Getbig Main Boards > Politics and Political Issues Board

This Study Could Be 'Scientific Nail in the Coffin' for Masks

(1/7) > >>

Dos Equis:
Follow the science.

This Study Could Be 'Scientific Nail in the Coffin' for Masks
Masks make 'no difference,' according to study by world-renowned medical database

A masked elementary student / Getty Images
Aaron Sibarium
February 6, 2023

One of the largest and most comprehensive studies on the effectiveness of masks found they do almost nothing to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

The study reviewed 78 randomized control trials—experiments that have long been considered "the gold standard" for medicine—which assessed the effectiveness of face masks against flu, COVID-19, and similar illnesses. It found that wearing masks "probably makes little or no difference" for the general public, no matter what kind of mask is used. Even N95 masks, considered the most effective at filtering airborne particles, showed no clear benefit for health care workers.

The study was published on January 30 by the Cochrane Library, a world-renowned medical database that is famous for its high-quality evidence reviews. It comes as a battering ram to the recommendations of the U.S. public health establishment, which urged children as young as two to wear masks throughout the pandemic.

"This amounts to the scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates," said Kristen Walsh, a clinical professor of pediatrics in Morristown, New Jersey. "I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that some schools are still actively forcing children to wear masks, much less children who need to see faces to learn."

Though most Western countries opted against masking kids—in part due to concerns about speech and social development—many blue school districts mandated face coverings for toddlers, citing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Both organizations have maintained the masks are effective at curbing COVID-19, including in schools. But the guidance was typically based on weak studies with small sample sizes and few controls, limitations that critics said biased their findings. Many of the studies just compared places with mask mandates with those without them, making it hard to sort out whether it was masks that reduced COVID or other factors, such as that COVID-cautious people were more likely to wear masks.

The sorts of experiments Cochrane canvassed—in which subjects were chosen at random to receive masks—were designed to avoid that problem. They helped researchers isolate the effects of masks from the caution levels of the people wearing them, providing a clearer picture of how well the masks themselves work.

That makes the Cochrane review, which is based exclusively on randomized trials, far more rigorous than the studies typically cited in defense of masks.

"Not all evidence is the same," Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a Substack post about the review. Randomized control trials "are imperative for recommendations that span years, or longer."

More than two years after the start of the pandemic, some schools are still requiring masks. School districts in Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania reimposed mask mandates in January amid a spike in respiratory illnesses. The mandates came after the CDC warned of a "tridemic" of COVID, flu, and RSV, though cases of all three illnesses have significantly declined.

As of this writing, no major media outlets have covered the Cochrane review. It's a sharp contrast to the reception of other, more pro-mask studies, which were the subject of glowing write-ups in the New York Times, the Atlantic, and the Washington Post.

https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/this-study-could-be-scientific-nail-in-the-coffin-for-masks/

Primemuscle:

--- Quote from: Dos Equis on February 07, 2023, 12:34:15 PM ---Follow the science.

This Study Could Be 'Scientific Nail in the Coffin' for Masks
Masks make 'no difference,' according to study by world-renowned medical database

A masked elementary student / Getty Images
Aaron Sibarium
February 6, 2023

One of the largest and most comprehensive studies on the effectiveness of masks found they do almost nothing to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

The study reviewed 78 randomized control trials—experiments that have long been considered "the gold standard" for medicine—which assessed the effectiveness of face masks against flu, COVID-19, and similar illnesses. It found that wearing masks "probably makes little or no difference" for the general public, no matter what kind of mask is used. Even N95 masks, considered the most effective at filtering airborne particles, showed no clear benefit for health care workers.

The study was published on January 30 by the Cochrane Library, a world-renowned medical database that is famous for its high-quality evidence reviews. It comes as a battering ram to the recommendations of the U.S. public health establishment, which urged children as young as two to wear masks throughout the pandemic.

"This amounts to the scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates," said Kristen Walsh, a clinical professor of pediatrics in Morristown, New Jersey. "I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that some schools are still actively forcing children to wear masks, much less children who need to see faces to learn."

Though most Western countries opted against masking kids—in part due to concerns about speech and social development—many blue school districts mandated face coverings for toddlers, citing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Both organizations have maintained the masks are effective at curbing COVID-19, including in schools. But the guidance was typically based on weak studies with small sample sizes and few controls, limitations that critics said biased their findings. Many of the studies just compared places with mask mandates with those without them, making it hard to sort out whether it was masks that reduced COVID or other factors, such as that COVID-cautious people were more likely to wear masks.

The sorts of experiments Cochrane canvassed—in which subjects were chosen at random to receive masks—were designed to avoid that problem. They helped researchers isolate the effects of masks from the caution levels of the people wearing them, providing a clearer picture of how well the masks themselves work.

That makes the Cochrane review, which is based exclusively on randomized trials, far more rigorous than the studies typically cited in defense of masks.

"Not all evidence is the same," Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a Substack post about the review. Randomized control trials "are imperative for recommendations that span years, or longer."

More than two years after the start of the pandemic, some schools are still requiring masks. School districts in Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania reimposed mask mandates in January amid a spike in respiratory illnesses. The mandates came after the CDC warned of a "tridemic" of COVID, flu, and RSV, though cases of all three illnesses have significantly declined.

As of this writing, no major media outlets have covered the Cochrane review. It's a sharp contrast to the reception of other, more pro-mask studies, which were the subject of glowing write-ups in the New York Times, the Atlantic, and the Washington Post.

https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/this-study-could-be-scientific-nail-in-the-coffin-for-masks/

--- End quote ---

If you believe this, then don't wear a mask. Problem solved!

loco:

Wayne Tracker:
For anyone who doesn't want the opinion of an author from the conservative political website the Free Beacon can read the actual study here
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

The authors conclusions are below and, no surprise, are not quite as definitive as the title of the article implies


--- Quote ---Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.
--- End quote ---

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Dos Equis:

--- Quote from: Primemuscle on February 07, 2023, 03:11:46 PM ---If you believe this, then don't wear a mask. Problem solved!

--- End quote ---

Except faux science is the basis for mask mandates, so it's not as simple as choosing not to wear one.  What we did to kids in the name of faux science is criminal. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page