Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
CDC “Mask Guideline Update”
This could be medical malpractice of the highest sort. The data, and the science, show that mask-wearing by ordinary, uninfected members of the American Public does not slow or stop the spread of the Wuhan Coronavirus. If it did, the State of Washington would have had very few new cases after July of 2020 when our statewide mask mandate went into effect. Instead, we are told that there are over 700 new cases appearing daily. And the average citizen of Washington State is extremely compliant. I can count on the fingers of two hands, the number of people I have seen in stores without masks.
Today, the CDC issued new “guidelines” on mask-wearing. The result of One Lab Experiment shows that two masks, one on top of another, help slow the spread of the Wuhan Coronavirus. This is a bald-faced lie.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its mask guidance on Wednesday to include data from a recent lab experiment that found placing a cloth mask over a surgical mask, as well as using a properly fitted mask, was effective in stopping coronavirus spread.
The update, which was announced by CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky during a White House coronavirus briefing, comes after a lab experiment using simulated respiratory breaths found that placing a cloth mask over a medical procedure mask or using a medical procedure mask with knotted ear loops and tucked in sides decreased exposure to potentially infectious aerosols by about 95%.
This is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard. The American population has already been subjected to a full year of lockdowns, business and school closures, unemployment, and deaths of despair of people young and old alike. Are they going to send a healthcare professional to each and every household daily to ensure that everyone is wearing a mask or two properly? Will a doctor be stationed at the door of every business to make sure all customers are properly wearing their two masks?
This new guidance is stupid and unnecessary. No mask mandate! Let the American People live their lives!
Published in Healthcare
1) it is not ethical to do a true mask study.
2) You need to read more about the hair dressers- you misunderstood a great deal. R0 is an average number over a population, most of whom are not infected- close contact with infected persons would yield a much, much higher rate of spread. All 139 of the clients were contacted &monitored and 67 WERE TESTED (72 REFUSED testing). The appts were 15-45 minutes in length- ie a significant time exposure. All of that is in the original article.
3) The 3.4% decline was PER WEEK during an accelerating pandemic in the community – that is significant. Typically, the medical staff would have a significant rate of contagion-higher than the community at large-from not only community acquired infection but also from occupational exposure. The fact that the rate of infection DECLINED among medical workers while worsening in the public is important.
3) You ignore the results of the ship board use of masks and their effectiveness.
4) aggregate data from the US is difficult to use- compliance varies widely and we have no real control groups- the best data we have is that masks work- it is not great data but it is all we have. Reference #7 in the article does discuss that mask use in the community was associated with reduced spread in real world cases.
of course our data is several months old-that is the nature of data collection- but March-May of last year isn’t centuries ago and it was during a time of significant viral spread unlike late summer.
As a small point, the Ro of the disease without using any protections or precautions is supposed to be about 4.5 infected people per spreader over a 10 to 14 day period. To have been in contact with 67 people is no guarantee that you will even infect one. The infected viral load carried by Covid carriers can vary by as much as 100 times. My wife did viral load testing on patients for six months. This weighs heavily on how infectious a person is. To have picked this totally anecdotal case out of the millions of transmission cases world-wide is not even scientific. And again, this was the anecdote they chose to feature as their prime example.
Maybe infections were reduced a little, but it doesn’t matter much. They are just isolated anecdotes. They are just reports of data collected that somebody thought fitted a desired pattern. They are tiny blips of an overall picture that is millions of times larger. If you can call me on not addressing the ship board stats, I should be able to ask you why you ignore the biggest data source we have – tens of millions more people getting the virus after mask mandates than before the mandates. The study also ignored this great elephant in the room.
I don’t think the examples in the study had control groups either. They were mostly just reports on statistics they found.
Reference #7 actually refers back to the 15 State mask mandates for the one-month period last year. “Reduced spread’ is the author’s conclusion.
1)ALL the countervailing claims against mask effectiveness are anecdotes and lower quality than the “anecdotes” supporting mask effectiveness. That’s all we have. The data isn’t great but it supports using masks and social distancing.
2) of course there aren’t control groups- that would be unethical- you cannot ethically have an untreated/unprotected control group for a potentially lethal infectious disease when you have strong reasons to believe you have a cheap and low risk prevention.
