is a number game.
Less virus in your body means more chance your innate immune system, and various layers of defenses against invaders, can mop it up before it can reproduce enough to make a person sick.
Basic common sense is usually a good guidance.
To me, it is common sense that it makes a difference when you put a barrier which stops most of the droplets from flowing out in the air.
After all, the mouth and nose are the sources for the virus spread. Virus does not multiply outside the body.
/Jan
In other words, it’s what you want to Believe, so nothing will stop you from believing it.
It is more than what I want to belive, it is a logical argument.
Let me rephrase it In three parts to make it even clearer:
1. The virus multiply only inside the body. That is an undisputable fact.
2. The virus mainly comes out of the body by being in droplets we exhale.
3. A barrier, such as a mask, will stop much of the droplets.
Therefore a mask should make a difference. Do you see a flaw in that logic?
The flaw is in thinking that the droplets just magically sit there undisturbed and do not splinter, re-distribute over the mask (inside and out), get propelled off the mask in newly formed droplets, hit the floor, get blown around by air currents, and rejoin the air once again to carry on this merry cycle over and over, while we magical-thinking humans continue to fantasize that we can orchestrate fluid dynamics at the near small micron scale with a simple cloth barrier.
I do not think magic holds the droplets in the mask, but I do think surface tension in water, and the capillary action in a dry mask make a difference.
As long as yo don’t wear a mask until it is dripping wet, you will find it difficult to blow droplets out of the mask.
/Jan
My favorite mask conundrum is how some people (stateside USA experience only) ordering delivered food get on-line complaining about a delivery person working either unmasked or improperly masked. I see restaurant staff taking breaks outside back doors with masks down, drivers in cars with masks somewhere other than in place & know that, just like most people I see out (including me) they are not changing their mask when pull it back up/reposition to hold in place, nor washing their hands before fiddling with the mask (or commonly unsanitary cellphone).
When food delivery is made by a mask wearing person there is no likelihood that food’s chain of production to handing over has less of a viral load than otherwise. Surgical masks are usually not tactically worn by the general public & then too, if not changed within enough time, promote increased “blow-out” from the mask’s sides.
Commentators here have pointed to dense Asian populations’ habit of using “surgical” style masks in public. If this is a significant factor in their WuhanFlu fatality rate then I would like to know the frequency with which they change their surgical mask to avoid mask side blow out, if they replace the mask anew after uncovering their nose/mouth & if any of them use cloth fabric material.
Like many I saw the WuhanFlu reaching stateside & the pictures of Wuhan countermeasures alarmed me. I devised a personal respiratory apparatus with lab tubing & disposable 0.22 micron filters (coronavirus micron size still smaller) as something to use if among people.
It was impossible to breath properly when wearing & I’m sure would have passed out if every used the rig. A French study of medical personnel performing surgery measured their oxygen levels periodically over time of the procedure & quantified the significant drop of blood oxygen when wearing a “surgical” mask when functioning in a stressful situation.
NYC reported 66% (from memory) of the belated WuhanFlu cases were among people who had not been out & about. It is quite likely it came to their door with the then masked food delivery person – masks are able to accumulate viruses on their external surface.
Out of courtesy I am respectfully masking up when enter a building or public conveyance. If I was coughing, sneezing, feverish or loutish I’d take up the veil willingly.
Mask doesn’t work? Build a better mask. There are several known ways to kill the virus, so why settle for trying to filter it?
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/
And when we get the cheap, fast tests you can do yourself, we won’t have to wear masks around known non-infective people.
If by next week, or next month, or whenever, there are cheap fast tests that are widely available.
How is that going to help me know who is and who is not infected?
And how will that possibly help when out in public?
And good luck with cheap fast tests.
One comment above you, we have a guy generously conceding that if he knows he is sick, he will “veil up” when he goes out to mingle.
Both my wife and I have had the rapid COVID tests, for different circumstances. First, they are only 75-80% accurate. Second, there are not “negative” only “not positive”. And third, not positive rapid tests are NOT reported by doctors as they are only required to report positives.
