Unmasking the Science of Masks
This is a "Guest Post" I am publishing here with the author's permission. I know his/her identity and he/she is a very thoughtful and prominent member of our community. I am not generally a fan of anonymous opinion pieces but given the fear culture we currently find ourselves in, this person's legitimate concern for retaliation from his/her employer, and the importance of this topic - I am posting it.
Due to the current climate, I have no choice but to post this under a pseudonym. With my current status in the community, this piece could cost me my livelihood. Besides which, and clearly secondary, I think it important to make the following point from the outset. Over the past while, our community has been beset by a new form of idolatry: the worship of credentialing. Credentialing, in fact, has replaced the very foundations of decision-making: clear analysis of data, wisdom acquired from experience (emphasis on the wisdom part), and common sense. Instead, we see (alleged) doctors on this forum appealing to their medical degrees to essentially club the opposition on its head. Please be mindful of this as you read both this piece and the responses. Evaluate all the arguments critically, and don't be afraid to fact check or do your own research. Finally, judge whether a criticism is based on some nebulous appeal to credentials that, in truth, do not bestow any more competence on the holder of such than on those who lack it, but have acquired intelligence and the ability to critically process information.
Now to masks. Masks can potentially serve one of two purposes:
1) Source control- meaning that it will prevent a contagious individual who wears a mask from spreading the virus.
2) Personal protective equipment (PPE)- meaning that the wearer will be protected from exposure to the virus due to wearing the mask.
We have heard over and over that our masks protect others, not ourselves. Meaning, the consensus is that masks are effective as source control, not as PPE.
There are two main methods for the spread of Covid-19:
1) Droplets- these are larger sized (somewhat of a misnomer. These are sized from about 5-10 micrometers), and they travel about 1 meter. Hence, the efficacy of six feet of social distancing and, potentially, for masks as source control.
2) Aerosols- these are much smaller airborne particles (less than 5 micrometers in diameter), and can float at least 25 feet.
Our current precautions make sense if the main driver of infection is in fact droplets. In that case, social distancing is effective, and some masks may work as source control. If, however, the main driver of infection is aerosols, then 6 feet of social distancing does next to nothing. In point of fact, the same would be true of virtually all masks, certainly the ubiquitous cloth masks. The particles are so small that they will easily pass through the mask's weaves or open areas surrounding the face and, as airborne, will travel virtually everywhere. Furthermore, the problem is compounded when indoors; air has much less room to circulate out, and the closed area will only allow for a buildup of the viral load.
Turning to Covid-19, which is the main driver of transmission? Is it droplets or aerosols? Current thinking on the matter is that the main method of transmission is droplets. Unfortunately, most studies regarding Covid-19 transmission cannot be conclusive; the virus has simply not been with us long enough to really make a determination.
The CDC has not been helpful in this regard either. A few weeks back, they issued guidance stating that airborne particles were a concern. As the media picked up the story, it was quickly pulled from their website, and attributed to someone hitting the wrong key prematurely. As of this writing, they have now issued new guidance that the virus does travel in aerosolized form, but it's not the main driver of infections. As we shall see in a moment, based on the large amount of data on flu transmission, there is a lot of room to assume this is a severe, and dangerous, understatement. In fact, see this important new letter just published in Science Magazine, which is very relevant to this discussion.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/02/science.abf0521
In any event, in a case such as this, science says to make an evaluation based on the best knowledge we have at hand. In this case, our next most prevalent respiratory virus would be the flu. The science on this is, in fact, far from settled, but study after study continues to point to the notion that the smaller the particle, the greater the chance of infection, as the virus has greater opportunity to be inhaled and settle deeply in the lungs (interestingly, this was proposed by the father of social distancing, W.F. Wells, over 80 years ago. His research on the topic is still very much in use today). The fact that this jives with intuitive common sense certainly doesn't hurt.
A preponderance of studies of masking during the flu season shows promising results for N95 masks mitigating the rate of transmission, mixed results for surgical masks, and virtually no protection (or source control) for cloth masking. Looking at our community, I personally do not see many people wearing N95s. Bear in mind also that effective masking requires proper training and technique, something in short supply among the general population.
