|
Western South Dakota | The point of the linked RCT study (4) in the initial quote is that cloth masks likely provide no benefit and may increase risk of infections. If we are going to recommend a mask, at least it should confer a benefit to the populace over a control. So should we be recommending n95? A non-masked control does not exist that I have seen except in this influenza study:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) “
(4) https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577#ref-29
“The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk for HCWs. The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,29 and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.30 Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks. Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.31 These effects may be associated with cloth masks.”
Edited by Poor Farm Inc 10/31/2020 12:57
| |
|
Covid and Mask rant!