I’m glad you asked. There is a MedCram video which explains why the cheap, fast, less sensitive tests are far better than the expensive, slow, way too sensitive tests — if what you want to know is whether you or your friends are contagious. They see it as about testing kids before they go to school in the morning. I see it as a way for a group of adults to meet without having to wear masks. Like on an airplane. Or crossing a border. But the biggest point is that it would help to reduce the R value, which is the only way to rid ourselves of this curse.
https://youtu.be/h7Sv_pS8MgQ
+1
If contagiousness could be contained by a cheap, fast, less sensitive test that would be the way to go.
Testing has value.
It is good to find out if one is infected.
My point is that it would take far more than simply having tests available, of any quality, to allow someone to have any way to know if the person who just coughed on them is not infected.
If someone was infected, but can be shown to no longer harbor the virus, then I would be willing to assume that person cannot have been reinfected and might be contagious…even though that is not proved, it is very likely to be true, in my judgement.
But a test showing someone has never been exposed and/or is not correctly harboring live virus in their nasal passages, only gives a single point in time that it could be assumed that this person was not contagious.
Someone can get infected after being tested, or might have been infected a short time prior to being tested when their was not enough virus to detect yet. How long it takes between exposure and contagiousness is not known, but evidence indicates it is highly variable.
So logically, there is only so much a test…any test…can tell us, and only so much help a test can be in controlling the disease.
Then there is the issue of the shear number of tests that would be required, and then the logistics of distribution, and then the percentage of people who will refuse to cooperate, either by not getting tested, or lying about it, or refusing to be quarantined if they test positive…
AFAIK, there is no logical way, and no historical examples, of testing alone controlling a disease.
It is very likely theoretically possible, but not given the on the ground realities that would have to be surmounted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/opinion/coronavirus-tests.html
There will be a live Q&A on YouTube on Wednesday. These are the guys who can explain how a fast cheap test can help. See also the previous video link.
“Q/A on How to Fix COVID-19 Testing with Dr. Mina: Cheap, At Home, Rapid Antigen Tests”
Tom,
“Second, there are not “negative” only “not positive”. And third, not positive rapid tests are NOT reported by doctors as they are only required to report positives.”
What, seriously?
*insert a big loud Steve Martin-style Well, Excuse Meeeee*
If you get tested and call you doctor, they will not tell you what the result was unless positive?
Huh?
We are not talking about reporting to authorities here, but using testing so everyone can know whether to quarantine, etc. Are they just going to refuse to tell you anything if it is not positive?
As for no such thing as negative tests…again…huh?
You can find thousands of articles in every print media in the world about negative3 test results, false positive and false negative rates, etc.
Not testing positive is known as being negative for the virus.
And there can be people who have it who do not test positive, people who do not have it but who test positive, etc.
The rules for letting someone out of the hospital or released from quarantine?
Recall what was required?
Two NEGATIVE tests in a row.
WTF…do you guys just hate any person who says something that makes you uncomfortable, and just make crap up, and then believe your own BS?
Name your favorite you tube medical site, or news service, or scientific journal, and I will show you articles and stuff they have said about “negative tests”.
Seriously…name any source in the whole world.
Example:
New England Journal of Medicine
“False Negative Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection — Challenges and Implications”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897
“And good luck with cheap fast tests.”
..
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/german-researchers-trained-dogs-sniff-out-covid-19-coronavirus-infections/
Quick stat: There are over 330,000,000 people in the US alone.
One test for each person would be enough to get tested one each.
So far, in over 6 months, far less than that number of tests have ben done worldwide, total.
So anyhow, ignoring the impossible number of tests required to test everyone even one time, what good will it do if someone tests negative tomorrow?
They could get infected five minutes after getting the test done.
Just having tests will be almost useless unless it is part of a logical and comprehensive strategy, with which everyone complies perfectly.
At this point, millions of people have it, and the vast majority have not yet been infected.
Considering it took a few months for a few infected people in one city to spread the virus worldwide, and considering a large number of people will not even admit there is a problem, and another large number refuse to agree with common sense measures that are available TODAY, what chance is there that testing alone will do much?
If and when we have an effective vaccine, anyone with the good sense to get it as soon as possible will be protected.
Until then, it will be a crap shoot, and people using best practices will be able to lower their risk, but not eliminate it entirely.
We have people who would rather kill someone than put a piece of cloth over their mouth and nose for the two minutes it takes to buy something from a store.