How about the CDC's claim that masks have now been proven to work? The first issue is that, of course, none of their quoted studies have tracked masking throughout an entire Covid season, or followed the gold standard of RCT (randomized controlled trials). Many of these studies predicate their findings on results compared to predictive models, not hard factual data. In the face of all the data we have on masking during the flu, proclamations that "masks are more effective than a vaccine" (as stated by Robert Redfield) or "cotton cloth coverings are just as good as the surgical masks" (Anthony Fauci) are hard to justify. Is there any actual data? Below, I will provide links to charts from independent data analysts showing that in key locations, cases continue to rise after mask mandates, or were already on a decline when the order went into effect.
So now you may ask, what's the harm in masking? At worst, it's not helping, and it makes people feel better. This is a far cry from the truth. Because of the reliance on masking (and social distancing for that matter), we have given a false sense of security to the elderly and the at-risk with a dramatic shift in policy- we have now deemed it safe for them to go indoors. But, as above, if Covid-19 is aerosolized and masks are not effective source control, our move to indoor minyanim, in shuls with closed windows and poor ventilation, has placed these people at much greater risk than if we had continued with outdoor settings. So, in truth, the strong advocacy for universal masking has probably put people at greater risk than encouraging them to continue in an outdoor setting, even unmasked, where the open air allows for greater dispersal of aerosolized particles.
Another point to consider is that the current thinking of using masks as source control has closed off a strong avenue of protection for the elderly and at-risk. As mentioned above, N95 respirator masks seem to be effective even as PPE. Unfortunately, these masks are difficult to wear for long periods of time, much more so than surgical or cloth masks. One solution is to wear a N95 with an exhalation valve to allow for the easier flow of outgoing air, making it a less burdensome mask. But, these masks have actually been banned in most locales, under CDC guidance, due to the fact that they are not effective source control. So, instead of adopting a more surgical, science based approach based on risk-stratification that would actually protect the vulnerable, we have, instead, mandated a mask mandate that helps no one.
A third point- and I would be remiss not to mention this- is that study after study shows that the most effective method of protection against adverse consequences from Covid-19 is diet and exercise. The fact that public health officials have not been trumpeting this louder than their call for masking is a human rights crime, and deserves a post of its own. Obesity raises the risk of mortality from Covid-19, and you could be at more than twice the risk for hospitalization if you are carrying extra weight. Masks and exercise don't mix well. It would be far better if government had issued an exercise mandate rather than the current mask mandate.
Is there a better way? Some ideas have been mentioned above. I will also provide a link to a new initiative referred to as the Great Barrington Declaration. These brave scientists are advocating for what's called Focused Protection, using some of the principles mentioned herein and others to truly protect the vulnerable and restore sanity to this out of control situation. They just came to make a presentation at the White House, so we'll see where it goes.
Again, the point of this piece is to facilitate conversation. I am not advocating disobeying DOH or CDC guidelines, but I would like to see people think for themselves and start to understand these issues more deeply. Accountability for our leadership by an informed public is vital, in the arena of health no less than in any other setting. Credentialing should never be used to dismiss honest inquiry and the right to follow transparent policy. Any statements to the effect that some group should be given absolute control due to information that only that they are privy to, should only be an invitation for greater scrutiny and suspicion. If this "privileged information" directly and consequently affects us and our livelihoods, it should be in the public sphere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a great collation of literature on masks (not taking sides on the politics of this group):
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
Some charts on areas and the results of mask mandates:
https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/
The Great Barrington Declaration:
https://gbdeclaration.org/
I'll throw in this paper to give some more context and as food for thought. One of the authors, Donald Henderson, was one of the most heralded epidemiologists of his day (he was the man responsible for the eradication of smallpox). Thomas Inglesby is at Johns Hopkins and has been a major force in the public policy decisions of this pandemic. Curiously, no one has asked him what has changed in the science in the time since the publication of this paper:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I have not read this piece (but will later). My comment still stands: whatever studies and sciences have ti say about masks in their many variations, the sciemce of sociology proves emphatically (over and over) that those who mask are more careful about distancing. Same with the way others relate to them. So whether or not the masks actually work, they provide an important ingredient to curbi g the spread. It amazes me that the very people highlighting the negative social and psychological effects of lockdown, completely ignore the benefits of social distancing measures
ReplyDeleteAvi, it's unfortunate you did not read this piece before responding. In point of fact, the argument here is that the science is far from settled, and we are making consequential decisions that are detrimental to public health, ignoring the very real data of stratified-risk. If we can't go back to true analysis of the efficacy and limitations of our masking mandates, we will continue to fall into the very dangerous psychological lull of perceived safety that you have pointed to.