3) the claim that millions got infected after mandates doesn’t show they did nor reduce spread- it is likely the outbreak would have been worse w/o mitigation steps. Like I said earlier that is like claiming medicine doesn’t work since everyone does eventually. You are claiming a counterfactual with no evidentiary basis.
other than masks and social distancing all we have is the vaccine- which all to many oppose in the face of evidence of effectiveness as well.
Likewise:
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-careful-review-of-the-evidence/
I’ll post this once again, because it’s important. There is no evidence to support universal masking. Mask proponents always cite to evidence that supports very specific masks being used in very specific ways, at very specific times… And then argue that this somehow supports universal masking. That isn’t just unscientific, it is anti-scientific.
In virtually every place where masks have been mandated, infection rates have risen. Anyone with an actual desire to read the science can easily do so:
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-careful-review-of-the-evidence/
That was an incredibly informative article! It took me more than two hours to read through it and numerous other linked articles with a wealth of information. As an aside, they specifically back up my original comment that Dr. Fauci was telling the truth about mask wearing back in March, but he, along with thousands of others, eventually succumbed to political pressures and started advocating the wearing of masks by healthy people. I didn’t realize that the World Health Organization also told the general populace not to wear masks, and then sort of half-heartedly back-tracked.
I found your partial answer buried deep in the links of the article @ryanm (The Hammer) posted, though I don’t know how they measured the virus presence. It may not be very easy or practical.
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-careful-review-of-the-evidence/
Here is the link to an actual study done on testing for Coronavirus, Influenza, and Rhinoviruses in people’s exhaled breath.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371934/
They only provide a brief abstract there, and I don’t know how to access the full study from that page. However, The Hammer’s original article gives a little more detailed explanation. Keep in mind these tests were done with surgical masks, not the everyday masks that ordinary people are wearing:
“In a May 2020 communication report in Nature (Medicine), Leung et al. examined the importance of respiratory droplets as well as aerosol routes of spread with a specific focus on coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and rhinoviruses. They measured the quantity of respiratory virus in exhaled breath of participants with acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and determined the possible efficacy of surgical face masks to prevent respiratory virus transmission.
As part of the study, they screened 3,363 persons in two study phases, eventually enrolling 246 participants with ARI who provided exhaled breath samples, with 122 (50%) of the participants being randomized to either not wearing a face mask during the first exhaled breath collection or randomized to wearing a face mask (n=124 (50%)). Seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses within exhaled breath and coughs of children as well as adults with ARI were identified. In this study, it was found that surgical face masks can significantly reduce detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, and with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Their results suggest that surgical masks can potentially reduce the release of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols. And it must be emphasized that this study relied on people who had symptomatic disease, something vastly different from the issues under consideration here.”
By the way, a very late belated Thank You! for the Christmas card!
Yes, I’m sure that’s true. But it’s not evidence that masks don’t work. It’s evidence the people increase mask use when the risk of aerial transmission of infectious diseases is high.
If that is true, then it certainly is not proof that masks actually work, either. Besides, the increase in infections is so astronomically higher all around the World after mask mandates were put in place, and it happens with such predictability, that it has to say something about the efficacy of masks.
Here is another set of graphs showing some before-and-after mask mandates:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/
I regularly read the federalist and like it a great deal- but the article you cite is probably the worst one they ever published . The author misquotes or incorrectly quotes many of the citations- as an example the authors interpretation of the infamous May NEJM commentary by Klompas has been SPECIFICALLY refuted by that same author:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article
It is either poor journalism or dishonesty to continue to quote that May NEJM commentary since the author has written a subsequent article for the stated purpose of specifically refuting those who claim he thinks masks do not work. If you don’t believe me here is the 1st line of the subsequent commentary-“We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less.”