And other people who use that unfortunate insanity to argue against anyone wearing a mask.
Tests will protect us from those people how?
We still don’t have a vaccine for any coronavirus as far as I’m aware…. or a pneumonia cure/vaccine. Did Nicholas intend to kill grandma back in february2020 when he wasn’t wearing a mask? Did he hate people the way he says I hate people now? Were masks produced prior to march2020 ineffective so that’s why Nick wasn’t wearing one back in february2020? Has the politization of Covid rendered much science done post march2020 regarding masks scewed (at least the science to controversial for youtube videos and on the famous science blog Twitter)?
I do not know you, but I think there may be something wrong with you.
You seem fixated on things never said.
I am almost curious enough to ask when exactly it was you hallucinated that I said you hated people.
But not quite curious enough to really care.
Is that you, Mario?
It pains me to see the professional medical people trying to protect themselves with PPE; whilst not having a clue how to don and doff the kit. As a former NBC training officer, it was my job to ensure my squadron pilots new how to use the PPE properly. We even volunteered our services to the HK authorities during SARS1 but they new best – many doctors/nurses contracted the disease. Today’s medical staff are shockingly inept at using this sort of kit, exhibiting all the mistakes that joe public does. Maybe something will come out of this – educate hospital staff on the correct way to wear the PPE.
The Virus/Lockdown Scam
If masks work, then why are we anti-social distancing?
If anti-social distancing works, then why are we wearing masks?
If masks and anti-social distancing work, then why are our businesses closed?
If we can stand in line in a grocery store, then why can’t we stand in line to vote?
Because it’s not about the virus. It never was.
For those who always point at the medical profession who “mask up”…
Surgeons and nurses wear masks to protect against bacterial infections. The evidence for that protection is minimal. Viruses are so small that 100,000,000 (100 Million) of them will fit (if only one layer thick) on the period at the end of this sentence. If you’re donning a medical mask or worse yet: a diaper mask, do you think 4 periods might get in, out, around or through the mask?
The British Government has confirmed that Covid- 19 is harmless to the vast majority of people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adj8MCsZKlg
In this clip from the Downing Street Corona Briefing on May 11th, Chris Whitty – Britain’s Chief Medical Officer – says that, to most people, the coronavirus is entirely harmless:
Most people will never get it;
Most of the people who get it won’t ever experience symptoms;
Most of the people who experience symptoms won’t need medical care;
Most of the people who need medical care won’t be need emergency or critical care. And even the tiny percentage of people who need who DO need critical care will survive, regardless of risk factors or medical history.
To those constantly bleating about how surgeons and nurses wear masks during surgery read this:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub3/full
Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery
Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets containing microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound, e.g. by incorrect wear or by leaking air from the side of the mask due to poor string tension.
Objectives
To determine whether the wearing of disposable surgical face masks by the surgical team during clean surgery reduces postoperative surgical wound infection.
Key results
Overall, we found very few studies and identified no new trials for this latest update. We analyzed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies we found. All three studies showed that wearing a face mask during surgery neither increases nor decreases the number of wound infections occurring after surgery. We conclude that there is no clear evidence that wearing disposable face masks affects the likelihood of wound infections developing after surgery. (and they certainly won’t stop viruses.)
In May 2020, The CDC said the exact same thing:
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35…”
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR30tcZl3JaBoojadvOvpfbxKZwyUs8dT6l4go-k_4vEwaOAmSq7HfCaJOU#tnF2
As a last thought, consider this:
Sweden never had a lockdown and never forced people to wear masks or anything else, they never forced anti-social distancing on the entire population (other than moving restaurant tables a bit further apart) and they never gave up the idea that sane adults can work out their own level of risk and behave appropriately. Consequently, the Swedes have maintained all the measures of civilized life and have not wrecked their economy in the name of “keeping you safe.” For the record, a tiny minority of Swedes wear masks but they are mainly foreigners or tourists and most Swedes think wearing masks in public outside of medical necessity is idiotic. Sweden now has one of the lowest rates of deaths for the virus which is now in single figures. In the last 24 hours, Sweden recorded just 9 deaths from the virus out of a population of well over 10 million.
