For those stupid masks need stupid papers followers.......
Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence. Swiss Policy Research
It's like going to the diner for breakfast and getting the all day menu.... ;-)
<sigh>
Wow.
Do you even bother to actually "read" the articles they supposedly cite? Obviously not. You read the headline, assume that's what the reference supports, and then claim, "See, I was right all along. (see /pine's post as well). But alas, if you actually read the articles they either (1) say something entirely different than what they are claimed to say, or (2) are an opinion piece or unvetted (no peer review) article. So, as you and /pine both seem to struggle with these points, and can't be bothered to actually read beyond the headlines, allow me to break it down for you, article by article:
1) This has already been covered. This article only looks at influenza transmission, not SARS-CoV-2. These are two different viruses with different sizes, different manners in which they are shed from the human body, and different viability/infectivities in aerosol and surface transmission. Just because the influenza virus spreads one way, does not mean the SARS-CoV-2 virus does. That is analagous to saying HIV and seasonal influenza spread the same, and the same protection measures work for both. So, no, retrospective studies on influenza airborne transmission give us virtually no insight into how SARS-CoV-2 is spread. (So, this point is invalid)
2) This is not a peer-reviewed scientific article. It is an op-ed. It also is focused on reviewing the literature on influenza mask use (not applicable). But, there are some interesting comments, such as "However, recent reviews (citing studies relevant to SARS-CoV-2) using lower quality evidence found face masks to be effective". Wait, what!?!?!? The article they are citing as a proof face masks aren't effective is actually saying the exact opposite! Their final conclusion is that (1) we need to study more about face mask usage for SARS-CoV-2 because recent results indicate they are likely effective, and (2) when they compared cloth and surgical face masks in ongoing studies, surgical face masks worked better. So, what they "claim" the article said, is actually not at all what the article says. (So, this point is incorrect)
3) This is a popular news source, not a peer-reviewed study. The results are ongoing, so should be interpreted with care. What they did find is "Wearing facemasks in public was not associated with any independent additional impact. But the researchers say the results are too preliminary to reliably inform policy." In fact, one of the lead investigators is quoted as saying "The use of face coverings initially seems to have had a protective effect. However, after day 15 of the face covering advisories or requirements, we note that the number of cases started to rise - with a similar pattern for the number of deaths."
So, they are saying face masks did have an impact, but then that impact lessened over time. Well, the physics of face masks don't change, so this is likely due to a compliance, or population dynamic effect (you get lax, or get more worried and are more careful). Again, the researchers are smart enough to say, essentially, we don't know. In some cases they seem to work, in others they don't. So, an interesting article that points to continued study being worthwhile, but not a smoking gun by any stretch. Interestingly, as I have already pointed out, there are already other articles that have taken a similar approach to what they are doing, have gone through the peer review process and published their results, and shown face masks do have an effect. I'm not saying entirely discredit this work, but the scales of credibility certainly tip in the favor of already published work.
4) Again, this is an op-ed piece, not a scientific, peer-reviewed study. What do they say, "We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficient for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing." Ok, this is nothing new. As I have said all along, cloth masks (and even N95's) are not very effective against very small droplets, particularly when inhaling. Where they are "effective" is in preventing the spread of larger droplets before they evaporate and become aerosolized.
I don't think these authors even have a good understanding of droplet production, though. They claim there are differences in size distributions of droplets produced during coughing versus, say, speaking. This is not true, and is well understood. Coughing and speaking produce virtually identical size distributions from 1 micron to 200 micron (see Fig. 3 of
Characterization of expiration air jets and droplet size distributions immediately at the mouth opening - ScienceDirect).
Regardless, what is their final stance on face coverings, "Despite the current limited scientific data detailing their effectiveness, we support the wearing of face coverings by the public when mandated and when in close contact with people whose infection status they don't know."
Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020 when the role of airborne transmission was first starting to be understood. Virtually all of the studies demonstrating the effectiveness of masks have come out after its publication. Hence, why they make the comment "Wearing a cloth mask or face covering could be better than doing nothing, but we simply don't know at this point."
5) This one made me laugh. They state "We know that wearing a face mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any protection from infection", but offer no references on how they come to that conclusion. It is probably safe to assume they are referring to the fact that wearing a mask does little to protect you, personally. Again, we already know this.
What's interesting is they then go on to address the role of face masks in the health care setting, and come to the conclusion "Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources [individuals working with mild symptoms] by stopping asymptomatic and minimially symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets." Say what? They're saying masks and face covering could help the spread of the virus from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals!?!!? Yes, that's the exact same justification for wearing face coverings right now.
I think it's safe to say if it works to stop spread from asymtpomatic/pre-symptomatic workers in the health care setting, it will do the same in the general public. (Face coverings don't work differently when in a hospital versus some other building). So, this article actually is a pretty clear justification for why we should wear face coverings.
6) There are a couple of problems here. (a) They are again looking at influenza transmission. As previously discussed, Influenza is not SARS-CoV-2. (b) This is a pre-print article, which means it was uploaded to a database (medRxiv) prior to being peer-reviewed and published (back on April 7, 2020). It has still not been published, which means it was likely denied publication, and therefore, should not be considered anyway.