DeleteI don't understand what you are saying (honestly) or how it relates to my comment. This anonymous piece and many many others are addressing the efficacy or detriment of masks. None address the fact that those who wear masks are more likely to maintain social distance. Your comment didn't seem to address this. Or did I miss that?
DeleteAgain from the author:
DeleteAvi, please reread. If you would like to wear a mask for psychological purposes, please be my guest. But our current medical guidance has gone well beyond this, and is leading to reckless decision making as well as closing important avenues of protection for those at-risk. When we can come to terms with the true limitations of masks mandates, we can hopefully turn a better eye to protecting the vulnerable.
Also, a worthwhile read here. It lays out some of the history of the aerosol/droplet debate, and why the CDC is equivocation about it.
https://time.com/5883081/covid-19-transmitted-aerosols/
Sorry, I see where I was unclear. From the top, briefly:
DeleteA. Plenty if research and well-credentialed (call it educated if you wish) opinions say that masking is a good thing. Some (again, if you prefer, you can say lots....its hard/virtually impossible to quantify) research / well-credentialed opinions say that masking isn't ideal. (Not much out there says it will kill you). Here's where my original comment and its follow up come in: as long as there is a government mandate as will as many communal ones siding with a legitimate ate take, some / many people will be masking. In that case, the guaranteed benefit is the sociological one. Goes without saying that if the overwhelming opinion was antimask, the potential sociological benefit would not warrant masking
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePlease watch this important video by Rabbi Handler. And then PLEASE SHARE it with your school principals, rabbis, and others in prominent positions. Do not rely on someone else to do this - do your part and send it to these individuals and others. The more emails they get with this video the better. People need to wake up to reality before it is too late.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxkTpC7NVWI
A few observations -
ReplyDeleteGershon, I want to observe that the goalposts seem to keep moving here. You began by asking for an open discussion - you then stated you will no longer respond to anonymous people. You are now broadcasting an anonymous poster. If you want to have a serious discussion, it would help if you kept a consistent set of rules for that discussion.
Anonymous author, because the CDC has gone back and forth on whether or not Covid transmits in an aerosolized form, and because its current position is that it can but not as a primary mode of transmission, your conclusion is that we must conclude that it is, in fact, the primary mode of transmission. Your reasoning is that, because we don't know everything about Covid, we must instead extrapolate what is true in flus to Covid.
This method of thinking highlights the danger of laypeople approaching flawed first principles to scientific journals. While understanding of covid is evolving, it's not evolving randomly. Droplets as a primary form of transmission has been well established - there have numerous published studies using cell phone locations in conjunction with contact tracing that have demonstrated how proximity, duration of proximity, and ventilation all strongly contribute to the likelihood of transmission. It was established early on that covid could be aerosolized (particularly with patients on ventilators), it's been unclear how likely or frequent this transmission is. Your arguments seem to rest on the notion that this uncertainty renders us unable to make any meaningful conclusions on the efficacy of masks. That's a false dichotomy, and is simply untrue.
Finally, Gershon, I have twice tried to post the (not anonymous) Medium article responding to your original post. I do not see this post having gone through. Have you changed your policy on censoring posts? Or is this some sort of technical error?
I will ask the author if he can respond to your questions. As for you not being able to post, I have no idea. If you e-mail me your comment, I’ll be more than happy to post it verbatim in your name.
DeleteResponse from the author:
DeleteThanks for the response. I'll ignore that swipe at "laypeople." The fact that you can't countenance that there might be opposing views on a scientific issue is truly anti-science. I'm sorry, but this argument does not hold much water. I don't know the exact studies you are referencing (please provide the sources), but the ones I've read centered around small sample sizes and were certainly far from controlled. This, compounded by the fact that this research encompasses, at best a few months of observation if that, can certainly not safely put to a rest a question debated for decades about similarly transmitted respiratory viruses. The fact that the CDC is looking to reinvent the wheel by promoting trasmissibility of Covid-19 as some great unknown, should not replace years upon years of good data and sound common sense. The fact that this is being shopped around as established science is reckless. What did I propose? That we operate cautiously and keep the at-risk out of shul until we can put this to bed. How could anybody who truly cares about public health disagree with this? I also suggested that we begin to start smarter masking with an eye towed PPE rather than source control. We have incredible amounts of good data regarding risk-stratification. Why are we not putting this to good use to actually protect the at-risk with adequate PPE, rather than deprive them of this due to dubious notions of source control that is only getting harder to justify by the day? Mask mandates don't work for the general public. It's clear from real time data in places where it's been put into effect. Let's think more smartly, and really think hard about mitigation strategies.
