Paper shows masks suck

[ecstatichamster]

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.​

 

[themaestro]

Interestion, thanks for sharing.

Here's an article that uses this very article as an example of misinformation spread through forums and social media: Seeing Is Not Necessarily Believing | Amgen Biotech Experience

If you think that PubMed gives that article an air of validity, here's a compiled list of 70 studies that show that masks do in fact work:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

 

[Ben.]

Interestion, thanks for sharing.

Here's an article that uses this very article as an example of misinformation spread through forums and social media: Seeing Is Not Necessarily Believing | Amgen Biotech Experience

If you think that PubMed gives that article an air of validity, here's a compiled list of 70 studies that show that masks do in fact work:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

I can't go trough 70 studies atm. From a quick glance they show how much droplets or w/e else is traveling with or without mask. It also is showing that transmittion of w/e a person can transmit trough the air/fluid, can be reduced.
I dont think that anyone is doubting that masks can do that and work in that sense.

It builds on the premise and the medical established theory however, that other living beings are full of viruses/bacteria and all contact should be avoided as much as possible because bacteria/virus is the root of all evil/sickness. This Pandemie basicly declared everyone, everything, everywhere as an enemy. Sterilize and avoid because you too ladies and gentlemen could kill someones grandmother.

How did we even live before covid's mask enforcement? ... there was no corona back then i guess?

 

[Collden]

Interestion, thanks for sharing.

Here's an article that uses this very article as an example of misinformation spread through forums and social media: Seeing Is Not Necessarily Believing | Amgen Biotech Experience

If you think that PubMed gives that article an air of validity, here's a compiled list of 70 studies that show that masks do in fact work:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

I agree this article is mostly speculative, but there are many studies that directly show harm from masks, eg

A new form of irritant rhinitis to filtering facepiece particle (FFP) masks (FFP2/N95/KN95 respirators) during COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed

Filtering facepiece particle (FFP) masks are important items of personal protective equipment in fighting COVID-19 pandemic. They shall protect the wearer of the mask from particles, droplets, and aerosols, but they also can prevent the spread of aerosol-transmitted viruses if the wearer becomes...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[Corona child studies "Co-Ki": first results of a Germany-wide register on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children] - PubMed

This world's first registry for recording the effects of wearing masks in children is dedicated to a new research question. A bias with respect to the preferential documentation of particularly severely affected children or persons who are fundamentally critical of protective measures cannot be...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How face masks influence the sinonasal quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic - European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Purpose To study different mask types’ impact on a sinonasal quality of life. Methods For this observational cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was distributed via social media forums. We used the validated Hebrew version of the Sinonasal Outcome Test–22 followed by a questionnaire...

link.springer.com

An investigation into the leaching of micro and nano particles and chemical pollutants from disposable face masks - linked to the COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed

The production of disposable plastic face masks (DPFs) in China alone has reached to approximately 200 million a day, in a global effort to tackle the spread of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, improper and unregulated disposals of these DPFs has been and will continue to intensify the plastic...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Protective Face Masks: Effect on the Oxygenation and Heart Rate Status of Oral Surgeons during Surgery - PubMed

In conclusion, wearing an FFP2 covered by a surgical mask induces a reduction in circulating O₂ concentrations without clinical relevance, while an increase of heart frequency and a sensation of shortness of breath, light-headedness/headaches were recorded.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I've yet to see anyone saying that masks are effective explain how the second wave of infections could be so much worse than the first even though strict mask mandates were up everywhere and self-reported mask usage was about 90% before the second wave hit.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Interestion, thanks for sharing.

Here's an article that uses this very article as an example of misinformation spread through forums and social media: Seeing Is Not Necessarily Believing | Amgen Biotech Experience

If you think that PubMed gives that article an air of validity, here's a compiled list of 70 studies that show that masks do in fact work:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

I suspect none of what is listed in your link are randomized controlled trials. There are about 14 RCTs that conclude masks do not significantly prevent transmission of influenza virus and one RCT that concludes the same for the covid virus. I don't think there are any RCTs that show masks are effective at stopping virus transmission. People with a non-scientific agenda ignore the higher quality science (RCTs) to promote lower quality studies and opinion pieces based on modeling, correlations, wishful thinking, straw men, appeal to common sense, etc., some of which are listed at your link.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Interestion, thanks for sharing.

