Yep. Masks WORK
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Might technically be true. But, in reality people are touching the outside of the masks, not laundering them frequently enough and then touching their face, surfaces, etc.
It helps people feel better though.
It helps people feel better though.
Masks are about keeping others safe and not spreading the disease.
First of all, the "study" was based on observations and recommendations. Second, it was not based on any trials whatesover.
Third, the conclusion was based on loose correlations, not any direct evidence.
Fourth, the premise is that mask use keeps the concentration of the virus out, and lessens how sick the person gets. If someone is already infected, but they don't know it, wouldn't wearing a mask keep more of the virus in?
Joe touts this, but if the subject had been HCQ, he would have slammed it because it wasn't a peer reviewed clinical trial.
Disclaimer: I wear a mask, and support wearing a mask. I don't support hypocrisy.
Third, the conclusion was based on loose correlations, not any direct evidence.
Fourth, the premise is that mask use keeps the concentration of the virus out, and lessens how sick the person gets. If someone is already infected, but they don't know it, wouldn't wearing a mask keep more of the virus in?
Joe touts this, but if the subject had been HCQ, he would have slammed it because it wasn't a peer reviewed clinical trial.
Disclaimer: I wear a mask, and support wearing a mask. I don't support hypocrisy.
While I don't think there is enough evidence to rule out surface transmission the studies seem to have been pretty negative on surface transmission and seem to view airborne transmission is the primary concern.
You are filtering air through that mask all day and concentrating anything onto the surface of the mask.
Then you pull in off, stick in you pocket or your car, then put it back on. You aren't getting the protection that you think you are.
The problem is that HCQ has had peer reviewed clinical trials which have said it's not effective.
No peer reviewed clinical trials have said masks arn't effective. In fact I would say they probably show they are effective at slowing transmission it's only a question of how much and if they can help protect you from getting sick as well as protect others.
You can rightly point out that this isn't very definitive but it's not hypocrisy verse HCQ because HCQ has been shown to be ineffective.
Generally that's why I try to touch the ear loops and not the mask myself. That said I am pointing out that the most recent studies while not definitive seem to call into question surface transmission as a danger.
In reality, it's reducing viral dose, regardless of whether people wash their masks frequently; the virus doesn't last long on surfaces, and if you're getting exposed from a surface contact, it is a far lower dose than in a bar or church or restaurant.
Wrong.
It's is MULTIPLE studies, dating back to the 1930s on "viral inoculum".
Stay In Your Lane, Bro.
"The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks."
Results
The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
Results
The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
....which means the virus is staying on the mask, and not getting into your lungs.
Indeed. Airborne transmission dominates, and in closed environments where the viral loads can build up, the likelihood of infection becomes very high, as well as the viral dose.
Masks reduce viral dose. Period. And while speculative, it is clearly correlating with more asymptomatic cases and lower mortality.
Sure, but a hospital setting is far far different from a general public setting.
Plus, there was no "no mask" group in your study to compare an ANOVA of the three groups.
The virus properties aren't going to change based on the location. The cloth mask allowed 97% of particles to pass through.
Nothing works better than staying the frack away from people. The masks are for when some a-hat violates my 6-feet of personal space and sneezes...it keeps his/her dropplets, for the most part contained. I'm then going to go to my car and wash my face in hand sanitizer, go home, burn my clothes and pray.
There have also been peer reviewed clinical trials that said is is effective. I provided a link in another thread with a list of trials, showing positive, negative, and inconclusive results.
People only talking about the negative results aren't presenting the entire picture. They either aren't aware of contrasting studies, or they have an agenda.
Again, you're ignoring the reverse direction.
Yes, cloth masks provide a little bit of protection for the wearer (and I believe your link is claiming 97% of the microparticles, not the larger mist from speaking with someone).
Cloth masks vastly lower the exhalation of particles, and limit their spread to just a foot or so, vs no mask.
If everyone is masked up, the virus is highly limited in its ability to spread. Period.
And you STILL have zero understanding as to why many of those results are irrelevant, compared to the 5 peer reviewed, randomized, controlled trials. It's been posted for you by multiple people, multiple times.
the general consensus from the medical professionals worldwide is masks help slow the spread of the virus. The general consensus of the medical community is HCQ doesn't help with Covid. where exactly is the hypocrisy?
How do you know the general consensus is that HCQ doesn't help, when used under the right circumstances?
smh...listen to just about every medical expert that isn't on Trump's payroll and/or believe in demon sperm.
