An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19
"The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. "
An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19
"The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. "
The virus is smaller than the spaces in the mask. Can pass right through them.
Check your ‘sats’ on a mask. Saturation of oxygen in your blood. Should be 100%. Mine w/out a mask are 98% on a mask are 86%. Medicare sends you home with oxygen from the hospital under 88%.
Depends on who’s wearing them; I doubt studies can exclude the beard maskers.
"Received for review July 13, 2020," while indeed more recent studies (not that all the contrary ones are) must be considered.
While masking can be generally warranted in close contact scenarios (like bars and indoor social events) — even to reduce colds — as they can at least reduce the amount of viral transmission, yet the overall effectiveness of such which would warrant required extensive wearing of them at all times is at least questionable, especially in consideration of negative effects of such. Unequivocally requiring most people to wear masks whenever and wherever outside in public places (as was required in states as MA) is unwise and unwarranted, especially when alone and when exercising.
And the overall issue is whether the positive negative effects, and how far should the government go in protecting us and others? I do not believe seat belt laws (for adults over 25) should be mandatory, except by insurance companies. And yet if everyone wore crash helmets when driving then even more lives could be saved. However, the inconvenience alone should be enough to dispense with that.
Then there are laws to protect other people, but while licensing of all food pantries might save a few lives that were lost due to food poisoning, such regulation is not warranted in modern society and would increase the waste of food (not that multitudes of people are going hungry for lack of food like some liberals cry),and increases the cost and overreach of government.
As far as Covid, for those under 65, and far more so for those fit and in good health, the reality is that the risk of death due to Covid is very low, and on that basis then the long-term restrictions on freedom of association, travel, expression and even breathing are not reasonably warranted. Thus the issues as regards justification for such restrictions is that of transmission to those who are the most vulnerable, but in that case then masking when inside with such (esp. in extended care facilities) should be required, while such could be particularly protected such as by having certain hours for such to shop, as they were early on.
Meaning that overall the most vulnerable need to be targeted more, which is my argument here.
From your study page:
“It found that face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring. The study did not look at the relative risk of different types of mask.”
Doesn’t sound like an in-depth study of masks at all. Were the masks tested N-95 or cloth and paper?
You better wear a plastic face shield and mask to Home Depot just to be safe
What is inescapable: States with strict requirements and high compliance have just as big a COVID issue as free states. I can plot out when mask requirements were made and watch as states like California showed no change in the slope of growth 10 days later - when the masks should have had its full effect.
I could do it in Arizona, where the large majority of the population were required to wear masks - AND WHAT FOLLOWED. I don’t need lab studies because we have an incredible amount of real world experience with the total failure of masks.
Science has become so political that scientists” claim men can get pregnant. I have no trust in the authority of “science” - particularly biased studies.