Skip to comments.Face Masks Might Actually Increase Infection Risk for COVID-19
Posted on 08/14/2020 4:37:43 PM PDT by Yosemitest
Though the vast majority of cases of COVID-19 — the infection caused by the new coronavirus — are reported in China, at the time of writing, the WHO has officially called the coronavirus a global health emergency. Recent surges in infections in Italy, South Korea, and Iran, have led world organizations to say the risk is high — though containment might still be possible .
One thing that won't help to combat the number of infections, and might even hinder efforts, is the widespread use of different types of face masks that are, wrongly, believed to be highly effective at preventing the transmission of the virus throughout communities.
As infection specialist Eli Perencevich, MD, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine, told Forbes , the vast majority of people should not wear a face mask, even if there are cases of the coronavirus in their communities.
Why's that? In short, there is no watertight scientific evidence to support the belief that face masks of any kind — including surgical masks and respirators such as the “N95 mask” — are effective at preventing infection of the coronavirus within a community.
But there's more to it than that.
“The average healthy person does not need to have a mask, and they shouldn’t be wearing masks,” Dr. Perencevich said. “There’s no evidence that wearing masks on healthy people will protect them. They wear them incorrectly, and they can increase the risk of infection because they’re touching their face more often.”
Firstly, the vast majority of people are buying surgical masks. These are designed to stop sick people from infecting others, they do not keep droplets out.
The "N95 mask" does keep germs out for wearers, though not with a one hundred percent efficiency. However, as Dr. Perencevich explains, even a mask that is somewhat effective can cause a false sense of security for users leading them to forget to wash their hands often and stop touching their face — the much more effective prevention method.
What's more, medical workers are trained to use "N95 masks" effectively. They are taught how to correctly place the airtight masks on their faces and how to dispose of the masks without being infected by the contaminants that are accumulated in the mask's filter. The majority of the public, of course, do not have this training.
Perhaps the most important reason the majority of the public is advised not to wear masks, as Dr. Perencevich points out, is that taking off and putting on any kind of mask leads a person to touch their face several times a day. This is the most likely way someone will be infected.
People are mainly buying face masks due to a lack of accurate knowledge about the transmission of the coronavirus. The hysteria is also clearly pushing demand as the public is met with an onslaught of pictures in the media of people wearing masks.
Sadly, some sellers are also inevitably taking advantage of the situation and are making a profit out of the widespread paranoia by selling masks online.
One very important factor, however, is that there is no scientific consensus on whether the new coronavirus is airborne or not. Despite what many believe, there is no clear evidence that the coronavirus can be breathed in when an infected individual nearby exhales. Instead, COVID-19 is most likely transmitted via droplets, which are often spread on surfaces and people's hands.
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus , but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
https://t.co/UxZRwxxKL9 — U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) February 29, 2020
The incorrect belief that masks are effective at preventing infection has caused several experts to raise their concerns, including the U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams, MD, who focused on the fact shortages put healthcare and frontline workers at risk.
“The one time you would want a mask is if you’re sick and you have to leave the house,” Dr. Perencevich told Forbes . “If you have the flu or think you have COVID, that’s when you’d put on a mask to protect others. In your house, if you feel like you’re sick, you should wear a mask to protect your family members.”
Those who have infected family members are also advised to wear masks when they have to come in close proximity to the infected individual. They are also advised to inform themselves how to use a mask properly and how to dispose of it correctly — all of that information can be found in this detailed post by the WHO .
The fact that the coronavirus seems to be spread via droplets and is not airborne means that the best way to prevent it is, simply, by washing one's hands often and trying to not touch your face.
As Karen Fleming, Ph.D., a professor in biophysics at Johns Hopkins University explained in a detailed Twitter thread , COVID-19 is "an ‘enveloped’ virus, which means that it has an outer lipid membrane layer," and “washing your hands with soap and water has the ability to ‘dissolve’ this greasy fatty layer and kill the virus.”
Though advice on hygiene might seem mundane, Fleming says, soap can be a real lifesaver when it comes to preventing infection by COVID-19.
N95 Fine layer
Dots to the immediate right of all 3 of the Coronavirus graphics are the virus to the SAME SCALE (you may need to zoom in).
But the almighty Fauch said we all need to wear them! Even during remote meetings from home and during nookie sessions!
It’s so interesting that cases surged along with the mask mandates.
