Many times, footnotes or source data are even more illuminating than the study itself. Thus, I dug in and was not disappointed....this should ALSO be noted in addition to Dr Vomer's conclusion...pardon the length.
While there was no statistically significant difference when pooling these studies' results and across many of the individual studies, one of the studies stood out: it DID show a statistically-significant difference and it had a meaningful sample size. But look at where this happened, the test subjects, and the likely absence of freedom and liberty in the test subjects:
To evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive hand hygiene campaign on reducing absenteeism caused by influenza-like illness (ILI), diarrhea, conjunctivitis, and laboratory-confirmed influenza, we conducted a randomized control trial in 60 elementary schools in Cairo, Egypt. Children in the intervention schools were required to wash hands twice each day, and health messages were provided through entertainment activities. Data were collected on student absenteeism and reasons for illness. School nurses collected nasal swabs from students with ILI, which were tested by using a qualitative diagnostic test for influenza A and B. Compared with results for the control group, in the intervention group, overall absences caused by ILI, diarrhea, conjunctivitis, and laboratory-confirmed influenza were reduced by 40%, 30%, 67%, and 50%, respectively (p<0.0001 for each illness). An intensive hand hygiene campaign was effective in reducing absenteeism caused by these illnesses.
Here's where it gets very Big Brother-like:
At each intervention school, a hand hygiene team composed of 3 teachers (social studies, arts, sports) and the school nurse was established. The hand hygiene team ensured that all predesigned activities for the hand hygiene campaign were implemented on a weekly basis (Table 1). The school nurses and teachers were trained to interview students, collect absenteeism data, interview parents, and complete data collection forms, and the nurses were trained to collect and process nasal swabs to test for influenza. At control schools, the nurses were supported by a single surveillance officer who was assigned to complete data collection forms.
Although the methods for providing soap varied among the intervention schools, parents usually sent children to school with a small bag containing bar soap and a clean towel. If families could not afford soap and hand-drying material, the school administration provided them.
Six independent social workers visited the schools weekly; each visited 10 schools per week (5 intervention and 5 control schools). During each visit, they observed hand hygiene activities, soap and drying material availability, and the process of students washing their hands during the school day; they also verified the accuracy of the illness data collected by teachers.
Intervention Communication Campaign
An intensive campaign to promote hand hygiene was launched in the intervention schools to raise the awareness of students, teachers, nurses, and parents regarding the importance of hand hygiene and to increase the proportion of students washing their hands. Hand hygiene teams required students in the first 3 primary grades to wash their hands at least twice during the school day for ≈45 seconds, followed by proper rinsing and drying with a clean cloth towel.
Campaign materials were developed for 3 groups (students, teachers, parents). The teachers’ guidebook included a detailed description of the students’ activities and methods to encourage students to practice these activities. Posters were placed near sinks in the classrooms and on the playground. The primary message was to wash hands with soap and water upon arriving at school, before and after meals, after using the bathroom, and after coughing or sneezing.
Grade-specific student booklets were developed; each included a set of 12 games and fun activities that promoted handwashing. At least 1 activity was used each week. A special song to promote hand hygiene was developed and played regularly at schools. Informational fliers were distributed to parents to reinforce the messages delivered at the schools. Many schools were creative in motivating students to comply with washing hands, such as selecting a weekly hand hygiene champion, developing theater plays, and launching school contests for drawings and songs.
Thaaaaaats right..it took a study in Egypt on easily-frightened children with a massive fear campaign AND collaboration with teachers, the government, parents, to make hand-washing an 'effective measure' in controlling influenza-like illness (ILI), diarrhea, conjunctivitis, and laboratory-confirmed influenza...and even THEN the p-value is on absenteeism, not necessarily protecting the children.
Bottom line, masks and hand-washing ONLY work a) with professionals who execute those controls with consistent attention to details, and b) with fear and intimidation....
Once again, I learn more from FR than any other place. Thank you.
If they were good little Muslims in Egypt, they would be washing their hands 5 times a day and then praying. One reason Mohammed succeeded was he had a lot of religiously obligated health rules so his followers probably survived better than their enemies.
Adults should not need professionals with consistency and intimidation to have effective masking and distancing. Since we now know that asymptomatic people can spread their unidentified Covid to friends, neighbors, and fellow shoppers, it is outrageous for anyone to risk spreading their unidentified Covid to people who might die because of them. How can one be a seriously Christian person and subject others to such danger???