So, now I need to add "Slate" to my long list of BS publications and channels. The Atlantic, The BBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Sky News UK, The Guardian, The Times, etc. etc.
There's no simple solution is there? I'm just a little bit lazy, and I'd really like someone like the BBC where I USED TO get my news from, who pretty much told it to you straight (with a little left wing bias, which you can adjust for). Perhaps I was deluded to ever believe that, but they have been with me my whole life. Like an old auntie, who has become more and more politicised.
Oh dear.
Part of the problem is I don't like adverts too, and I like to put Radio 4 on. But I find myself rolling my eyes ever more when listening to their biased content (mostly the climate catastrophizing). I actually hate radio adverts with a passion.
I quite enjoy GB News, but I find them a bit too provocative.
Since the pandemic I've found myself turning to The Spectator, The Telegraph and even the Daily Mail, although these are most certainly mainstream.
I guess I'm just going to have to stick with Substack, Twitter and a whole bunch of different "news" sources, while avoiding the mainstream ones more and more.
Hah! who would you put on an Inclusion List? Got to be from the mainstream. Certainly here in the UK I can't think of ANY at all. I gave up back when the hysteria over Brexit was at its height and haven't gone back. I even avoid listening to the BBC radio now except for Radio 3 (classical music with barely any news).
For me it's The Telegraph, and a special mention goes to the Daily Mail who seemed to be the only ones complaining about lockdowns in late 2020. Of course they aren't without their problems. Although, honestly I'm more and more turning first to my substack pages that I follow. And Twitter. Oh, and Unherd and Spiked!
Because the general public follow the mainstream outlets so, if it's not being reported there then nobody knows. Millions get their information from the MSM and have no idea about all the other stuff out there. So, unless it's in the MSM, it hasn't happened! The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail flirt with the idea that the last 3 years have been wrong but they tread carefully. Spiked is not mainstream and seemed in favour of some of the restrictions and the jabs.
The exclusion list is for when you see a story pop up in your Twitter feed, or just mentioned somewhere. If it's The Guardian it instantly gets a -10 and ignored.
My inclusion list is stuff that I actively / deliberately read.
Thanks for the refresher on stats re aggregated v singular but I think you may have taken Nuzzo out of context. I'm not convinced she was proposing what you elegantly refuted. Maybe I am being too generous but her statement reminds me of the seatbelt saga. There was a reasonable signal in the auto racing sector suggesting that seat belts saved lives. Drivers wore a double sash and lap belt fitted snuggly. So eventually single lap and sash were rolled out in consumer vehicles, with some countries mandating their use. Surprisingly to some, in contrast to the racing industry, population level signals were marginal at best. Then along came inertia reel seat belts and the safety signal strengthened markedly. Why, because now the device was, at a population level, taking the confounder of 'fitted incorrectly' out of the aggregated data. To be fair to Nuzzo on this matter, numerous mask wearers reluctantly wore ill fitted masks or trusted the blind faith talisman effect of wearing a mask irrespective of material quality or bypass flow. So, just like with seatbelts, if a majority don't wear a device as is necessary for correct functioning, then a population study will not reveal the true capacity of a fit for purpose device. The noise of confounding factors may drown out any signal attributes of the device. This Cochran review looked at mask studies in the same way it looked at ivermectin studies. With masks, there was no QAQC on materials or fitting and with ivermectin a majority of included studies were ludicrously treating after 5 days of symptoms. Individual studies and meta analyses fail to elucidate effectiveness of interventions if context and nuance is ignored. What the Cochran review does tell us is that mask mandates or masking end masse doesn't protect the population. The 'why they don't protect' at population level has not been answered. But equally this review does not determine whether a snugly fitting, well constructed, hygienically worn N95 mask offers no protection to an individual. Another study may do so but not this review.
That's a fair point. If we go back to statistics, my above logic essentially assumes we are summing (aggregating) identically distributed variables (i.e. mask usage is identical across individuals), whereas you are pointing out this is not really true... type and fit are different across different people. Fair enough. As you say, this still doesn't negate the conclusions on mandates, as they have existed to date... if the mandate results in people not using effective practices, then the mandate is not effective. Additionally, I don't know of any reason anyone can confidently say it helps an individual... what evidence are they basing that on?