There are many other mistakes- and in prior posting on Ricochet I have specifically pointed them out- multiple of the articles cited by the federalist author as demonstrating the futility of masks actually SUPPORT the use of masks if you bother to READ them-as an example the actual scientific studies he cites are largely mischaracterized, to wit:
”the study of healthcare worker”- ie MacIntyre- she has reanalyzed the data and currently supports the use of masks- quoting superseded articles is either poor diligence or intellectual dishonesty. The failure of masks was d/t poor hygienic practices among 3rd world healthcare workers- if properly handled the masks did reduce transmission. Her reanalysis is here: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045.full?ijkey=nNj9mA8BaDWWxYE&keytype=ref&int_source=trendmd&int_medium=cpc&int_campaign=usage-042019
”National Center”- study was about the common cold and masks- not about coronavirus
”Oxford Clinical Infectious Dis”- the conclusion is: “This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection.”
”Cambridge University Press” It’s conclusion:”There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies …” Hardly a refutation of masks
”Influenza Jo“ conclusion: “ Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and/or respirator (ie N95-my addition) use as INDEPENDENTLY associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)… many studies suboptimal.None….established a conclusive relationship..” in other words the data we have while not great SUPPORTS the use of masks.
if the author cannot properly quote a published article he should stick to fiction. If a medical student I was teaching came up with such a poor review of the literature I would give him an F.
To tell you the truth, I never read the article itself. I was just posting it for the graphs showing Covid infection rates before and after mask mandates. Maybe I’ll look into it later, but right now I’m exhausted from reading articles on this subject.
I don’t doubt the difficulty in interpreting all the claims and counterclaims. My views on masks have changed since 2019 and I am a physician who wore a mask for many hours a day before this pandemic. A year ago if you asked me if I thought masks would work, I would have said no- but after reviewing the literature I now believe they should be used. The Influenza Journal article that cites 8 of 9 studies in SARS showed that masks were associated with reduced transmission is the clincher(I actually read about those studies before the Inf Jo article was published). A novel virus means we have little preexisting data to base decisions on and we therefore look to the closest models we have-which is SARS. An frequently unstated, but supportive, piece of data on the effectiveness of masks is how few healthcare workers have been infected over the last 9 months (luckily for people like me).
Less there than meets the eye- the article cites an earlier article on the same site as refuting mask effectiveness. That article is just a long series of theoretical musings by a chemist- with NO actual medical data to support it. Theoretical musings are fine when seated at a bar-but once we have data, theory cannot contradict it. The article referred to is just a long opinion piece- so no it doesn’t refute mask effectiveness at all. While I do support the conclusions of the 1st article in regards to school closing, the article sheds NO light on viral mitigation strategies.
I’d give them “para-scientific,” but then I’d give that to the Cargo Cultists too.
It is the sort of reasoning you get when you’ve decided that your predetermined conclusion is non-negotiable and you have to twist data that doesn’t actually support your point. If we removed the emotional/political aspects of the mask debate, there would simply be no debate. We also see this with the AGW “science.” People have invested so much in their global warming crusades, any evidence against it is a sort of existential threat.
Drop all of the “studies” with “estimated” findings. And for reasons that I cannot fathom the completely debunked Kansas “study” still makes this list. The Teddy Roosevelt had identical infection rates to the cruise ship cases. How the heck is that proof of mask efficiency?
I am also baffled why diligent mask-wearing professionals still get infected. See this article about a patient causing hospital infections, for example: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-7567 Whole-genome sequencing confirmed that 2 staff members were infected despite wearing surgical masks and eye protection.
When we see studies of demographically comparable jurisdictions with substantially different outcomes related to substantially different mask policies/usage, wake me. Until then, the benefits of broad mandates are clearly tangential as the Danish study made clear.
1)the argument ISN’T that masks are perfect-only that they reduce spread. There are many studies of sterile technique as practiced in operating rooms that demonstrate breaks in technique occur fairly frequently- you can be assured such breaks also occur in COVID precautions. Fortunately, most breaks do not cause contagion (except in the movies) otherwise the toll on healthcare workers would be much higher. The Roosevelt crew was much higher density than a cruise ship (cruise ships do not have rows of bunk beds) & could not lock most of the passengers in their cabins-so you would expect higher spread in that situation. The FACT that the spread among healthcare workers has been low validates the mitigation steps taken-mainly masks.
2) the Danish study only showed that masks did not reduce spread by greater or equal to 50%. It did NOT show masks were ineffective. Seeking perfect can be the enemy of good enough.