Here's an article that uses this very article as an example of misinformation spread through forums and social media: Seeing Is Not Necessarily Believing | Amgen Biotech Experience

If you think that PubMed gives that article an air of validity, here's a compiled list of 70 studies that show that masks do in fact work:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

I'm going to go through a few of these until I get bored.

#1 is a straw man that studies respiratory jets. Viruses spread via aerosols.
#2 is easily disproven by graphs that show cases increasing in states after they implemented mask mandates and decreasing in states that didn't have mask mandates, or after they lifted mask mandates.
#3 is a correlation study. Pretty weak. If you look hard enough you can find all kinds of correlations that don't mean anything.
#4 is an extremely weak correlation study.
#5 is a study based on modeling. Models can be programmed/parametrized to get any results wanted. They are not science.

taking a break...

 

[Perry Staltic]

I'm going to go through a few of these until I get bored.

#1 is a straw man that studies respiratory jets. Viruses spread via aerosols.
#2 is easily disproven by graphs that show cases increasing in states after they implemented mask mandates and decreasing in states that didn't have mask mandates, or after they lifted mask mandates.
#3 is a correlation study. Pretty weak. If you look hard enough you can find all kinds of correlations that don't mean anything.
#4 is an extremely weak correlation study.
#5 is a study based on modeling. Models can be programmed/parametrized to get any results wanted. They are not science.

taking a break...

#6 was funded by the WHO. It is a review of 172 observational studies and 44 observational studies that tries to find correlations. It mentions "Our search did not identify any randomised trials of COVID-19, SARS, or MERS", yet there were over a dozen RCTs for influenza during their study that concluded masks don't stop virus transmission, and there is now a RCT for covid with the same conclusion.
#7 is a rebuttal to criticism of the author's previous study. It is an appeal to precautionary principle, moral courage and common sense. Pathetic.
#8 speculates that not wearing masks could lead to dangerous behavior. This is not science; it is speculation and wishful thinking.
#9 states that masks can stop droplets, but not aerosols which are the primary means of viral transmission.

taking a break...

 

[themaestro]

I agree this article is mostly speculative, but there are many studies that directly show harm from masks, eg

A new form of irritant rhinitis to filtering facepiece particle (FFP) masks (FFP2/N95/KN95 respirators) during COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed

Filtering facepiece particle (FFP) masks are important items of personal protective equipment in fighting COVID-19 pandemic. They shall protect the wearer of the mask from particles, droplets, and aerosols, but they also can prevent the spread of aerosol-transmitted viruses if the wearer becomes...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

[Corona child studies "Co-Ki": first results of a Germany-wide register on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children] - PubMed

This world's first registry for recording the effects of wearing masks in children is dedicated to a new research question. A bias with respect to the preferential documentation of particularly severely affected children or persons who are fundamentally critical of protective measures cannot be...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How face masks influence the sinonasal quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic - European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Purpose To study different mask types’ impact on a sinonasal quality of life. Methods For this observational cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was distributed via social media forums. We used the validated Hebrew version of the Sinonasal Outcome Test–22 followed by a questionnaire...

link.springer.com

An investigation into the leaching of micro and nano particles and chemical pollutants from disposable face masks - linked to the COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed

The production of disposable plastic face masks (DPFs) in China alone has reached to approximately 200 million a day, in a global effort to tackle the spread of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, improper and unregulated disposals of these DPFs has been and will continue to intensify the plastic...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Protective Face Masks: Effect on the Oxygenation and Heart Rate Status of Oral Surgeons during Surgery - PubMed

In conclusion, wearing an FFP2 covered by a surgical mask induces a reduction in circulating O₂ concentrations without clinical relevance, while an increase of heart frequency and a sensation of shortness of breath, light-headedness/headaches were recorded.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I've yet to see anyone saying that masks are effective explain how the second wave of infections could be so much worse than the first even though strict mask mandates were up everywhere and self-reported mask usage was about 90% before the second wave hit.

Have you been to Florida?

I suspect none of what is listed in your link are randomized controlled trials. There are about 14 RCTs that conclude masks do not significantly prevent transmission of influenza virus and one RCT that concludes the same for the covid virus. I don't think there are any RCTs that show masks are effective at stopping virus transmission. People with a non-scientific agenda ignore the higher quality science (RCTs) to promote lower quality studies and opinion pieces based on modeling, correlations, wishful thinking, straw men, appeal to common sense, etc., some of which are listed at your link.

Could you link to those RCTs?

 

[Collden]

Have you been to Florida?

No, why?

 

[Perry Staltic]

Could you link to those RCTs?

