Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

[Manonthestreet]

BREAKING: Shreveport Judge Blows Up Perkins' Mask Mandate

Shreveport mayor Adrian Perkins took a hit in court Friday, as a judge temporarily threw out his new, oppressive mask mandate.

thehayride.com

 

[Manonthestreet]

Listen to the double talk in this one.......we know....we dont know..........

Masks, mandates and COVID-19: What we know (and what we don’t)

 

[Sunsettommy]

First Study Specifically states:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

======

Second study specifically states:

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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

bolding mine

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Table 1. Studies conducted in healthcare settings

Example:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

bolding mine

PDF LINK

======

The THIRD study specifically states:

"Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators)"

======

You are one very dishonest person!

You can bold all you want. They call that quote mining. Read the paragraphs coming out of those same studies. Quote mining, but directly refuting the central assertion of the article. If I'm dishonest you suffer from the exact same ailment. So by the way does the author of the article.

I've offered studies. PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED articles in highly reputable scientific journals, speaking up for the effectiveness of masks. So so far we have one article you found, on a questionable website, making assertions and citing sources that are at the very least NOT completely supportive of those assertions. Which of these 2 circumstances bears the larger scientific accuracy?

Translation: I decided to stop my dishonest replies, and continue to ignore the bolded areas.

quite mining claims is truly stupid because what I quoted are specific statements, that is why you keep ignoring them....

===

It appears you are not intelligent enough to understand this:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

===

Here is the entire section I lifted them from for the singular purpose to help you understand that paper, but apparently even with all the help you got, you still failed to understand it.

Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

bolding mine
=====

I requested you look at TABLE #1 in the PDF link, you ignored it.



You haven't once disproved the studies I posted at all, just make evasive dishonest claims, while ignoring specific statements in those papers.

You are a miserable liar!

 

[forkup]

First Study Specifically states:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

======

Second study specifically states:

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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

bolding mine

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Table 1. Studies conducted in healthcare settings

Example:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

bolding mine

PDF LINK

======

The THIRD study specifically states:

"Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators)"

======

You are one very dishonest person!

You can bold all you want. They call that quote mining. Read the paragraphs coming out of those same studies. Quote mining, but directly refuting the central assertion of the article. If I'm dishonest you suffer from the exact same ailment. So by the way does the author of the article.

I've offered studies. PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED articles in highly reputable scientific journals, speaking up for the effectiveness of masks. So so far we have one article you found, on a questionable website, making assertions and citing sources that are at the very least NOT completely supportive of those assertions. Which of these 2 circumstances bears the larger scientific accuracy?

Translation: I decided to stop my dishonest replies, and continue to ignore the bolded areas.

quite mining claims is truly stupid because what I quoted are specific statements, that is why you keep ignoring them....

===

It appears you are not intelligent enough to understand this:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

===

Here is the entire section I lifted them from for the singular purpose to help you understand that paper, but apparently even with all the help you got, you still failed to understand it.

Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

bolding mine
=====

I requested you look at TABLE #1 in the PDF link, you ignored it.



You haven't once disproved the studies I posted at all, just make evasive dishonest claims, while ignoring specific statements in those papers.

You are a miserable liar!

Translation, when you use statements in the study they are "specific statements", when I use them ... well, you can't read I guess? I showed in the bits YOU posted that 2 of the 3 studies said that masks ARE effective in virus transmission. Then in the post under that I posted 3 further studies ALL unequivocally stating that virus particles are diminished by masks. And you have the absolute temerity to call me a liar.

We live in 2 separate worlds I guess. Mine where the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature and countless others in the field of medicine and science in general are the authority when it comes to a pandemic; And yours where some guy on the internet is the only voice of reason. I'm comfortable with my choice.

 

[Sunsettommy]

First Study Specifically states:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

======

Second study specifically states:

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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

bolding mine

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Table 1. Studies conducted in healthcare settings

Example:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

bolding mine

PDF LINK

======

The THIRD study specifically states:

"Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators)"

======

You are one very dishonest person!

You can bold all you want. They call that quote mining. Read the paragraphs coming out of those same studies. Quote mining, but directly refuting the central assertion of the article. If I'm dishonest you suffer from the exact same ailment. So by the way does the author of the article.

I've offered studies. PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED articles in highly reputable scientific journals, speaking up for the effectiveness of masks. So so far we have one article you found, on a questionable website, making assertions and citing sources that are at the very least NOT completely supportive of those assertions. Which of these 2 circumstances bears the larger scientific accuracy?