Interestingly, while trying to find if this article had been published, I stumbled across this one:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext. The findings? "Face mask use could result in a large reduction of in risk of infection, with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposible surgical masks or similar."
So, an unreliable study that was denied publication, and was making comparisons with the wrong virus. But, it did lead to finding yet another, peer-reviewed study supporting the use of face masks.
7) This is another pre-print that was never published. Again, it was looking at influenza transmission, not SARS-CoV-2 (not applicable). Nevertheless, they actually found "Where specific information was available, most studies reported about use of medicat grade (surgical paper masks). In 3 RCT's (random clinical trials), wearing a face mask may very slightly reduce the odds of developing influenza-like-illness/respiratory symptoms, by around 6%. Greater effectiveness was suggested by observational studies. When both house-mates and an infected household member wore face masks the odds of further household members becoming ill may be modestly reduced by around 19%"
Oh, I get it. If someone is sick and wears a face mask, it decreases the likelihood someone else will get infected. Isn't that what I've been saying all along?!!??
Even so, to be fair, it should not be considered as it has not been peer-reviewed.
8) I've addressed this exact article on here earlier. It's a popular summary of an unpublished research study. The author of the article (not the study) says "cloth face masks had a 100% leakage rate in terms of airborne particles penetrating the fabric and through the gap between the masks and faces, substantially raising the risk of infection. A couple of points. (a) 100% leakage can't raise the risk of infection over no mask. (b) Again, we know masks do at most, very little to protect against inhalation of airborne particles. The study author said "This experiment reconfirmed that wearing cloth and gauze masks can't prevent virus infection." That is, they don't protect you - we know this. But what's interesting is the article then goes on, "However, he conceded that such masks do prevent the wearer from spreading droplets by coughing ... "
So, another study that actually, confirms what the scientific community has been saying. Wear a mask to protect others, not yourself.
9) This one is interesting. Again, it's based on influeza-like-illness, not COVID-19. It was published in 2015. Recognizing their work could be misinterpreted (as it has) they issued a clarification relative to the COVID-19 pandemic (it's in a link at the top of the article). In this update, they make the following clarifications:
"It is important to note that some subjects in the control arm wore surgical masks, which could explain why cloth masks performed poorly compared to the control group. We also did an analysis of all mask wearers, and the higher infection rate in cloth mask group persisted. The cloth masks may have been worse in our study because they were not washed well enough they may become damp and contaminated. The cloth masks used in our study were products manufactured locally, and fabrics can vary in quality. This and other limitations were also discussed."
Ok, so if you compare cloth masks to a population wearing both surgical masks and no masks, the cloth masks don't compare as well. Not surprising, and not proof that masks don't work. Yes, if you wear them for very long hours, and don't wash them properly, this could be problematic. Again, that's not a problem with the mask. That's a problem with how it is used. That's why there is training on how to take masks off, put them on, don't touch them, and wash hands after removing them. This is why I mentioned, as in a previous thread, once I put one on, I don't take it off, until it can go straight into the washing machine, and I can then wash my hands.
In the update, they further say "The physical barrier provided by a cloth mask may afford some protection, but likely much less than a surgical mask or a respirator." Again, so they are saying cloth masks, in their opinion, are better than nothing, but not as good as N95s/respirators. Again, we know this.
Ok, so what have we learned here today? Hopefully, "don't trust what someone posts on the internet without double-checking/validating sources. Of the supposedly 9 articles that are "proof" face masks don't work, a close reading reveals the following:
- 5/9 (1, 2, 6, 7, and 9) are related to influenza transmission, which is not applicable to SARS-CoV-2. Regardless, References 7 and 9 actually conclude face coverings are helpful in prevent transmission. Articles 6 and 7 are not peer-reviewed (proceed with caution).
- 3/9 (3, 4, and 8 - more on article 3 later) are popular articles (not peer reviewed). Interestingly, article 4 recommends wearing face coverings, and article 8 admits they will decease expiration transmission.
- The last one, 5 is a peer-reviewed article that actually says face masks prevent asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic spread.
So, of the 9 articles, numbers 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 actually all recommend wearing face masks when you read the details. That's 6/9 - as in, a majority.
Another way to look at it is, if we only look at articles related specifically to SARS-CoV-2, that leaves numbers 3, 4, 5, and 9. Of those four articles, they all ultimately recommend wearing face coverings, except article 3 which says "we still don't know". Other than article 3, the only ones that don't recommend face coverings are studies looking at influenza transmission. Interestingly, even some of them still recommend face coverings.
I found article 3 interesting. It's the only one in the group that has any semblance of applicability to SARS-CoV-2. However, even the authors admit the data is preliminary, and seems contradictory, and so public health decisions should not be based on it. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what their final findings are.
So, the "smoking gun of proof" that you have offered actually provides more evidence that masks work, than that they don't, and only offers one preliminary study, where the authors themselves caution to wait for final results before making a decision. As mentioned, there already exists peer-reviewed work following a very similar methodology showing the masks do, in fact, work.
Next time, try actually reading the articles and understanding the nonsense you post.
</sigh>