3) there are articles claiming that mask mandates did reduce spread-but getting control groups isn’t going to happen.
Except is really is evidence that masks don’t work. We have data from places both with and without masks. If anything, the numbers are worse in the masked areas. If they worked, we would see a stark difference. But we don’t. That is extremely strong evidence, which is added to virtually every actual study that has been conducted. That any doctors still recommend mask mandates is malpractice.
You are grasping at straws. There are so many control groups it’s not even funny. Even a small benefit from masks would be obvious, and it simply isn’t there.
As I always say, if that’s enough for you to strap one to your face, be my guest. But what we are talking about is the biggest violation of human rights and individual liberty in our lifetime. On your “well in theory it’s good but it can’t be tested.”
That is criminal.
I think you have the cart and the horse backwards- you mean when the infection rate soars people and the authorities take steps to prevent it by wearing masks? Who’d have thunk!
For an attorney you have a loose use of words like criminal- i think your stance is borderline negligent.
My personal bottom line is this. I will not participate in the War of All Against All. So-called “experts”, whose expertise is very narrow, by definition, should not be making public policy that affects multi-millions of law-abiding citizens. We citizens who are being de-humanized daily by being forced to go about in disguise, should not have to answer to an un-elected bureaucrat in Washington DC, who has been in his job 20 years past his “use-by” date. I am not infected with the not-so-deadly Wuhan Coronavirus, and I resent being treated as if I were. I take responsibility for my own behavior, and I do not expect anyone else to be responsible for my behavior or my health; I refuse to take responsibility for anyone else’s health either. If I get infected with the virus, I will not blame anyone else, as it is nearly impossible to trace that infection to any one place or person where I might have been. If I die of the virus, I will have died a Free Person, and not a Slave to the Dictator in Olympia.
I’ve had the Wuhan Flu. The “experts” tell me I’m no longer contagious, so I don’t need a mask to protect anyone else. And they tell me I’m immune for at least 90 days, so I don’t need a mask to protect myself.
So why are they telling me that I have to still wear one?
Fear.
Fear will keep the local systems in line.
I do not advocate mandates, but claims that masks do not work flies in the face of most expert opinion. They may be wrong but the safe bet is to accept their opinions-especially in the face of a novel situation. Experts are useful in answering narrowly tailored questions like; “is it likely masks will reduce the spread of COVID?”. The pseudo-populist position that you never listen to experts is actually an anti-intellectual form of stupidity-you abandon your fate to the decisions of those with even less knowledge. You should get advice from experts in the limited areas were their expertise is probably useful-you should not yell the “science is settled” nor “experts are useless”. Like politicians expert’s usefulness is transactional and limited-giving either too much power is unwise-but you really can’t live without either. It is clear that the broad consensus of medical experts is that masks reduce the spread of COVID- that doesn’t mean masks should be mandated nor that we should lock down the economy every time someone sneezes. Not wearing a mask might be the decision of a free man, but it might also the decision of a fool- I’d rather live free & wise. It’s akin to smoking tobacco- i do not think we should outlaw it, but you are a fool if you do.
I don’t ask for a control group. Just reasonable group comparisons. For example, Minnesota and Wisconsin are about the same size, same climate, same demographics. Minnesota went full nutso NPI–naturally, their health guru was tapped by Biden as an advisor. Wisconsin could not go the closings route because the state supreme court vetoed it. Minnesota has more COVID deaths, Wisconsin more “cases” but not much difference between the two. Same peaks, same valleys, same demographics for fatalities. Taken as a whole, the NPIs don’t accomplish much of anything.
I am convinced that masks work as part of a controlled environment (I did clinical and research lab tech work in the Army and later in hospital night shifts while in college–I am not completely ignorant of such things.) I infer masks are also helpful under crowded conditions for short periods. Worn for longer-term under all conditions I think masks accomplish almost nothing. Worse, the mask mandates foster the illusion that we have the power to exert broad control through the various NPIs which detracts from the far more scientifically justified concept of building localized PPE fortresses for the vulnerable. And the horsesh*t nostrum that the mask doesn’t really protect me but lets me protect you is fertile ground for KarenThink.