Related, I believe there are other studies would point to 1. N95's being no better than surgical masks, and 2. Masks showing no benefit for infection in surgical settings, so I'm still coming down on the side of "they don't do anything".
There definitely are masks in surgical settings studies, suggesting no net benefits if air flow is managed well. I would be interested to read a study showing n95 v surgical in a well fitted and standardised environment. A military study showed efficacy was dependant on atmospheric load and duration of exposure. Over a threshold for either variable, no difference between any mask or no mask. Jury is out for me, no definitive either way and personal choice should be, just that. Mandates are a fail.
Any of you who think masks have value (other than 10 minutes worth, perhaps, from a professionally fitted N95 or P100, brand new, mask) just find a friend who smokes, have them put on the mask, and then have then inhale a puff and exhale it. That is all you will need.
Perhaps the most relevant studies are the several from ORs that show that whether staff (all of whom are reasonably expert wearing masks, and who are watched by others in the same room) wear or do not wear a mask makes NO DIFFERENCE to infection for either the staff or the patients.
It is just a ritual. Believing that it should be something else is just like assuming your Rabbit's Foot will save you because it captures a few viral particles. People just keep looking for some reason to keep doing something that has NEVER been shown to have value. It, literally, is the democrat's MAGA hat -- although at least the hat will protect you from the sun.
Well that's a very partisan and emotional reply to my comment. You obviously have very strong beliefs and need to affirm them here. When a discussion on scientific method is responded to with derogatory political remarks, we can be confident that logic and adherence to scientific principles have been swapped out for faith-based tribal pugilism. There was no statement made by myself that I have a belief in masks or their efficacy, merely that there is a risk that signals can be lost in the noise of confounding factors inherent in population studies. Well designed studies may come up with a similar conclusion, they may not. There is a dearth of good study design. I'm sorry you feel such pain and anger. It is tough when there is so much deliberate misinformation by all players, including those in the medical science community. I'm not your enemy and not a democrat.
Lol...the comment was not aimed at you personally and I am not sure why you took it that way. I have reread it and it was not at all aimed at you -- just a tidbit for readers of the Substack. I was just dealing with the general issue of masking which I have been fighting for years (I am a hematologist and a microbiologist -- this is in my sweet spot).
I started by giving real examples (watch the smoke pour out of the masks...And smoke particles are at least 100 x, and often far larger, than virions) -- that is all science. If smoke gets out for that individual right there, right now, virions also go in. (Yes, one could make some kind of argument that perhaps the virion numbers might be reduced, but if it were just a reduction phenomenon, there would be more likely to be a measurable population effect -- there is not.)
That is why the SCIENTIFIC masking in the OR articles are germane. These are actual RCTs under far more constrained circumstances that still show no benefit to wearing masks, even under those highly observed, well fitted, and carefully controlled conditions.
One can always posit some set of circumstances that have not been precisely studied where the masks work remarkably. But one could do that for millions of other things we do not make people do based on a lick and a prayer. They would be likely to show in some other way if there were such a thing, so assume that any possible benefit is highly likely to be impossibly small.
The final paragraph was just my observation, and meant to be mostly funny, about who seems wedded to the masking. From someone who has run infection control and who has been involved in and studied this space for years, masks are on a par with rabbit's feet. Those have not been well studied in this regard either -- but there is just as much non-evidence that they help with covid as there is for masking. We should surely study them as well.
And the final sentence is just a throwaway but in my experience an accurate one. It was not a value judgement; just an observation.
So no personal statement in my comment or in my intent. But it is just a straw man to say "well every possible situation hasn't been studied so perhaps there is value". That can be said about anything, and is not a viable predicate to living life, IMHO.
Okay, my misunderstanding, all good. Have you got links or authors of those OR RCTs I am honestly interested. BTW, I think the smoke model is a really, really overly simplistic one to argue your point, perhaps there are better ones that are indicative of virions, vectors, aerosols, boundary layers, HEPA and flow dynamics. Cigarettes really don't cut it and it may send the wrong message about smoking lol.