Like prison bars work to keep mosquitoes out.
Or, in......
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/JAMP.2020.1616
Honestly, this far into COVID and you still don’t know why wearing a mask helps? You have chosen to be ignorant
A cloth covering reduces how far your viral particles can transmit. By a lot.
Because we're 0-for-5 in any RCT to determine ANY circumstances at this point.
Meanwhile, it literally took a few WEEKS to prove, in a similar RCT, that dexamethasone DOES work.
Well, now you're changing the issue. It may knock down large particles. But, 97% are allowed to pass through.
You're sneezing into a screen door. But, don't take my word for it. Read the scientific study from the National Institute of Health.
97% of what?
Be specific. Cite exactly what 'passed thru' in the article you are referencing.
Influenza and Rhinovirus, two very similar viruses.
"In the control arm, 170/458 (37%) used medical masks, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period. The remaining 1% either reported using a N95 respirator (n=3) or did not use any masks (n=2).
Table 5 shows an additional analysis comparing all participants who used only a medical mask (from the control arm and the medical mask arm) with all participants who used only a cloth mask (from the control arm and the cloth arm). In the univariate analysis, all outcomes were significantly higher in the cloth mask group, compared with the medical masks group. After adjusting for other factors, ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) remained significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group."
Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%).
We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm.
The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,29 and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.30 Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks
What, specifically, was the construction of the cloth masks in the study?
Single layer?
Cotton?
Polymer fiber?
Be specific. And, again, their study is very limited in only applying in a healthcare setting, where the patients were not wearing masks. This is completely different from what we are talking about with ALL people wearing masks. There are numerous shortcomings in generalizing this study to what we are talking about with masks and Covid. And there are ample studies of airborne particles being limited with simple, multilayer cloth masks, as recommended by CDC.
What is the construction of cloth masks that grandmas are making around the country?
Not too standardized. They might make people feel better psychologically, but they are not the protection that some think they are.
http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf
Multiple studies show the filtration effects of cloth masks relative to surgical masks. Particle sizes for speech are on the order of 1 µm (20) while typical definitions of droplet size are 5 µm-10 µm (5). Generally available household materials had between a 49% and 86% filtration rate for 0.02 µm exhaled particles whereas surgical masks filtered 89% of those particles (21). In a laboratory setting, household materials had 3% to 60% filtration rate for particles in the relevant size range, finding them comparable to some surgical masks (22). In another laboratory setup, a tea cloth mask was found to filter 60% of particles between 0.02 µm to 1 µm, where surgical masks filtered 75% (23). Dato et al (2006) (24), note that "quality commercial masks are not always accessible." They designed and tested a mask made from heavyweight T-shirts, finding that it "offered substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showed good fit with minimal leakage".Although cloth and surgical masks are primarily targeted towards droplet particles, some evidence suggests they may have a partial effect in reducing viral aerosol shedding (25).
When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress, it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for source control. When someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets. Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).
Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."
An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).
In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant droplet size range, as well some efficacy in blocking droplets and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help people keep their droplets to themselves.
When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress, it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for source control. When someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets. Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).
Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."
An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).
In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant droplet size range, as well some efficacy in blocking droplets and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help people keep their droplets to themselves.
Again: What Was The Construction In That Study?
They do not specify, do they? Which begs the question of what the study is even comparing.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800
We found that when the person said “stay healthy,” numerous droplets ranging from 20 to 500 μm were generated. These droplets produced flashes as they passed through the light sheet (Figure 1). The brightness of the flashes reflected the size of the particles and the fraction of time they were present in a single 16.7-msec frame of the video. The number of flashes in a single frame of the video was highest when the “th” sound in the word “healthy” was pronounced (Figure 1A). Repetition of the same phrase three times, with short pauses in between the phrases, produced a similar pattern of generated particles, with peak numbers of flashes as high as 347 with the loudest speech and as low as 227 when the loudness was slightly decreased over the three trials (see the top trace in Figure 1A). When the same phrase was uttered three times through a slightly damp washcloth over the speaker’s mouth, the flash count remained close to the background level (mean, 0.1 flashes); this showed a decrease in the number of forward-moving droplets (see the bottom trace in Figure 1A).
Why would it matter to you? You appear to be saying any cloth face covering is effective.
The study I point to says the evidence shows a very high amount of particles pass through.
If masks really do work as well as you say, we should see cases plummet now that some states and counties have passed a mask mandate.
I guess we will see.