Don’t take my word for any of this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92R0bnW0S_4
What’s REALLY Going On in Sweden (No Lockdown)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI7nrqH_YnE
SWEDEN DURING CORONAVIRUS – REAL FOOTAGE
Sasha, the first video is 3 months old, the second two months old.
On 24 July, Sweden recorded 10 deaths, out of a population of just over 10,100,000. Italy recorded 5 deaths out of a population of just over 60,460,000. That’s a death rate of 1 in a million for Sweden, and 0.08 per million for Sweden. So who’s doing better?
Of the other top 5 countries, Belgium is down to 5 deaths a day, Spain to 3, and the UK 14 on the 26 July but 123 on 24 July. Belgium is the only one of those countries similar in size to Sweden: 11,600,000. In spite of its early high death rate, even it is now down to half that of Sweden.
As for Sweden not wrecking its economy, well that’s a matter for debate. You’ll find plenty of articles on-line that are more recent than the videos. The consensus seems to be that Sweden is doing no better than its neighbours, at a higher cost in lives lost. This is not really surprising since the economies of countries in Europe, indeed the world, are so inter-dependent that it was never going to be likely that any individual country would do well while all others had economic declines.
You can, with a little effort, find a more recent video which will say pretty much the same thing as those from Sweden recorded 3 or 4 or 5 months ago because nothing has changed.
Here is one that was uploaded today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWGSDWr_R2M
It took me less than a minute to find, and it shows normal civilized life as illustrated by the other two videos.
There are also hundreds of street-cams all over Sweden that will show you in real time exactly what is happening and what the Swedes are doing now.
https://www.gekas.se/shoppa/gekas-webbkamera/
https://www.hallandsposten.se/webbkamera-laholm-1.18811114
https://www.webcamtaxi.com/en/sweden/halland/varberg-square.html
http://www.webbkameror.se/webbkameror/stureplan/index.php
Sweden’s economy expanded 0.1% in the first quarter of 2020 in seasonally-adjusted terms, according to revised estimates, up from both the preliminary reading of a 0.3% contraction and the flat reading for the fourth quarter of 2019. In calendar-adjusted year-on-year terms, the economy expanded 0.4% in Q1 2020 (previously reported: +0.5% year-on-year; Q4 2019: +0.5% yoy.
It is estimated that Sweden’s GDP will fall 5.2% in 2020, which is down 0.3% from last month’s forecast, and to increase 4.4% in 2021.
Hardly economic ruin for Sweden, and a lot better than any of Sweden’s neighbors. Compare that to the looming economic disasters of the lockdown countries who are heading for massive falls this year and next.
There are basic false questions in play with this current Covid 19 crisis.
Who actually cares if face masks are better at stopping the spread or not? We have among us a virus, it is not so different to other virus, that have come and lodged with us in everyday life. The corona virus is called the common cold, the clue is in the name. We are well set up to fight off virus infections, we have T cells for that, they work very well, particularly if you are young healthy and fit.
That brings us into the core of the face mask question.
There is a false hope being progressed that wearing a face cover will in some way isolate the wearer from infection, clearly that is not possible. Consequently, the authorities have realised the only way to sell the idea a face cover is a good thing, is to make people who do not wear them feel guilty. The argument goes, if you wear a face mask you are protecting others and you are showing how considerate you are.
How sweet is that? Be kind to others wear a mask, virtue signalling taken to a whole new level.
We have survived and thrived without resorting to wearing face masks. I fail to see any reason to change the healthy lifestyles of humanity, simply to pacify the bizarre anxieties of the gullible.
Yes face masks will reduce some transmission of exhaled contaminated breath. Unfortunately the unknown consequences of blocking natural development of immunity to a virus infection, could be far far worse. Real world experience tells us, when the European trailblazers ventured into New World lands, they “met” the natives infecting them with everyday European infections, which the natives didn’t have any immunity to, sadly they largely passed away.
We do not want to reinvent that scenario, in a generation or two’s time.
Those who want to wear a face mask are free to do so, those who prefer not to wear one, should also be free not to.