A lot of terms being thrown around there - let's pick a few of those apart:
Delete"I'll ignore the swipe at 'laypeople.'" It's telling that you see the layperson designation as a swipe.
Not countenancing that there can be opposing scientific views. You don't have a opposing scientific view. You have conducted no original research on this. You are simply saying you disagree with others and muddying the waters about what is known and what isn't. Not all opinions deserve equal credibility.
Regarding controlled studies. How would you propose one create a controlled study of disease transmission vectors among humans? Of course these studies are going to be observational.
Regarding CDC inventing the wheel, etc... Different viruses, even among those that cause respiratory infections, can vary significantly in terms of how contagious they are, and their primary methods of transmission. The CDC isn't reinventing any wheels - there are no Covid wheels already invented here.
Regarding "what did I propose", "anti-science", "how could anyone who truly compares about public health", "dubious notions", "let's think more smartly" - please try and stay away from logical fallacies.
Again from the author::
DeleteYou misunderstood. The swipe to laypeople was not the term itself. It was the condescension in the context of the sentence.
I don't need to have published my own research to present a countervailing view. This was a popular article to get people thinking and informed. They are more than welcome to see the wonderful research from signers of the Great Barrington Declaration to become more informed on this and other opposing views.
As far as controlled studies, they've been done numerous times in the past with voluntary inoculations of the disease such as the flu. For example:
Brankston G, Gitterman L, Hirji Z, Lemieux C, Gardam M: Transmission of influenza A in human beings. Lancet Infect Dis 2007, 7: 257-265. 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70029-4
Alford RH, Kasel JA, Gerone PJ, Knight V: Human influenza resulting from aerosol inhalation. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1966, 122: 800-804.
Beare AS, Craig JW: Virulence for man of a human influenza-A virus antigenically similar to "classical" swine viruses. Lancet 1976, 2: 4-5. 10.1016/S0140-6736(76)92964-0
I'm not countenancing it for Covid, but the point was that we don't have those or even enough true observational data to make a wholesale dismissal of aerosolized transmission.
As to "Covid wheels" this is simply untrue. There is large amounts of data surrounding transmissions of the now 7 coronaviruses that affect humans. They all transmit the same way: surface contact, droplets and aerosols. There are differences of degrees in each but the transmission methods are the same. Aerosols are subject to the same debate (and growing consensus) regarding all these coronaviruses as is true for the flu. Degree of contagion is irrelevant to this discussion.
The last point you made speaks so much to the piece itself, and makes me happy I took the time for a preamble. Did you address the pointed questions I put to you? To what "logical fallacies" are you referring? Are you saying the evidence for these claims is flawed? Or are you just trying to discredit and silence a contrary opinion? Are you so confident in what we know or don't know regarding aerosolized spread that you would tell someone at risk to go to shul, as the assumed risk is acceptable and low? Please at least answer this last question with a yes or no.
The term layperson isn't an insult. And having letters after your name does not confer extraordinary abilities. You are taking umbrage over the notion that your views having read scientific journals shouldn't carry equal consideration as someone who has been trained to do so. This is an implicit judgment over the value of that training. Consider that most people wouldn't want to have surgery performed by someone who has not had any practice, but most would take a book recommendation from someone who is not a professional book reviewer. So inherent in your reaction is the notion that interpreting scientific journals falls more into the category of the latter than the former. And, to some extent, it does. So the theme of this post is to what extent someone, ostensibly smart and trained in other areas, is qualified as a layperson to draw conclusions as you have. I'm going to argue that, things you have mentioned in your post highlights where your lack of training has led you astray.
Delete1. You are using the term "controlled" study as synonymous with study. The term controlled conveys a specific meaning. A pool of potential subjects is divided into two or more groups. Experimental groups are subjected to some sort of change or intervention; control groups are not. In order to minimize the possibility of the results of the study being biased by something other than what is being tested, you typically want to ensure that there is as little differences between the two groups as possible, other than that which is being tested. So, for instance with respect to testing the efficacy of drugs, the gold standard is a double blind randomized control trial. The experimental group receives a drug and the control group receives a placebo, ideally designed to be as similar in appearance as possible to the drug. The randomized piece refers to how the groups are divided. The double blind part means neither the people administering the drug nor the recipients know whether they are giving / getting the real drug while the test is performed.