The right way to use a mask is;
put on sterile gloves
put on sterile mask
do your thing without touching mask
take mask off and throw away
take off gloves and throw away
repeat for every mask use
Instead people take the same mask on and of over and over. That contaminates the mask.
Read this study, it’s about how viruses spread through grocery bag reuse, “bring your own bag”.
#Mask hygiene is so poor, this is very easy to see, and I have to wonder if mask contamination the same way this study shows is actually causing more covid.
In a public environment hands would be a transmission pathway just as much as airborne.
“The source of bacterial contamination in SMs was the body surface of the surgeons rather than the OR environment.”
“Surgical masks as source of bacterial contamination during operative procedures”
Of course they do. I’ve been telling everyone that is into the fear porn and wearing masks. I tell them to either put on their mask or take it off.
When they do. I say they just increased their risk of COVID. And they look at me like WTF! I say you did not wash your hands or use sanitizer before touching your mask. Therefore everywhere you just touched is now right up on your face. you might as well put your fingers in your mouth every few minutes to lick your fingers clean. It’s the same as touching your mask.
They get pissed and say something stupid because they know they screwed up.
You ought to see the parking lot of the hospital I work in. Used masks all over the place. And that’s just the employee parking lot.
The same thing is happening to your sinuses.
People are ignoring the mask “mandates”, at least around here.
I stopped at two different convenience stores after work tonight. I saw seven store employees between the two stores and only one had a mask on and it was under her chin. I saw about 10 customers in the two stores and NONE of them had a mask on.
I think word is getting around, and common sense is taking over.
Couldn't you find anything from last year?
This was from when the Surgeon General was telling the opposite of what he believed (called lying when the little people do it) to keep us from stockpiling masks when he wanted hospitals to stockpile them instead.
OMG! Those are biohazards! This is COVID, for God’s sake! Think of all those flu bugs just floating around out there!
How many dead bodies are scattered among the masks? Don’t sugar-coat it, I can take the real truth.
Get a hazmat team suited up and in that lot, STAT! Bleach!
Alcohol! Flamethrowers! Nuclear weapons! SCRUB BRUSHES!!
The choir practice infection was airborne, and there are many other examples that were very likely airbone. The author has no clue was "scientific consensus" means. Is there evidence for airbrone? Yes, it's almost a certainty, the evidence is very strong.
A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological. The purpose of this paper is to examine data regarding the effectiveness of facemasks, as well as safety data. The reason that both are examined in one paper is that for the general public as a whole, as well as for every individual, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary to guide decisions on if and when to wear a mask.
In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.
This 2020 meta-analysis found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. (2)
Another recent review found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, very slightly reduced odds of developing influenza-like illness. (3)
This 2019 study of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.” (4)
This 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday. (5)
A 2011 meta-analysis of 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. (6) However, authors speculated that effectiveness of masks may be linked to early, consistent and correct usage.
Face mask use was likewise found to be not protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers. (7)
Masks have been assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Considering those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer, there have been farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals, by means of several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards, and a potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several meters. (8) All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking.
For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask. (9)
A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration, while general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency. The study found that Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols. (10)
It may be helpful to remember that an aerosol is a colloidal suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas. In respiration, the relevant aerosol is the suspension of bacterial or viral particles in inhaled or exhaled breath.
In another study, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. (11)
Honeywell is a manufacturer of N95 respirators. These are made with a 0.3 micron filter. (12) N95 respirators are so named, because 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask forward of the wearer, by use of an electrostatic mechanism. Coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter.
This meta-analysis found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections. (13) This study did find superior protection by N95 respirators when they were fit-tested compared to surgical masks. (14)
This study found that 624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. (15)
This study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza. (16) Another study found that surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, although S aureus particles were about 6x the diameter of influenza particles. (17)
Use of masks in surgery were found to slightly increase incidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3,088 surgeries. (18) The surgeons masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients.
Other studies found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks. (19) (20)
This study found that there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. (21)
This study found that medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency. (22)
Specifically, are surgical masks effective in stopping human transmission of coronaviruses? Both experimental and control groups, masked and unmasked respectively, were found to not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols. (23) In that study, they did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus as found in exhaled breath.
