Local_NG_Idiot wrote:13th Man wrote:Wow ok. So much for having tons of peer-reviewed evidence. Just refer to Google.
If you aren't aware of how Google Scholar works, and choose to cite a blogger for all your 'facts', my point is made.
Because there are hundreds or thousands of articles of all different nature. At least I provided an article with direct and relevant studies to the discussion. You've provided little but condescendence.
Came across this article via a quick search using your tool:
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422.shortHere is a blurb from it:
But are they effective?
Very little good quality research exists on the use of cloth masks, especially in non-medical settings. One randomised controlled clinical trial of cloth masks, published in BMJ Open in 2015, compared their effectiveness with that of medical masks worn by hospital healthcare workers.2 The study, involving the industry partner 3M (which makes medical masks), reported that healthcare workers “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.”
In an updated comment on the study (30 March),3 the authors said, “There have been a number of laboratory studies looking at the effectiveness of different types of cloth materials, single versus multiple layers and about the role that filters can play. However, none have been tested in a clinical trial for efficacy.”
They also advised healthcare workers who choose to wear cloth masks to “have at least two and cycle them, so that each one can be washed and dried after daily use. Sanitizer spray or UV disinfection boxes can be used to clean them during breaks in a single day. These are pragmatic, rather than evidence-based suggestions, given the situation.”
A preprint of a rapid systematic review has assessed the current evidence on respiratory illnesses and the use of face masks (mainly surgical paper masks) in community settings.4 The paper, yet to be peer reviewed, included 31 studies, of which 12 were randomised controlled trials. The researchers reported that “wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks.” However, they said that many of the studies “suffered from poor compliance and controls.”
They concluded, “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against covid-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”
Commenting on these findings, Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said,
“There is only very limited evidence of the benefits of wearing face masks by the general public, no evidence that wearing them in crowded places helps at all, and no evidence at all yet related to covid-19 . . . The authors also acknowledge that mass face mask wearing by the public would likely cause shortages among people who genuinely need protective equipment—healthcare workers on the front line in our hospitals.”
But Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, said, “If an aerosol droplet hits the weave of the mask fabric rather than the hole it is clearly arrested. And lessening the aerosol dose chips away at the R0 [reproduction number] and helps to slow the epidemic . . . They are not a cure but they address the longer flatter epidemic curve everyone is trying to achieve.”