Now consider determining whether airborne transmission of covid is a common vector. Who is the experimental group and who is the control? I suppose I could construct a case where I deliberately expose people to covid positive people at airborne range and see if they develop the disease. My control could be exposing people to covid negative people. However, this study would be highly unethical and would not likely pass an IRB.
2. You are conflating whether aerosolized coronavirus is a possible method of infection with whether it is a likely one - and this is a critical distinction as it pertains to the mask discussion. Yes, coronaviruses CAN transmit in different ways; however, the primary vectors of transmission vary. Whether or not mask wearing is beneficial very much depends on the likelihood of airborne transmission. In an ICU setting with covid positive patients on ventilators, the concentration of aerosolized covid was high enough that a cloth mask would offer insufficient protection for caregivers. That does not imply the same would be true in a classroom or a backyard. If this were the a primarily airborne disease, we would not be opening classrooms the way we have. So the degree is important.
More Coming
3. Regarding logical fallacies - I am saying that you are employing unsound logic in the following ways.
Delete"What did I propose" is a straw man fallacy. I didn't state that you proposed anything. You introduced this statement to create an easier "straw man" opponent to argue against, and in the process misrepresented my opinion.
"Anti-science" is an ad hominem fallacy. You didn't offer any evidence or argument to support why my claims are anti-science. You simply called them that as an attack.
"how could anyone who truly cares about public health" is the 'no true scotsman fallacy. It rests on no logic, but is an (ironic) appeal to authority where you imply that opposing views must be held by people who do not care about public health.
"dubious notions" is circular reasoning. You state source control doesn't work, and then because you state it, you now call it dubious.
"let us think more smartly" is an ad hominem attack that implies people with the opposing view are thinking less smartly.
4. Regarding your questions:
A. Yes, I am addressing your questions
B. I have previously identified and now elucidated on the logical fallacies
C. Yes - as logical fallacies, they are not built on evidence
D. I am absolutely trying to discredit a contrary and incorrect opinion - I think that's clear. I am not trying to silence it in any way. If I wanted to silence it, I would stay silent myself and let people lose interest. I would prefer they read both your posts and mine.
E. I would never recommend someone at risk go to Shul. But that question seems entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Your and Gershon's posts are muddying the water on the efficacy of masks in a way that would encourage us to "unmask". I would absolutely recommend that adults and children who are able to wear masks at all times indoors and outdoors where they cannot socially distance. This reduces, but does not eliminate, risk. So certainly people who want to make different risk tradeoffs for themselves (the masks and distance do so for others) would be encouraged to take added precautions.
In conclusion, you and everyone else are entitled to an opinion. But you are also culpable for consequences of sharing that opinion. In the case of another poster here, that opinion was that school administrators and Rabbis are like nazis who would put yellow stars on our children's mouths and noses. As offensive as that statement is, it isn't dangerous; no one already not fully in that frame of mind is going to be convinced by that statement.
However, where intelligent and accomplished people, who have until now been trusted to make important decisions as it pertains to our children's schooling, offer medical and public health opinions and appeal to our deepest fears of harming our children, this unfortunately carries weight. And it is dangerous.
Reply from the author:
DeleteThank you for the further clarification regarding layperson. I understand and fully agree with all that you wrote. Out of curiosity, do you see all physicians as qualified to approach these specific studies and make these determinations? If so, what in their training renders them fit to do so?
On to your points:
1. No, I was precise. Those studies cited were controlled experiments or referencing controlled experiments and were meant as examples of such. They were not RCTs, and certainly do not meet the gold standard for data collection. And you are correct; those studies would almost certainly not pass an IRB today. There are degrees to controls. However, they do hold more weight than studies that are fully uncontrolled and observational, such as most of the studies we presently have regarding Covid-19 transmission. We cannot have anywhere enough data even from recent observational studies to make determination, as those have not been conducted over the full length of Covid season, in contrast to most flu studies. I am also still waiting for your references for droplet transmission.