Not all masks are equal
Virus aerosols are roughly 10 times smaller in diameter than vape particles and more difficult to filter out.
paranoid much?? As a teacher of young children I come into contact with any bug going around.. I take a broad spectrum vitamin and mineral one a day supplement.. rarely become so ill to need time off but often have a sniffle… I think my immune system is quite robust. If I were taking your kind of precautions I think I would be ill every other week..(hmm that logic doesn’t quite work)
I think what I meant to say is should I become ill I would be VERY ill.. that’s better.
Masks are to spread fear and control the people.
Nothing else.
Thought for the day – if you are wearing jeans and emit a bottom-burp, can you smell the result?
I will kick off: ‘only if there is an intelligent being in the vicinity to smell it’. (Apologies to Buddhists everywhere)
“This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers. ”
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
Thanks for the link Ulric, the message coming back from that is the authorities are not doing much until things get out of control as well as face masks have limited benefit and only those designed for purpose are any use at all.
To act as a barrier a quality mask has surfaces, importantly the inner and outer. The inside will soon have viral content if you already have an infection and a quantity of this will pass through to the outer surface the longer you wear the mask. Your body also has to work much harder to breathe. When the surfaces are saturated (within minutes of wear) the outer surface will add its gained viral load to your already viral loaded breath. The barrier is broken.
The mask will not stop you being infected from germs from the outside air for the same reasons and the breath you take in is unnaturally loaded by foul moisture content not all of which is yours. The mask is a short term barrier that becomes largely ineffective within minutes of use but are a professional necessity and requirement for certain people working in very close proximity to others.
A dentist friend of mine explained these things about masks to me yonks ago during a previous ‘flu season scare when I was stupid enough to consider wearing one. Her views were echoed by medical professionals in my family. As anecdotal as that maybe it is enough for me that no one said ‘They really work!’
Insistence of effectiveness of masks as anything other than a sensible precaution in certain situations is poor advice when all studies suggest other than unique efficiency. People commonly get colds after dental surgery because human beings have always been highly effective in transmitting germs naturally designed to specifically take advantage of our tendencies towards socialising, proximity and touch. That’s why we have immune systems which need daily exercise in keeping bugs at bay and under control. Yes, the system fails to stop illness or worse some of the time, but that isn’t the point.
I have resisted mask wearing up till now but I put up with using one in to enter shops because otherwise I’d starve or waste £100 on a petty fine, options which amount to the same end. I see it as an intrusion upon my freedom of healthy choice – i.e. you will be and remain healthier without one. Masks may do a great short term psychological job on some people or when used appropriately, effectively and efficiently, but that is all.
In a perfect world where people are leaving their saturated and disease filled masks over their noses and not constantly touching them to pull them down to expose the actual source of disease vector I would say the masks were reducing it.
But people are constantly pulling them down, touching them, adjusting them, pulling them on and off AND TOUCHING EVERY GODDAMNED THING ON EARTH… including my food cans, boxes…
The masks are an abject failure without the proper training and discipline on their use. The current mask scheme helps no more than holding a thin hankerchief to your face when you cough then putting it away in your jacket pocket till you need it again.
The opposite has been demonstrated to be true:
So, if you do a cool video with a narrator who has a sarcastic English accent, who never specifies precisely what he is talking about, as he rants on about how somebody else doesn’t know what THEY are talking about, then you are supposed to accept the tone of the sarcastic English accent as truth, rather than the content.
This video is the personification of every pro-mas-masking study that I have read.
A journal article will typically start with a review of the lack of evidence, and then argue that this ultimately is not important, then throw in some statistically-modeled numbers that have dishonest margins of certainty based on overly-presumptive inputs from idealized situations, then use a lot of “may”, “might”, “could”, “further research needed” qualifiers to verbally gymnastically rescue their ultimately faith-based belief that mass masking will have a significant effect, … all published in a high-profile professional journal, and so THIS form of faith MUST be the faith to follow. Never mind that pesky evidence. Remember, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Righhhhht.
Reading these comments is hilarious. The science indicates there is no reduction in transmission, yet everyone comments that it’s just commons sense that they work. This is how climate alarmists think. Absolutely hilarioius.
“It’s for the children.” Oh, wait – who said that?
Wait…did you say “The science?”
Yes you did!
LMAO!
You said that…on WUWT of all places!
You so funny!