There are so many articles. Quality of the research is all over the map. And I am traveling so do not have my files. But the below are a few that are peer reviewed that come to mind. Even though, as is typical, they are filled with the usual weasel words, the fact is that NOT ONE credible study in the hospital/OR, or anywhere else, has shown any mask benefit. (CDC's political studies are garbage science and do not count...)
Hope these are helpful.
This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenzalike illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.
Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms--a costly and unnecessary ritual? Following the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one metre from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.
Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets of 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. Surgical face masks have recently been advocated as a protective barrier between the surgical team and the patient, but the role of the surgical face mask as an effective measure in preventing surgical wound infections is questionable. The aim of the systematic review is to identify and review all randomised controlled trials evaluating disposable surgical face masks worn by the surgical team during clean surgery to prevent postoperative surgical wound infection. All relevant publications about disposable surgical face masks were sought through the Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group (March 2001). Manufacturers and distributors of disposable surgical masks as well as professional organisations including the National Association of Theatre Nurses and the Association of Operating Room Nurses were contacted for details of unpublished and ongoing studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of disposable surgical masks with the use of no mask were included.
Main results: Two randomised controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group. Neither trial accounted for cluster randomisation in the analysis.
Reviewers' conclusions: From the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery.
Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.
Hey thanks Dr K. That's very generous of your time to flick me these and your "abstracts", very much appreciated. Totally agree, CDC an expensive media device for less than altruistic interests. I will read all of these with interest. I personally have never had any confidence in surgical masks and having spent many months in hospitals over the last four years, observed ridiculous gaps at the nose bridge of most health workers. Yes, good ventilation and positive pressure zones in the sensitive field are probably far more efficacious. The world could certainly benefit from a hell of a reduction in medical waste. I live near a public hospital and despite a host of PPE worn by staff there is only one item littering the street - surgical masks. I appreciate your wanting to put a line under this topic, that enough research has been done and argue against further investigation. However, science is an iterative process that provides increments of knowledge and medical science seems to routinely refute what was accepted practice 10 years ago. Add to that outrageously expensive RCTs, government capture and incompetence and it's a bloody tough time to get to best practice based on actual balance of probability. Thanks again for the links.
Due to her role, Jennifer Nuzzo is personally responsible for how many cases of myocarditis of Brown students who are mandated to vaxx to go to school, let alone who knows how many cases of infertility of childbearing aged women? But she is ALL IN on making everyone wear masks, because she got scared and believed in mask witchcraft in 2020 and is not willing to admit her stupidity. What a world.
In the first place, (1) there is no research on how many Sarscov2s need to be inhaled to become infected. Opinions vary greatly among scholars, ranging from 100 to 1,000,000. (2) There are few studies on the density of Sarscov2 floating in various environments. This is the only one I found.
According to cross-sectional data of USA, Korea, China, Honkong, Singapore, Iran, G.Britain, Italy
(3) Mask standards vary from country to country, ranging from non-standard products that are just for appearance. (4) Even with standard products, the test particles are 0.3 μm virus, polystyrene (easily charged), salt NaCL (N95 is 95% at distribution of 70 to 300 nm, DS2 is 95% at 60 to 100 nm, NaCL is less likely to be charged than polystyrene, charging performance of Sarscov2 is unknown), and others. (5) As human subjects are not accompanied by attendants. A Randomized Control Trial like the medicine you take by mouth or injected into the body is not possible. There are inevitably individual differences in how to wear it.
(6) The medical journal The Cochrane began funding Bill Gates in 2016, and the anti-pharmaceutical Dr. Peter Gotzsche was removed from the board. Therefore, I think that there is a backside to this medical journal article.
Therefore, there is no choice but to think carefully on your own, check the information, and think further before making a decision.
So, now I need to add "Slate" to my long list of BS publications and channels. The Atlantic, The BBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Sky News UK, The Guardian, The Times, etc. etc.
It's getting hard to keep track of them all.
I think there is an excellent argument for avoiding all mainstream media. https://betonit.substack.com/p/mainstream-media-is-worse-than-silence
There's no simple solution is there? I'm just a little bit lazy, and I'd really like someone like the BBC where I USED TO get my news from, who pretty much told it to you straight (with a little left wing bias, which you can adjust for). Perhaps I was deluded to ever believe that, but they have been with me my whole life. Like an old auntie, who has become more and more politicised.