Translation: I decided to stop my dishonest replies, and continue to ignore the bolded areas.

quite mining claims is truly stupid because what I quoted are specific statements, that is why you keep ignoring them....

===

It appears you are not intelligent enough to understand this:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

===

Here is the entire section I lifted them from for the singular purpose to help you understand that paper, but apparently even with all the help you got, you still failed to understand it.

Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

bolding mine
=====

I requested you look at TABLE #1 in the PDF link, you ignored it.



You haven't once disproved the studies I posted at all, just make evasive dishonest claims, while ignoring specific statements in those papers.

You are a miserable liar!

Translation, when you use statements in the study they are "specific statements", when I use them ... well, you can't read I guess? I showed in the bits YOU posted that 2 of the 3 studies said that masks ARE effective in virus transmission. Then in the post under that I posted 3 further studies ALL unequivocally stating that virus particles are diminished by masks. And you have the absolute temerity to call me a liar.

We live in 2 separate worlds I guess. Mine where the CDC, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature and countless others in the field of medicine and science in general are the authority when it comes to a pandemic; And yours where some guy on the internet is the only voice of reason. I'm comfortable with my choice.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You did it again!

You ignored specific CONCLUSIONS such as this one you blind FUCK!

Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

and you ignored TABLE #1 in the PDF link, even posted a full example from the post:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

here is another example you didn't read because you are a lying motherfucker!

Jacobs et al. [9] Tertiary-care hospital in Tokyo, 2008 32 individuals followed for 77 days RCT Surgical masks, control Self-reported colds No significant differences between mask group and control group

You are so stupid to ignore these specific statements.

 

[forkup]

First Study Specifically states:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

======

Second study specifically states:

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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

bolding mine

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Table 1. Studies conducted in healthcare settings

Example:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

bolding mine

PDF LINK

======

The THIRD study specifically states:

"Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators)"

======

You are one very dishonest person!

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Why only table 1? That deals in a hospital setting and surgical masks and not for instance table 2?
Surgical masks plus hand hygiene, hand hygiene, control RT–PCR-confirmed infection No significant difference overall; significant difference between surgical masks plus hand hygiene and control if implemented within 36 hours of illness onset in index case
To use your term, bolding mine
RT–PCR-confirmed infection No significant differences between surgical masks and control
This doesn't support me.
Self-reported influenza-like illness No significant difference overall; significant difference between masks and control in per-protocol analysis
This does.
Clinically diagnosed and survey-reported influenza-like illness No significant differences overall; significant reductions in influenza-like illness during weeks 4–6 between mask plus hand hygiene vs. control groups and similar, but non-significant, reductions between mask-only vs. control groups
So does this. So in a household setting we have 3 studies in 4 that state reductions in disease transmission. Yet you simply concentrate on the stuff that confirms your assertions ignore those that don't and then accuse me of doing it.

EVERY single one of the studies cited by this article has things in them that say that masks have proven at least somewhat effective and as I said MANY that aren't ambiguous in the least.

 

[Captain Caveman]

When I cut stone/brick with the stone saw, despite wearing various masks, they still allow some dust through. Also, you perspire within the mask and so you end up having a damp/wet mask on your face, it hampers breathing. A virus landing on a wet mask will have no trouble transmitting through.

So masks will not and do not stop viruses. They may reduce the dispersion cloud and offer little benefit. The concern is, people are making masks, often out of inadequate materials and they're giving those people a false sense of protection. They're beginning to shop closer to one another.

But some people are like sheep, they're told to wear masks and so they diligently follow this advice and expect everyone to follow. My advice to those in this frightened state, just stay in, do not go out, just get your shopping delivered and keep out of the way.

And lastly, your eyes absorb viruses, so why isn't eye protection high on the sheep agenda?

 

[playtime]

ummmm....


Principia Scientific International (PSI)

Has this Media Source failed a fact check?LET US KNOW HERE.




Share:

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

• Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180
History
Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”. The founder and current CEO of Principia Scientific International is John O’Sullivan. For more background information on John O’Sullivan see here and here.
In November 2019, the PSI Facebook page was banned: Facebook Bans Principia Scientific International Without Explanation. As of 3/13/2020, it does not appear to have been restored.
[...]
Principia Scientific International (PSI) - Media Bias/Fact Check

Classic attack the source, not the article on full display.