You can find the Danish covid RCT yourself. It was published late 2020.

The CDC published an article in May 2020 on the review of 10 influenza RCTs, and the studies are referenced therein. It concluded:

The evidence from RCTs suggested that the use of face masks either by infected persons or by uninfected persons does not have a substantial effect on influenza transmission.

Table 1 - Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures - Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC

wwwnc.cdc.gov

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

 

[themaestro]

You can find the Danish covid RCT yourself. It was published late 2020.

The CDC published an article in May 2020 on the review of 10 influenza RCTs, and the studies are referenced therein. It concluded:

Table 1 - Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures - Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC

wwwnc.cdc.gov

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

Ah yes, the self-admittedly inclusive study reposted by every conspiracy theorist on social media. Of course that's the one no one here will criticize.

ACP Journals

 

[Perry Staltic]

Ah yes, the self-admittedly inclusive study reposted by every conspiracy theorist on social media. Of course that's the one no one here will criticize.

ACP Journals

It's the best study there is for covid, yet it gets ignored by those who don't like its conclusion. Coronaviruses and influenza viruses are the same size (0.08 to 0.12 microns), so the RCTs that studied masks and influenza would apply to coronaviruses as well. But those get conveniently ignored as well by the same people.

 

[ecstatichamster]

best mask study is the one the CDC published and then buried, finding a "1%" effect of masks, based upon comparing geographies with and without strict mask mandates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7010e3-H.pdf

Mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period.

---

But wait, there's more. Lockdowns don't work either, as can easily be seen in the next part of the abstract:

During the study period, states allowed restaurants to reopen for on-premises dining in 3,076 (97.9%) U.S. counties.

Changes in daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates were not statistically significant 1–20 and 21–40 days after restrictions were lifted.

Allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with 0.9 (p = 0.02), 1.2 (p<0.01), and 1.1 (p = 0.04) percentage point increases in the case growth rate 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after restrictions were lifted (Table 2) (Figure).

Allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with 2.2 and 3.0 percentage point increases in the death growth rate 61–80 and 81–100 days, respectively, after restrictions were lifted (p<0.01 for both).

Daily death growth rates before restrictions were lifted were not statistically different from those during the reference period, whereas significant differences in daily case growth rates were observed 41–60 days before restrictions were lifted.
---

Yes, these astoundingly nothing numbers justify the phony and fake conclusions:

Community mitigation measures can help reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, mask mandates were associated with reductions in COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days, whereas allowing on-premises dining at restaurants was associated with increases in COVID-19 case and death growth rates after 40 days. With the emergence of more transmissible COVID-19 variants, community mitigation measures are increasingly important as part of a larger strategy to decrease exposure to and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2
--

They completely lie. The numbers show no such thing. They show that masks and restrictions are a nothing burger.

Now, the most amazing part to me is this. When I show this to friends and family, nobody ever changes their minds about the effectiveness of masks or lockdowns.

Once their mind is made up, they never change despite the evidence.

There is a (apocryphal?) story of Churchill (who I despise) was accused of changing his mind. He responded, allegedly, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

And finally, Emerson's quote that I live by. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

 

[Kram]

If you compare cases and deaths per capita for states with no restrictions (e.g., Florida in September and more recently Texas) to those states with lots of restrictions, it's easy to see lockdowns and masks have little benefit, if any at all, in terms of controlling the virus.

Fauci recently had no explanation for why new cases continue to fall in Texas.

 

[StephanF]

Even if all droplets from an infected person are captured by the mask. What happens after these droplets evaporate? Then the virus particles could escape from the mask or not? The masks most people wear do not capture 100 nm size particles effectively.

The only way those droplets bind the viruses tightly to the mask fibers is due to the saliva residue, it will thicken and act like a glue. But if the mask is taken off and reattached several times, I would expect that mechanical wear may break apart those glued deposits and release the viral particles. Question is whether the viral particles are still intakt?

The only study done on masks that I know of is from Korea, I think I posted it a while back. They used nebulized viral particles and exposed lab animals. Mask material that was treated with a saline solution and a surfactant held the viral particles back. The viral particles were destroyed through osmosis from the salt content of the fibers. They also showed a picture of a droplet sitting on an untreated fiber, which would eventually evaporate and release the viral particles. I assume the used distilled water in their nebulizers. Saliva may be different though.

 

[Nemo]

Interestion, thanks for sharing.