Oh dear.
Part of the problem is I don't like adverts too, and I like to put Radio 4 on. But I find myself rolling my eyes ever more when listening to their biased content (mostly the climate catastrophizing). I actually hate radio adverts with a passion.
I quite enjoy GB News, but I find them a bit too provocative.
Since the pandemic I've found myself turning to The Spectator, The Telegraph and even the Daily Mail, although these are most certainly mainstream.
I guess I'm just going to have to stick with Substack, Twitter and a whole bunch of different "news" sources, while avoiding the mainstream ones more and more.
Or just tune out and play guitar.
Don't bother with an exclusion list. Why?
Build an INCLUSION list. Only worthwhile media is allowed. Don't make the media deserve to be cut.
Make it deserve to be heard.
Hah! who would you put on an Inclusion List? Got to be from the mainstream. Certainly here in the UK I can't think of ANY at all. I gave up back when the hysteria over Brexit was at its height and haven't gone back. I even avoid listening to the BBC radio now except for Radio 3 (classical music with barely any news).
For me it's The Telegraph, and a special mention goes to the Daily Mail who seemed to be the only ones complaining about lockdowns in late 2020. Of course they aren't without their problems. Although, honestly I'm more and more turning first to my substack pages that I follow. And Twitter. Oh, and Unherd and Spiked!
Epoch times, Rebel News for more prominent, straight news orgs.
Why 'got to be from the mainstream?'
That seems a pointless criteria, mainly to make it impossible to find something as MSM is strictly guv prop.
Because the general public follow the mainstream outlets so, if it's not being reported there then nobody knows. Millions get their information from the MSM and have no idea about all the other stuff out there. So, unless it's in the MSM, it hasn't happened! The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail flirt with the idea that the last 3 years have been wrong but they tread carefully. Spiked is not mainstream and seemed in favour of some of the restrictions and the jabs.
The exclusion list is for when you see a story pop up in your Twitter feed, or just mentioned somewhere. If it's The Guardian it instantly gets a -10 and ignored.
My inclusion list is stuff that I actively / deliberately read.
Thanks for the refresher on stats re aggregated v singular but I think you may have taken Nuzzo out of context. I'm not convinced she was proposing what you elegantly refuted. Maybe I am being too generous but her statement reminds me of the seatbelt saga. There was a reasonable signal in the auto racing sector suggesting that seat belts saved lives. Drivers wore a double sash and lap belt fitted snuggly. So eventually single lap and sash were rolled out in consumer vehicles, with some countries mandating their use. Surprisingly to some, in contrast to the racing industry, population level signals were marginal at best. Then along came inertia reel seat belts and the safety signal strengthened markedly. Why, because now the device was, at a population level, taking the confounder of 'fitted incorrectly' out of the aggregated data. To be fair to Nuzzo on this matter, numerous mask wearers reluctantly wore ill fitted masks or trusted the blind faith talisman effect of wearing a mask irrespective of material quality or bypass flow. So, just like with seatbelts, if a majority don't wear a device as is necessary for correct functioning, then a population study will not reveal the true capacity of a fit for purpose device. The noise of confounding factors may drown out any signal attributes of the device. This Cochran review looked at mask studies in the same way it looked at ivermectin studies. With masks, there was no QAQC on materials or fitting and with ivermectin a majority of included studies were ludicrously treating after 5 days of symptoms. Individual studies and meta analyses fail to elucidate effectiveness of interventions if context and nuance is ignored. What the Cochran review does tell us is that mask mandates or masking end masse doesn't protect the population. The 'why they don't protect' at population level has not been answered. But equally this review does not determine whether a snugly fitting, well constructed, hygienically worn N95 mask offers no protection to an individual. Another study may do so but not this review.
That's a fair point. If we go back to statistics, my above logic essentially assumes we are summing (aggregating) identically distributed variables (i.e. mask usage is identical across individuals), whereas you are pointing out this is not really true... type and fit are different across different people. Fair enough. As you say, this still doesn't negate the conclusions on mandates, as they have existed to date... if the mandate results in people not using effective practices, then the mandate is not effective. Additionally, I don't know of any reason anyone can confidently say it helps an individual... what evidence are they basing that on?