Article remains unchallenged.

the attack on the source doesn't happen unless the source has been documented to be complete bullshit.

of course the article has been challenged via the fake reporting, stats with no credible back up.

when YOU come up with factual, documented, peer reviewed, evidence about THIS virus that was born in 2019, we'll revisit this thread - m'k?

 

[playtime]

Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....

First study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study.
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.
Third study.
One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).
Fourth study
Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection.
Fifth study
With one exception [30], case-control studies consistently reported a protective effect of medical masks against SARS [31, 32, 34] (Appendix B, Table 2). Compared to “no rPPE” controls, N95 respirators conferred protection against confirmed SARS-CoV infection in 2 of 3 case-control studies [32, 33]; no protective effect against SARS was reported for disposable [29, 34], cotton [35], or paper [32] masks (Appendix B,
Sixt study
This just takes mask effectiveness as a given and is a comparison between surgical mask vs N95 respirators.
Seventh study
N95 respirators are used to prevent users from inhaling
small airborne particles and must fit tightly to the user’s face. Surgical
masks are designed to protect wearers from microorganism transmis-
sion and fit loosely to the user’s face.
5,6
Although surgical masks cannot
prevent inhalation of small airborne particles, both of them can protect
users from large droplets and sprays


I'm not allergic to reviewing a batch of mask research. I just read some. Seems NONE doubt they help.

Typically dishonest post, here is what the first study actually states:

doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
Use of Surgical Face Masks to Reduce the Incidence of the Common Cold Among Health Care Workers in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Joshua L Jacobs 1, Sachiko Ohde 2, Osamu Takahashi 3, Yasuharu Tokuda 3, Fumio Omata 3, Tsuguya Fukui 3
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 19216002
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002

Abstract
Background: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.
Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

red bolding mine
=====

Second study, the 8 page PDF you never read:

REVIEW ARTICLE Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review B. J. COWL ING1 *, Y. ZHOU1 , D. K. M. IP1 , G. M. LEUNG1 AND A. E. A IELLO2 1 School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 2 Department of Epidemiology, Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (Accepted 16 December 2009; first published online 22 January 2010)

SUMMARY Influenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. 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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

red bolding mine
=====

Third study:

There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to
reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was
undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the
United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November
2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion
criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi-
experimental and observational studies of humans published in
English with an outcome of laboratory-confirmed or clinically-
diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There
were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators). One household trial found that mask
wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary
transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like
illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education;

hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to
influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the
studies established a conclusive relationship between
mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.
Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part
of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The
effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

Introduction
Personal protective equipment to help reduce transmission
of influenza is generally advised according to the risk of
exposure to the influenza virus and the degree of infectivity
and human pathogenicity of the virus. The paucity of sci-
entific evidence upon which to base guidance for the use of
masks and respirators in healthcare and community set-
tings has been a particularly vexing issue for policymakers.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) undertook a scien-
tific evidence-based review of the use of masks and respira-
tors in an influenza pandemic to inform relevant guidance
following the emergence of pandemic A (H1N1) 2009
influenza. The Department of Health commissioned the

HPA to update the review in support of the revision of the
United Kingdom (UK) influenza pandemic preparedness
strategy.

1The review was published on-line at: http://
www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/
documents/digitalasset/dh_125425.pdf. A further update of
the evidence base subsequently was performed in January
2011 and described herein

red boldings mine
=============

Don't need to continue here to show that you made a blatantly dishonest post.

ummmm.... that was from 2009. updated no later than 2011.

got anything more recent?

 

[playtime]

Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....

First study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study.
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.
Third study.
One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).
Fourth study
Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection.
Fifth study
With one exception [30], case-control studies consistently reported a protective effect of medical masks against SARS [31, 32, 34] (Appendix B, Table 2). Compared to “no rPPE” controls, N95 respirators conferred protection against confirmed SARS-CoV infection in 2 of 3 case-control studies [32, 33]; no protective effect against SARS was reported for disposable [29, 34], cotton [35], or paper [32] masks (Appendix B,
Sixt study
This just takes mask effectiveness as a given and is a comparison between surgical mask vs N95 respirators.
Seventh study
N95 respirators are used to prevent users from inhaling
small airborne particles and must fit tightly to the user’s face. Surgical
masks are designed to protect wearers from microorganism transmis-
sion and fit loosely to the user’s face.
5,6
Although surgical masks cannot
prevent inhalation of small airborne particles, both of them can protect
users from large droplets and sprays


I'm not allergic to reviewing a batch of mask research. I just read some. Seems NONE doubt they help.