I admire your heroic well-reasoned defense of mask use. If it were a matter of doing it during a lockdown to flatten the curve it would make perfect sense. As an eternal globalized practice, we need to consider not just diminishing returns but the medical, social, and psychological costs of sustained mask use. That masks accomplish little when we look at the aggregate data needs a better response than people must be stupid and doing it wrong because everybody just knows masks work.
I watched a video of the President at a Pentagon speaking engagement. He took off his mask. People were more than 6 feet from him and his teleprompter so all good by me. (Of course, who knows if the AC is well-filtered in that room–I appear to understand COVID transmission about as well as Anthony Fauci except that unlike Fauci I freely admit there is much we don’t seem to know). But then after Mr. Biden removed the mask, he folded it in half, stroking the outside surface several times to fold it (no staffer rushed up with hand sanitizer). Later his mask goes back on. People do this kind of thing all day.
Surgeons don’t eat a sandwich or scratch their noses mid-procedure. Clinicians wash hands between patients and only use new masks. Lab techs know what conditions warrant what kinds of PPE. But the breezy assurance that the mask component of all these precautions can be applied to everyday life with extrapolated results was always a stretch. I don’t know why that is so hard to accept.
Surgeons don’t eat a sandwich or scratch their noses mid-procedure. Clinicians wash hands between patients and only use new masks. Lab techs know what conditions warrant what kinds of PPE. But the breezy assurance that the mask component of all these precautions can be applied to everyday life with extrapolated results was always a stretch. I don’t know why that is so hard to accept.
You faith in surgeons is touching and one can only pray that clinicians did wash their hands and change masks as frequently as you claim-but there is study after study demonstrating the failure of hand washing by healthcare workers. While there are fears that virus on your mask can be a source, the fact is the fear of fomites is overblown in COVID (and virus on your mask is a fomite when you touch it)-https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4
One of the quoted microbiologists says he no longer wears gloves b/c surfaces present little threat.
I remember in the early days of the Pandemic, people were proposing that If you had already survived a bout of Covid or if we could become vaccinated, then those people could be given a bill of good health. Those immune people would be the ones allowed to go back to work and not need to take precautions. I’ve noticed now that we do have a sizable population that is immune, there are absolutely no proposals to let the immune people carry on as normal. They are all still under a silly requirement to wear masks and stay away from other people. Even with Trump out of office, I don’t see when this thing is gonna end. I don’t see any politician willingly giving an inch on the restrictions, even if 80% of the population is vaccinated. I think it will only end by widespread public disobedience.
The reality is that without masks, most people would forget that covid even exists, much less would they remember to be afraid of it.
That is the only purpose masks serve. They exist as propaganda and social control. This is one reason why they need to be fought against strongly. The fact that they serve no legitimate medical purpose only makes their mandated use all the more nefarious.
Go ahead, call me a fool. That does not affect me in the least, or change my thinking or my behavior. I only wear the stupid mask when absolutely required (inside a business or a health-care facility), and then at the minimum needed to keep it on. And just the same I have not been infected. I have never even had the flu. I do not consider myself at higher risk, even though I am old. I am not a threat, nor do I pose a threat to anyone else. I despise Jay Inslee.
I don’t worry too much about surfaces either. Another great threat that CDC backed away from. However, I do think we should avoid or sterilize cucumbers—unlike the average 2-4 hour survival rate of COVID on most fruits and vegetables, cuke surfaces can hold live COVID for 2-3 days. (You’re welcome!)
But otherwise you kinda missed the entire point about focus, context and outcomes. I particularly enjoy the undying faith that (a) masks provide great reductions but (b) we should not expect to see any change in the aggregate case numbers anywhere as a result. The logic of that position has always eluded me.
Mongolia and Vietnam have vastly lower case numbers and we are allowed to attribute that to rates of mask use (which do not appear to be higher than in Minneapolis or Washington DC) but we are not allowed to attribute high case incidence across regions with varied policy approaches to any NPI failure, especially masks. Masks as part of a focused short-term intensive programmatic response make sense or in a longer term localized coherent PPE context. Twelve months of universal mask kabuki never made sense. Nor is it productive. The mere assumption that maybe, just maybe it could have been worse without it is not very sciency.