Related, I believe there are other studies would point to 1. N95's being no better than surgical masks, and 2. Masks showing no benefit for infection in surgical settings, so I'm still coming down on the side of "they don't do anything".
There definitely are masks in surgical settings studies, suggesting no net benefits if air flow is managed well. I would be interested to read a study showing n95 v surgical in a well fitted and standardised environment. A military study showed efficacy was dependant on atmospheric load and duration of exposure. Over a threshold for either variable, no difference between any mask or no mask. Jury is out for me, no definitive either way and personal choice should be, just that. Mandates are a fail.
Any of you who think masks have value (other than 10 minutes worth, perhaps, from a professionally fitted N95 or P100, brand new, mask) just find a friend who smokes, have them put on the mask, and then have then inhale a puff and exhale it. That is all you will need.
Perhaps the most relevant studies are the several from ORs that show that whether staff (all of whom are reasonably expert wearing masks, and who are watched by others in the same room) wear or do not wear a mask makes NO DIFFERENCE to infection for either the staff or the patients.
It is just a ritual. Believing that it should be something else is just like assuming your Rabbit's Foot will save you because it captures a few viral particles. People just keep looking for some reason to keep doing something that has NEVER been shown to have value. It, literally, is the democrat's MAGA hat -- although at least the hat will protect you from the sun.
Well that's a very partisan and emotional reply to my comment. You obviously have very strong beliefs and need to affirm them here. When a discussion on scientific method is responded to with derogatory political remarks, we can be confident that logic and adherence to scientific principles have been swapped out for faith-based tribal pugilism. There was no statement made by myself that I have a belief in masks or their efficacy, merely that there is a risk that signals can be lost in the noise of confounding factors inherent in population studies. Well designed studies may come up with a similar conclusion, they may not. There is a dearth of good study design. I'm sorry you feel such pain and anger. It is tough when there is so much deliberate misinformation by all players, including those in the medical science community. I'm not your enemy and not a democrat.
Lol...the comment was not aimed at you personally and I am not sure why you took it that way. I have reread it and it was not at all aimed at you -- just a tidbit for readers of the Substack. I was just dealing with the general issue of masking which I have been fighting for years (I am a hematologist and a microbiologist -- this is in my sweet spot).
I started by giving real examples (watch the smoke pour out of the masks...And smoke particles are at least 100 x, and often far larger, than virions) -- that is all science. If smoke gets out for that individual right there, right now, virions also go in. (Yes, one could make some kind of argument that perhaps the virion numbers might be reduced, but if it were just a reduction phenomenon, there would be more likely to be a measurable population effect -- there is not.)
That is why the SCIENTIFIC masking in the OR articles are germane. These are actual RCTs under far more constrained circumstances that still show no benefit to wearing masks, even under those highly observed, well fitted, and carefully controlled conditions.
One can always posit some set of circumstances that have not been precisely studied where the masks work remarkably. But one could do that for millions of other things we do not make people do based on a lick and a prayer. They would be likely to show in some other way if there were such a thing, so assume that any possible benefit is highly likely to be impossibly small.
The final paragraph was just my observation, and meant to be mostly funny, about who seems wedded to the masking. From someone who has run infection control and who has been involved in and studied this space for years, masks are on a par with rabbit's feet. Those have not been well studied in this regard either -- but there is just as much non-evidence that they help with covid as there is for masking. We should surely study them as well.
And the final sentence is just a throwaway but in my experience an accurate one. It was not a value judgement; just an observation.
So no personal statement in my comment or in my intent. But it is just a straw man to say "well every possible situation hasn't been studied so perhaps there is value". That can be said about anything, and is not a viable predicate to living life, IMHO.
Okay, my misunderstanding, all good. Have you got links or authors of those OR RCTs I am honestly interested. BTW, I think the smoke model is a really, really overly simplistic one to argue your point, perhaps there are better ones that are indicative of virions, vectors, aerosols, boundary layers, HEPA and flow dynamics. Cigarettes really don't cut it and it may send the wrong message about smoking lol.