Here's an article that uses this very article as an example of misinformation spread through forums and social media: Seeing Is Not Necessarily Believing | Amgen Biotech Experience

If you think that PubMed gives that article an air of validity, here's a compiled list of 70 studies that show that masks do in fact work:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

No peer-reviewed randomized control trial study shows masks work at reducing transmission of respiratory viruses.

When studies purport to show masks work, it's always a b.s. study that shows some masks trap a certain percentage of virus particles. Or it's some utterly bogus study falsely claiming that countries or counties that mandated masks had fewer "cases".

But it doesn't matter if masks trap a certain percentage of virus particles, even if that percentage is high. That doesn't affect transmission rates because even a dinky percentage of particles can transmit the disease.

 

[tankasnowgod]

If you think that PubMed gives that article an air of validity, here's a compiled list of 70 studies that show that masks do in fact work:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

Work for WHAT?

I haven't looked at all the studies yet, but one this one is about a number of interventions by healthcare workers. It specifically mentions N95 masks. You can't generalize anything said there to cloth masks or paper masks-

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/55025CCAFE6E5F3B30C31ECB6E73A3D4/S0950268804002766a.pdf/factors_associated_with_transmission_of_severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_among_healthcare_workers_in_singapore.pdf

This one is about parent's wearing masks when caring for a sick child, NOT in a grocery store or at work or while driving lyft or uber-

Face Mask Use and Control of Respiratory Virus Transmission in Households

Mask use is associated with low adherence, but adherent mask users are significantly protected against seasonal disease.Many countries are stockpiling face masks for use as a nonpharmaceutical intervention to control virus transmission during an influenza ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A prospective, cluster-randomized trial of mask use in households was conducted during the 2 winter seasons of 2006 and 2007 (August to the end of October 2006 and June to the end of October 2007) in Sydney, Australia. Enrollment in the study was restricted to households with >2 healthy adults >16 years of age; the adults had known exposure within the household to a child with fever and respiratory symptoms. Suitable households were identified at a pediatric health service comprising the emergency department of a pediatric hospital and a pediatric primary care practice in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The study protocol was approved by the local institutional review board.

Randomization and Intervention​

Participating households were randomized to 1 of 3 arms by a secure computerized randomization process: 1) surgical masks (3M surgical mask, catalogue no. 1820; St. Paul, MN, USA) for 2 adults, to be worn at all times when in the same room as the index child, regardless of the distance from the child; 2) P2 masks (3M flat-fold P2 mask, catalogue no. 9320; Bracknell, Berkshire, UK), for 2 adults, to be worn at all times when in the same room as the index child, regardless of the distance from the child; and 3) a control group (no masks used). The P2 masks used have an almost identical specification as N95 masks used in the United States (19). According to New South Wales Health guidelines, pamphlets about infection control were provided to participants in all arms. Study participants and trial staff were not blinded, as it is not technically possible to blind the mask type to which participants were randomized. However, laboratory staff were blinded to the arm of randomization. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram for the trial as suggested by CONSORT guidelines (20).

You can use that study to recommend that parents wear masks in the very acute situation of caring for a sick child. So, maybe an hour or two a day for a week or so. It can in no way justify the use of masks in grocery stores, at work, on buses, or while driving, and wearing them 40/50/60 hours a week for months on end.

You pharma trolls with your brand news accounts on this forum pushing the official line of COVID propaganda need to do better. Are you getting paid to post this nonsense?

Did you actually read all 70 of those studies? I doubt you even read one.

 

[Nemo]

If you compare cases and deaths per capita for states with no restrictions (e.g., Florida in September and more recently Texas) to those states with lots of restrictions, it's easy to see lockdowns and masks have little benefit, if any at all, in terms of controlling the virus.

Fauci recently had no explanation for why new cases continue to fall in Texas.

Fleming shows Fauci is the guy responsible for the Bat Plague bioweapon. He provided all the university funding for the gain of function research, plus the funding for the Wuhan bioweapon lab that did further gain of function work and released it.

Fleming is calling for Fauci to be charged with crimes against humanity and face a tribunal.

 

[Nemo]

You pharma trolls with your brand news accounts on this forum pushing the official line of COVID propaganda need to do better. Are you getting paid to post this nonsense?

Did you actually read all 70 of those studies? I doubt you even read one.

Pharma and ClA trolls don't read research. Their posts are written for them. All canned. All bull.

Michael Senger on Twitter also proved that the CCP is running these pro-mask, pro-lockdown trolls and bots.

 

[cgh4444]

There’s still people defending the masks? Omfg.