Typically dishonest post, here is what the first study actually states:

doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
Use of Surgical Face Masks to Reduce the Incidence of the Common Cold Among Health Care Workers in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Joshua L Jacobs 1, Sachiko Ohde 2, Osamu Takahashi 3, Yasuharu Tokuda 3, Fumio Omata 3, Tsuguya Fukui 3
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 19216002
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002

Abstract
Background: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.
Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

red bolding mine
=====

Second study, the 8 page PDF you never read:

REVIEW ARTICLE Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review B. J. COWL ING1 *, Y. ZHOU1 , D. K. M. IP1 , G. M. LEUNG1 AND A. E. A IELLO2 1 School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 2 Department of Epidemiology, Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (Accepted 16 December 2009; first published online 22 January 2010)

SUMMARY Influenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. 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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

red bolding mine
=====

Third study:

There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to
reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was
undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the
United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November
2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion
criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi-
experimental and observational studies of humans published in
English with an outcome of laboratory-confirmed or clinically-
diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There
were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators). One household trial found that mask
wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary
transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like
illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education;

hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to
influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the
studies established a conclusive relationship between
mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.
Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part
of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The
effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

Introduction
Personal protective equipment to help reduce transmission
of influenza is generally advised according to the risk of
exposure to the influenza virus and the degree of infectivity
and human pathogenicity of the virus. The paucity of sci-
entific evidence upon which to base guidance for the use of
masks and respirators in healthcare and community set-
tings has been a particularly vexing issue for policymakers.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) undertook a scien-
tific evidence-based review of the use of masks and respira-
tors in an influenza pandemic to inform relevant guidance
following the emergence of pandemic A (H1N1) 2009
influenza. The Department of Health commissioned the

HPA to update the review in support of the revision of the
United Kingdom (UK) influenza pandemic preparedness
strategy.

1The review was published on-line at: http://
www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/
documents/digitalasset/dh_125425.pdf. A further update of
the evidence base subsequently was performed in January
2011 and described herein

red boldings mine
=============

Don't need to continue here to show that you made a blatantly dishonest post.

What's dishonest about it? The first study categorically states that results aren't conclusive considering the limited data

A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

Second study catigorically states that wearing masks may help reduce the risk of transmission.But questioned the study because of the conditions

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.

Third one just said it works.

Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).

If your article states that masks don't work and the sources cited claim at the very worst that it's inconclusive and quite a few catagorically states that they do. Who's exactly being dishonest?

What's funny is that I'm able to use the sources cited in your article to challenge the exact article that cites them. If that's the evidence for not wearing masks it really has to be bad.

not to mention that the decade old article isn't based on a brand spanking new novel virus.

 

[playtime]

First Study Specifically states:

"Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not."

"There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group."

"Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

======

Second study specifically states:

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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

bolding mine

Go look at TABLE 1 on the PDF link you didn't see.

Table 1. Studies conducted in healthcare settings

Example:

Al-Asmary et al. [11] Medical personnel in two Hajj mission hospitals, Saudi Arabia, 2004 250 medical personnel Cross-sectional Vaccination, face masks, hand hygiene Self-reported acute respiratory illness No significant protective effect of face masks

bolding mine

PDF LINK

======

The THIRD study specifically states:

"Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators)"

======

You are one very dishonest person!

from your PDF:

(Accepted 16 December 2009; first published online 22 January 2010)

covid 19 is a novel virus. that means nobody has seen or contracted it before 2019.

as much as kellyanne lies that the ' 19 ' means there were 18 strains b4 this coronavirus ... it's simply not true.

 

[playtime]

Masks help prevent COVID-19 as people who have it have a harder time expelling it on you. For defensive purposes, it helps when it is harder to social distance and when you are talking or you have a cough or have to sneeze. One man was at Costco and he removed his mask once he got inside. He was reported on and had to leave the store. They would not ring up his items and I suppose he could've been arrested. I guess I don't have much patience for selfish people like that.

exactly.

exactly.