There are so many articles. Quality of the research is all over the map. And I am traveling so do not have my files. But the below are a few that are peer reviewed that come to mind. Even though, as is typical, they are filled with the usual weasel words, the fact is that NOT ONE credible study in the hospital/OR, or anywhere else, has shown any mask benefit. (CDC's political studies are garbage science and do not count...)
Hope these are helpful.
This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenzalike illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32675098/#affiliation-1
Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms--a costly and unnecessary ritual? Following the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one metre from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1680906/
Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets of 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. Surgical face masks have recently been advocated as a protective barrier between the surgical team and the patient, but the role of the surgical face mask as an effective measure in preventing surgical wound infections is questionable. The aim of the systematic review is to identify and review all randomised controlled trials evaluating disposable surgical face masks worn by the surgical team during clean surgery to prevent postoperative surgical wound infection. All relevant publications about disposable surgical face masks were sought through the Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group (March 2001). Manufacturers and distributors of disposable surgical masks as well as professional organisations including the National Association of Theatre Nurses and the Association of Operating Room Nurses were contacted for details of unpublished and ongoing studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of disposable surgical masks with the use of no mask were included.
Main results: Two randomised controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group. Neither trial accounted for cluster randomisation in the analysis.
Reviewers' conclusions: From the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16295987/
Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868605
Hey thanks Dr K. That's very generous of your time to flick me these and your "abstracts", very much appreciated. Totally agree, CDC an expensive media device for less than altruistic interests. I will read all of these with interest. I personally have never had any confidence in surgical masks and having spent many months in hospitals over the last four years, observed ridiculous gaps at the nose bridge of most health workers. Yes, good ventilation and positive pressure zones in the sensitive field are probably far more efficacious. The world could certainly benefit from a hell of a reduction in medical waste. I live near a public hospital and despite a host of PPE worn by staff there is only one item littering the street - surgical masks. I appreciate your wanting to put a line under this topic, that enough research has been done and argue against further investigation. However, science is an iterative process that provides increments of knowledge and medical science seems to routinely refute what was accepted practice 10 years ago. Add to that outrageously expensive RCTs, government capture and incompetence and it's a bloody tough time to get to best practice based on actual balance of probability. Thanks again for the links.
Hector Drummond's book might also be interesting in this regard:
https://hectordrummond.com/
Due to her role, Jennifer Nuzzo is personally responsible for how many cases of myocarditis of Brown students who are mandated to vaxx to go to school, let alone who knows how many cases of infertility of childbearing aged women? But she is ALL IN on making everyone wear masks, because she got scared and believed in mask witchcraft in 2020 and is not willing to admit her stupidity. What a world.
She and Emily "Amnesty" Oster must hang out a lot.
In the first place, (1) there is no research on how many Sarscov2s need to be inhaled to become infected. Opinions vary greatly among scholars, ranging from 100 to 1,000,000. (2) There are few studies on the density of Sarscov2 floating in various environments. This is the only one I found.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774463
In Hospitals::
Consultation room: 1000-10000 pieces/㎥
Toilet bathroom: 5,000 to 14,000/m3
Hospital room: 9,000 to 40,000 /m3
Particles roughly less than 100 nm
According to cross-sectional data of USA, Korea, China, Honkong, Singapore, Iran, G.Britain, Italy
(3) Mask standards vary from country to country, ranging from non-standard products that are just for appearance. (4) Even with standard products, the test particles are 0.3 μm virus, polystyrene (easily charged), salt NaCL (N95 is 95% at distribution of 70 to 300 nm, DS2 is 95% at 60 to 100 nm, NaCL is less likely to be charged than polystyrene, charging performance of Sarscov2 is unknown), and others. (5) As human subjects are not accompanied by attendants. A Randomized Control Trial like the medicine you take by mouth or injected into the body is not possible. There are inevitably individual differences in how to wear it.
(6) The medical journal The Cochrane began funding Bill Gates in 2016, and the anti-pharmaceutical Dr. Peter Gotzsche was removed from the board. Therefore, I think that there is a backside to this medical journal article.
Therefore, there is no choice but to think carefully on your own, check the information, and think further before making a decision.