Our noses are oriented to discharge our exhalation in a broadly downward direction. Wearing a mask tends to ensure that exhalation goes to the side of the face at the same level, and not downwards. That is beneficial if you are a surgeon bending over an incision to ensure you are cutting the right bits, but detrimental if you are simply a shopper.
“Preface. The use and requirements of masks have become incredibly political and partisan. Unfortunately, far too much of science, knowledge, journalism, and even epistemology are becoming political.
The following is presented as is, for information only. — charles rotter”
At this point, reading the 100 + comments, it is clear that ctm has nailed this.
While WUWT has a higher proportion of posters/commentators that can adhere to logical, rational, introspective analysis of any given subject, I have found that the subject of Covid-19 has pretty much trashed that observation.
Based on my own analysis, and years of wearing various masks/respirators for various reasons (dust, radiologically contaminated areas, solvent fumes, biological, etc), it is pretty clear to me that many (perhaps most) folks grossly over simplify the efficacy of “masks” in different situations.
Masks (when intended to reduce either inflow or outflow of various undesirable material) are best analyzed as part of an overall protective strategy:
I characterize this strategy thus:
1) Wearing a mask (or any type for any reason) is an unequivocal and hard to ignore reminder that there is something potentially in the “air” that I either want to reduce intake, or reduce spreading. This reminds both me (the wearer), and you (either the target or source of the “bad stuff”). Over 45 years or so of wearing various masks (including respirators) for various reasons has not diminished this. Any kind of mask is unpleasant, uncomfortable and is hard to ignore why I am wearing it…
2) It should be clear to anyone with a modicum of rational technical reasoning that various masks have huge variability in their ability to physically filter (in or out) whatever the “bad” stuff is. Except for custom fit, very expensive, rarely worn full face respirators, no mask is going to be 100% effective (or even remotely close to 100%).
3) Based on 1) and 2), the use of a mask (when there is in fact some sort of “bad” stuff potentially in the air) is probably better than not wearing a mask due to a (likely chaotic) combination of actual filtering and behavior modification.
Bottom line:
If I wear a mask of some sort while using a solvent (for example), regardless of whether the mask has any physical ability to reduce my intake of, say acetone, I will most likely be: 1) More careful, 2) shorten my time at task and 3) be ever mindful that acetone is probably not good to breathe. The end result is that I am likely to have breathed in less acetone while wearing a mask than not.
The vast majority of mask analysis is grossly over simplified, which unfortunately leads to grossly over simplified comments.
I, like most folks, hate wearing a mask for any reason at any time. I realize, however, that that distaste is exactly why I should sometimes wear one.
Ethan Brand
E than
You are hereby banned from making comments here, Mr Smarty Pants, and making the rest of us look bad .
Another unusual effect of masks
My wife is a smiler who often gets into conversations with total strangers in stores. But with a mask on almost no one will get close and talk with her even when she initiates a conversation.
Richard Greene:
🙂
Ethan
EB, I hate to say that I got no sense of your stance about masks in regard to COVID-19. I don’t disagree with anything you said, in fact.
That being said, however, I am convinced that mass masking up for COVID-19 is a crock.
Robert Kernodle:
“EB, I hate to say that I got no sense of your stance about masks in regard to COVID-19. I don’t disagree with anything you said, in fact.”
Exactly. When using a solvent, I will do just about anything to avoid wearing a respirator (don’t use, open the door, turn on the fan, etc). As far as masks and Covid-19, I try to avoid any situation where I either should or must wear a mask. Which is, of course, the core of my above points.
Regards,
Ethan Brand
It is unfortunate that Dr. Fauci, who I do respect (usually), supposedly a “man of science”, has climbed onboard the “masks for all” bandwagon. I suppose he saw the masks freight train coming, especially after the CDC got onboard, and decided it would be better for him to get onboard rather than get run over by it. Tsk tsk, Mr. Fauci. You of all people should know better. There is zero evidence that they actually help, and a distinct possibility that they do more harm than any possible, slight good.
Mask-wearing for the general public has become a quasi-religion, in much the same way that the Belief in the “Carbon” monster has. It is driven by pseudoscience, herd behavior, poor logic, and by fear. Sad. Humans appear to be getting dumber.
Oh, you mean ‘Do as I say not as I do’ Fauci?