A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols. (24)
In another study, that observed subjects while coughing, neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients. And more viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested. (25)
Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in this study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33% (26)
Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. (27)
This 1920 analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time, and concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks. (28)
The New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the topic of mask use versus Covid-19 assesses the matter as follows:
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic. (29)
Surgical mask wearers had significantly increased dyspnea after a 6-minute walk than non-mask wearers. (30)
Researchers are concerned about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. As a result of hypercapnia, there may be cardiac overload, renal overload, and a shift to metabolic acidosis. (31)
Pregnant healthcare workers were found to have a loss in volume of oxygen consumption by 13.8% compared to controls when wearing N95 respirators. 17.7% less carbon dioxide was exhaled. (32) Patients with end-stage renal disease were studied during use of N95 respirators. Their partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) decreased significantly compared to controls and increased respiratory adverse effects. (33) 19% of the patients developed various degrees of hypoxemia while wearing the masks.
Healthcare workers N95 respirators were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus. (34) And 25% of healthcare workers facepiece respirators were found to contain influenza in an emergency department during the 2015 flu season. (35)
Healthcare workers surgical masks also were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor for influenza virus. (36)
Various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result in self-contamination. The risk was found to be higher with longer duration of mask use. (37)
Surgical masks were also found to be a repository of bacterial contamination. The source of the bacteria was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. (38) Given that surgeons are gowned from head to foot for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for laypeople who wear masks. Without the protective garb of surgeons, laypeople generally have even more exposed body surface to serve as a source for bacteria to collect on their masks.
Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls. (39)
The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons have been found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes. (40) Low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1). (41) This in turn down-regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells, in turn, are necessary for viral immunity. (42)
In the summer of 2020 the United States is experiencing a surge of popular mask use, which is frequently promoted by the media, political leaders and celebrities. Homemade and store-bought cloth masks and surgical masks or N95 masks are being used by the public especially when entering stores and other publicly accessible buildings. Sometimes bandanas or scarves are used. The use of face masks, whether cloth, surgical or N95, creates a poor obstacle to aerosolized pathogens as we can see from the meta-analyses and other studies in this paper, allowing both transmission of aerosolized pathogens to others in various directions, as well as self-contamination.
It must also be considered that masks impede the necessary volume of air intake required for adequate oxygen exchange, which results in observed physiological effects that may be undesirable. Even 6- minute walks, let alone more strenuous activity, resulted in dyspnea. The volume of unobstructed oxygen in a typical breath is about 100 ml, used for normal physiological processes. 100 ml O2 greatly exceeds the volume of a pathogen required for transmission.
The foregoing data show that masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against pathogens should also be considered in medical settings.
1 T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7.
2 J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings personal protective and environmental measures. Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May.
3 J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1.
4 L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial. JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833.
5 J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574.
6 F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267.
7 J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419.
8 M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk.
9 S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603.
10 H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 Jun. 14:991-1002.
11 C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)
12 N95 masks explained. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained
13 V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942.
14 C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.
15 M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20.
16 C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.
17 N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci. 2018; 23(2). 61-69.
18 T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387.
19 N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392.
20 N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms a costly and unnecessary ritual? J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242.
21 C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228.
22 L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1.
23 N Leung, D Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Nature Research. 2020 Mar 7. 26,676-680 (2020).
24 S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.
25 S Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6.
26 S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.
27 C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)
28 W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920. 34-42.
29 M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63.
30 E Person, C Lemercier et al. Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance. Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268.
31 B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes. Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devils sword a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002.
32 P Shuang Ye Tong, A Sugam Kale, et al. Respiratory consequences of N95-type mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers A controlled clinical study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Nov 16; 4:48.
33 T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc. 2004 Aug; 103(8):624-628.
34 F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106.
35 A Rule, O Apau, et al. Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31; 13(8): e0203223.
36 F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106.
37 A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491.
38 L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62.
39 C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)
40 A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126.
41 D Lukashev, B Klebanov, et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and its activation-inducible short isoform negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2006 Oct 15; 177(8) 4962-4965.
42 A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD4+ T-cells in viral immunity. J Exper Med. 2012 Jun 30; 209(8):1391-1395.
Masks = Killing the immune system
Thinking logically, why WOULDN’T masks increase infection risk?
Treatment for bad staph infections can require excising tissue in some cases.
Go ahead and wear a mask if you don’t mind risking some divots in your nose, cheeks or lips.
Never interfere with the narrative propaganda.
This so called article is pure trash for the gullible. Click bait.
There should be a penalty for posting this nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.