2. I agree with all that you wrote here. Which is why, as the CDC continues to equivocate on this, we should be making determinations based on the best knowledge we have on hand, including strong data showing that mask mandates do not work (see the charts at the end of the piece). Read the Inglesby paper for a much more sober assessment of mask use and the limitations. What exactly has changed? Or this from the CDC?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigation-sm.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1sMmehOSZ8hHRKEPJEP2hUbkXbNMlS4sGRqQ7s5iLWOpyfQDErd4Wg_SE
(Fun game: see how many of these recommendations we actually held to when this scenario happened.)
This is why we have to be smarter in our mask policies and start to make determinations based on our well developed sense of the risk-stratification of this virus. Hence the Great Barrington Declaration.
3. "What did I propose" is a straw man fallacy. I didn't state that you proposed anything. You introduced this statement to create an easier "straw man" opponent to argue against, and in the process misrepresented my opinion.
I had no intention of making you a straw man, and you are right since, as you pointed out at the end of your comment, you agree with me on the one major issue- discouraging the at-risk from going indoors. If I read too much into your opposition, I apologize.
"Anti-science" is an ad hominem fallacy. You didn't offer any evidence or argument to support why my claims are anti-science. You simply called them that as an attack.
Not sure what the issue is here. At this point in the conversation, you hadn't presented any opposing view, just criticized the piece with unsourced claims. The wholesale dismissal, without actually engaging the substance of it specifically, is anti-science.
"how could anyone who truly cares about public health" is the 'no true scotsman fallacy. It rests on no logic, but is an (ironic) appeal to authority where you imply that opposing views must be held by people who do not care about public health.
I'm sorry, but this is not a "no true scotsman fallacy." In the spirit of popular writing, the rhetorical question is used to reinforce one's own stated opinion. So to rephrase this, I believe that one who, at this point, is countenancing that at-risk people go into shul with the evidence on-hand, is showing disregard for a true public health concern. My opinion, not stated fact.
"dubious notions" is circular reasoning. You state source control doesn't work, and then because you state it, you now call it dubious.
Reply from author (continued)
DeleteNo, I call it such because the CDC itself has called it into doubt, by stating that the virus can be spread as aerosol, as well as the real world data showing the inefficacy of mask mandates. To me, that raises doubt. Other who disagree have every right to.
"let us think more smartly" is an ad hominem attack that implies people with the opposing view are thinking less smartly.
Sorry you took it as such. Was not intended that way.
I would never recommend someone at risk go to Shul. But that question seems entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Your and Gershon's posts are muddying the water on the efficacy of masks in a way that would encourage us to "unmask". I would absolutely recommend that adults and children who are able to wear masks at all times indoors and outdoors where they cannot socially distance. This reduces, but does not eliminate, risk. So certainly people who want to make different risk tradeoffs for themselves (the masks and distance do so for others) would be encouraged to take added precautions.
This is actually a straw man argument. From the piece:
Again, the point of this piece is to facilitate conversation. I am not advocating disobeying DOH or CDC guidelines, but I would like to see people think for themselves and start to understand these issues more deeply.
The rules are the rules. I'm looking for people to think about those rules, and start to push back on the powers that be with information and logic. By the way, this is looking promising, now that Scott Atlas has been brought onboard. In the meantime, we have to take precautions from what I see as poor guidance and instruction from some of the more prominent figures in public health.
If masking is what is being recommended and has been proved to lessen the spread of COVID, why go against that recommendation? I don't understand. Our goal in the community should be to keep the number of deaths down and to keep our children in school. If this is one thing that is helping to stop the spread, why stop wearing masks? Put on the mask indoors. If you're able to put on the mask outdoors, put it on.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if everyone wore the mask correctly, it wouldn't even be a problem. We would all be protecting each other and protecting ourselves at the same time.
Delete1. https://metrics.stanford.edu/PNAS%20retraction%20request%20LoE%20061820
ReplyDeleteWe are writing with deep concerns about a paper recently published in your journal, entitled “Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19.” The paper made extraordinary claims about routes of transmission, the effectiveness of mask-wearing, and by implication, the ineffectiveness of other non-pharmaceutical interventions. While we agree that mask-wearing plays an important role in slowing the spread of COVID-19, the claims in this study were based on easily falsifiable claims and methodological design flaws. We present only a small selection of the most egregious errors here. Given the scope and severity of the issues we present, and the paper’s outsized and immediate public impact, we ask that the Editors of PNAS retract this paper immediately and reassess the Contributed Submission editorial process by which it was published.