Ha-ha! I guess the “logic” there is that the person on his left isn’t wearing hers, and the person on his right is, so he compromises, keeping his on, but only covering his chin. See, there’s an art to this mask-wearing business.
“While the Covid-19 epidemic continues to drag on in the United States, it’s largely over in Sweden where fatalities have dropped to no more than 2 deaths per day for the last week.”
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Sweden-the-One-Chart-That-by-Mike-Whitney-Coronavirus_Covid-19_Sweden-200726-503.html
Interesting discussion on this topic. Keep it up!
Here in Canada’s Capital city, masks are mandatory in “Enclosed Public Spaces” (stores, public transit, etc.). While I have issues with mask requirements this late in the downward slope of the pandemic, I will comply to avoid the fines and harassment. I will, of course, remove the mask as soon as I can. While I’ve never suffered from any breathing issues (no asthma, non-smoker, not stuck inside a sealed high-rise), I find I become somewhat short of breath when wearing a mask for longer than about 5-10 minutes. No matter, as shopping is a miserable chore these days, so I get in and out as fast as I can. No browsing while masked for me!
On the mask efficacy question, I point to the Ontario Ministry of Health statement on face coverings and masks:
“Face coverings will not protect you from getting COVID-19.”
https://www.ontario.ca/page/face-coverings-and-face-masks
I’ve been criticized for posting this, as I think that statement is open to interpretation, i.e. who is “you”? The mask wearer or the people around her? To me, it’s a reminder that the virus is a slippery character and not so easy to block with cloth/paper/good intentions.
https://youtu.be/Cio3rh6ta3w?t=313
Naked link?
Locking your door may help to prevent burglary. Or may not. A circuit breaker may prevent electric fire. Though often they don’t. Seat belt… etc.
Seriously? I mean, there are people who have problems with using shoestrings, but that’s an uncommon condition.
Now here’s a good point. Disinfection (even brief soaking in diluted peroxide, since reports so far said the silly thing is quite vulnerable to oxidants) could be very useful. And if this practice was advised back when mask-wearing started, most likely it would both help in itself and encourage more careful handling in general.
And that’s not «a non-statement alongside» etc?
Not a silver bullet, but much better than nothing.
Any reduction in concentration and range is better than nothing.
TBeholder,
Have you even gone outside to watch how many people are using their masks incorrectly? Masks are NOT shoestrings, and that’s the point — people cannot do the simplest requirements consistently with these things for them to be effective, even if they were effective, functionally speaking.
Many of the people that I see wearing masks do not know how to tie their shoelaces — to use your comparison. It’s a seemingly simple task, but the requirements for making this simplicity work are not so simple.
Now go climb Mount Everest. That’s just five words you have to obey. What’s the problem? — it’s so simple.
Are masks and mask wearing causing a false safety effect? Or are they a panacea? (Rhetorical questions).
Until we have a valid anti-body test and widespread anti-body testing or until the numbers of negatives are accurately reported and utilized to discover the actual spread % (you can’t just use positive results), the argument remains undecided IMO.
Believing in the humanity of lessening suffering–now 5 months (and it has really only been 5 months since the big start in March), that ain’t happening. Instead it has been reduced to squabbling over masks, mask wearing, and public shaming and flexing over what bits of cloth and how to properly wear them over our mouths and noses…..two of the most expressive areas of our faces that we utilize to signify the intentions of another person.
For me and mine protection, I wear a mask. Not because I believe it will stop the virus (I’ve had too much biology education to believe in such a panacea), but so that I don’t stand out in the crowd to get hammered down by it. That’s the reason I wear one. It has nothing to do with an actual threat from a tiny virus, it has to do with the very real threat of the fellow predator en mass who I can’t read to see if I am in danger or not.
I have no co-morbidities and I am not old enough to be considered high risk. I would like to know if I am immune but that alas will not be the case as there are no antibody tests being conducted–as I suspect I had this virus in late Jan/early Feb. I am however, acutely aware(to the point of blue car syndrome) of the predators among us and that is by virtue of experience more than anything else. That experience tells me to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass–because it will eventually and also eventually we will have an antibody test (because we must to see if the vaccine worked)–and I’ll go get one. But until then, I’m staying out of the damn way.
+ 1000
https://tinyurl.com/yyemcoat