Volume 26, Number 10—October 2020
Online Report
Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2


Abstract
Cloth masks have been used in healthcare and community settings to protect the wearer from respiratory infections. The use of cloth masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is under debate. The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks may provide some protection if well designed and used correctly. Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, may provide reasonable protection. Until a cloth mask design is proven to be equally effective as a medical or N95 mask, wearing cloth masks should not be mandated for healthcare workers. In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be educated about their correct use.
Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

 

[Sunsettommy]

The New England Journal of Medicine

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era
List of authors.

• Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H.,
• Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H.,
• Julia Sinclair, M.B.A.,
• Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N.,
• and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.

Excerpt:


As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to explode, hospital systems are scrambling to intensify their measures for protecting patients and health care workers from the virus. An increasing number of frontline providers are wondering whether this effort should include universal use of masks by all health care workers. Universal masking is already standard practice in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other parts of Asia and has recently been adopted by a handful of U.S. hospitals.

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 30 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.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection.

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

BMJ

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

1. C Raina MacIntyre1,
2. Holly Seale1,
3. Tham Chi Dung2,
4. Nguyen Tran Hien2,
5. Phan Thi Nga2,
6. Abrar Ahmad Chughtai1,
7. Bayzidur Rahman1,
8. Dominic E Dwyer3,
9. Quanyi Wang4

EXCERPT:

Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

LINK

 

[Dick Foster]

Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....

First study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study.
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.
Third study.
One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).
Fourth study
Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection.
Fifth study
With one exception [30], case-control studies consistently reported a protective effect of medical masks against SARS [31, 32, 34] (Appendix B, Table 2). Compared to “no rPPE” controls, N95 respirators conferred protection against confirmed SARS-CoV infection in 2 of 3 case-control studies [32, 33]; no protective effect against SARS was reported for disposable [29, 34], cotton [35], or paper [32] masks (Appendix B,
Sixt study
This just takes mask effectiveness as a given and is a comparison between surgical mask vs N95 respirators.
Seventh study
N95 respirators are used to prevent users from inhaling
small airborne particles and must fit tightly to the user’s face. Surgical
masks are designed to protect wearers from microorganism transmis-
sion and fit loosely to the user’s face.
5,6
Although surgical masks cannot
prevent inhalation of small airborne particles, both of them can protect
users from large droplets and sprays


I'm not allergic to reviewing a batch of mask research. I just read some. Seems NONE doubt they help.

Typically dishonest post, here is what the first study actually states:

doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
Use of Surgical Face Masks to Reduce the Incidence of the Common Cold Among Health Care Workers in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Joshua L Jacobs 1, Sachiko Ohde 2, Osamu Takahashi 3, Yasuharu Tokuda 3, Fumio Omata 3, Tsuguya Fukui 3
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 19216002
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002

Abstract
Background: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.
Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

red bolding mine
=====

Second study, the 8 page PDF you never read:

REVIEW ARTICLE Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review B. J. COWL ING1 *, Y. ZHOU1 , D. K. M. IP1 , G. M. LEUNG1 AND A. E. A IELLO2 1 School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 2 Department of Epidemiology, Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (Accepted 16 December 2009; first published online 22 January 2010)

SUMMARY Influenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. 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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

red bolding mine
=====

Third study:

There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to
reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was
undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the
United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November
2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion
criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi-
experimental and observational studies of humans published in
English with an outcome of laboratory-confirmed or clinically-
diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There
were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators). One household trial found that mask
wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary
transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like
illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education;

hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to
influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the
studies established a conclusive relationship between
mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.
Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part
of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The
effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

Introduction
Personal protective equipment to help reduce transmission
of influenza is generally advised according to the risk of
exposure to the influenza virus and the degree of infectivity
and human pathogenicity of the virus. The paucity of sci-
entific evidence upon which to base guidance for the use of
masks and respirators in healthcare and community set-
tings has been a particularly vexing issue for policymakers.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) undertook a scien-
tific evidence-based review of the use of masks and respira-
tors in an influenza pandemic to inform relevant guidance
following the emergence of pandemic A (H1N1) 2009
influenza. The Department of Health commissioned the

HPA to update the review in support of the revision of the
United Kingdom (UK) influenza pandemic preparedness
strategy.

1The review was published on-line at: http://
www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/
documents/digitalasset/dh_125425.pdf. A further update of
the evidence base subsequently was performed in January
2011 and described herein

red boldings mine
=============

Don't need to continue here to show that you made a blatantly dishonest post.

ummmm.... that was from 2009. updated no later than 2011.

got anything more recent?