2. https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/masks-dont-work-denis-rancourt-april-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR36YVRk1e0BB_sS2N4fV2bNLXU6TScfMvDdT9x2lFpqkgSfG7XBWk6jeiQ
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323223/
J Paediatr Child Health. 2020 Jun; 56(6): 976–977.
Published online 2020 Jun 16. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14936
Do facemasks protect against COVID‐19?
"Credentialing" is not an argument, it is the absence of an argument. It is rhetoric, in other words, the tool of demagogues incapable of defending their positions with *actual* argument. Ideas rise and fall on their own merit, not on the college degrees of the people behind them. That is always true, particularly on this issue when doctors are all over the map themselves, effectively mooting any appeals to "authority" in the first place.
ReplyDelete"What's wrong with masks?", someone asks. Wearing masks is not normal behavior, it is abnormal. It is self-understood why people don't engage in abnormal behavior. The burden is thus on the maskers to justify to the rest of the world why we *should* be wearing masks. Because, among many other things, they are incredibly uncomfortable, unsanitary, and drive people away from normal social activity, including coming to shuls that require them, the only possible grounds to defend it would be if there is unimpeachable and uncontroverted concrete evidence that wearing masks saves lives. The benefit could then be said to outweigh the cost. But there is no evidence at all to support that claim. The post above demonstrated that, and he could easily have tripled or more the length of his post with more evidence of the lack of evidence. And really, this is just common sense, usually the best arbiter. Does anyone seriously believe that masks are going to stop a global virus?
David Farkas
Thanks for posting this and thank you to Author for putting in the time into the writeup. I was particularly struck by the civility of your writing and your point about allowing respirator masks for the older population. Anyway, I have a few questions:
ReplyDeleteAre droplets and aerosol particles clusters of only COVID molecules? Meaning if a COVID molecule is .0125 micrometers, does that mean a droplet of 1 micrometer contains 80 COVID molecules?
What does the CDC mean that we can't attribute the spreading of COVID to aerosol particles? Is that a question of how the molecules behave or just a description of how the current pandemic has been spreading, regardless of potential?
If, for example, a cloth mask has a 30% success rate of preventing flu transmission or stops 30% of particles from getting through, how would you describe the process of figuring out whether it's worth the negative effects to wear a cloth mask? Preventing 30% is obviously better than nothing, and we are trying to mitigate risks.
How likely is it different that COVID molecules behave differently that flu molecules and how does that impact the extrapolation of mask studies from flu to COVID?
Thanks again!
Yair, I will answer one question, because I can. The only way to know if mask do in fact decrease the risk of contracting the virus, is by calculating risk/odds ratio. One would need to perhaps conduct a cohort study and identify if one wore a mask/or didn’t wear a mask what is the odds and risk of developing corona virus ... it’s extremely hard to tell if masks are contributing a statistical and clinical difference in preventing the disease transmission. You can perhaps assume by way of logic, but if you want scientific data.. a study is the way to go :)
DeleteIf you want to hear from OSHA experts about masks, go to the 53:05 mark of this video:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/HighWireTalk/videos/337965887286376
ReplyDeleteI Wear a mask because it is such an easy thing to do with the potential of having such a large impact (life or death), even if the life and death scenario is not at play most of the time I am wearing the mask. It really is so easy, it’s like wearing a Kippa for those of us who are orthodox, you just get used to it, unless you vehemently resent it (same would apply to The kippa). just do the right thing. Wear a mask. While davening on Rosh Hashana I was thinking that If there was just one person who was wearing a mask that prevented even one person from dying, it would be equivalent to saving an entire world in the eyes of chazal. What a zechut that would be for somebody to carry with them on Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur.
Also, Gershon and everybody else need to watch the social dilemma on Netflix to realize how our views are so easily manipulated by our social media “feeds” and search engines.. Stop getting any news or information about anything on social media or google, it’s destroying us. Please hold back from replyIng to this particular point unless you’ve seen the documentary, I really can’t adequately do it justice because it is like an hour and a half.
Since I clearly won’t change your mind, I just have one question for You: Will you be wearing a mask for their rest of your life since scientists do also say that it would help prevent the spread of the seasonal flu which despite a vaccine and other advances in medical technology, still claims the lives of approx 35,000 Americans on average a year? Surely you want to do your part since it could save a life or more - right?
DeleteSurgical mask
ReplyDelete