Have virus cells all of a sudden supposed to have grown a thousand fold in size so that your stupid fucking masks are now effective?
You're one of those very low energy green new deal kinda light bulbs aren't you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Principia Scientific International

25 page PDF about China Virus can infect people by going through the eyes

===================

Why Are We Ignoring Virus Infection Risks Via Our Eyes?
Published on June 30, 2020

Written by John O'Sullivan

Excerpt:

New studies are showing the public is being fed poor advice about wearing masks while not being informed of the real danger of virus infection via our eyes. In short, wearing a mask without eye protection will not prevent infection.

Medical researchers at Johns Hopkins and Sun Yat-sen University, China publish a study (May 10, 2020) indicating high risk of COVID-19 transmission via the eyes. The natural frequency of human hand-eye contact means our eyes are “a portal of entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus.” [1]

The study suggests that if droplets from an infected person’s sneeze or cough were to reach the eye’s tissue, the pathogen could begin infiltrating cells there.

Meanwhile, a report by Foxnews.com goes as far as declaring ‘Coronavirus up to 100 times more infectious through eyes, airways than SARS’ (May 08, 2020) [2]

“SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes a COVID-19 infection, is nearly 100 times more effective at infecting the human conjunctiva — a thin, clear tissue covering the eyeball and inner surface of the eyelids — and upper respiratory airways than SARS, Dr. Michael Chan Chi-wai, who led the research team at Hong Kong University’s School of Public Health, told the South China Morning Post”

Wearing glasses may offer protection, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Health care workers are advised to use safety goggles when treating potentially infected patients.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on their website recommends eye protection for a variety of potential exposure settings where workers may be at risk of acquiring infectious diseases via ocular exposure. [3]

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warning, do not read this article if you are allergic to science research papers, of which about 28 presentations and published papers are listed by source in the article.

Principia Scientific International

Masks: A Review Of Science Relevant To COVID-19 Social Policy

Published on July 6, 2020

Written by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Excerpt:

Masks and respirators will not work against COVID-19. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

LINK

=====

Lets see if leftists will ignore another batch of published masks research....

First study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Second study.
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.
Third study.
One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS).
Fourth study
Transmission of acute respiratory infections occurs primarily by contact and droplet routes, and accordingly, the use of a surgical mask, eye protection, gown and gloves should be considered appropriate personal protective equipment when providing routine care for a patient with a transmissible acute respiratory infection.
Fifth study
With one exception [30], case-control studies consistently reported a protective effect of medical masks against SARS [31, 32, 34] (Appendix B, Table 2). Compared to “no rPPE” controls, N95 respirators conferred protection against confirmed SARS-CoV infection in 2 of 3 case-control studies [32, 33]; no protective effect against SARS was reported for disposable [29, 34], cotton [35], or paper [32] masks (Appendix B,
Sixt study
This just takes mask effectiveness as a given and is a comparison between surgical mask vs N95 respirators.
Seventh study
N95 respirators are used to prevent users from inhaling
small airborne particles and must fit tightly to the user’s face. Surgical
masks are designed to protect wearers from microorganism transmis-
sion and fit loosely to the user’s face.
5,6
Although surgical masks cannot
prevent inhalation of small airborne particles, both of them can protect
users from large droplets and sprays


I'm not allergic to reviewing a batch of mask research. I just read some. Seems NONE doubt they help.

Typically dishonest post, here is what the first study actually states:

doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
Use of Surgical Face Masks to Reduce the Incidence of the Common Cold Among Health Care Workers in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Joshua L Jacobs 1, Sachiko Ohde 2, Osamu Takahashi 3, Yasuharu Tokuda 3, Fumio Omata 3, Tsuguya Fukui 3
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 19216002
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.11.002

Abstract
Background: Health care workers outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks commonly. Prevention of upper respiratory infection is one reason given, although evidence of effectiveness is lacking.
Methods: Health care workers in a tertiary care hospital in Japan were randomized into 2 groups: 1 that wore face masks and 1 that did not. They provided information about demographics, health habits, and quality of life. Participants recorded symptoms daily for 77 consecutive days, starting in January 2008. Presence of a cold was determined based on a previously validated measure of self-reported symptoms. The number of colds between groups was compared, as were risk factors for experiencing cold symptoms.
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.

red bolding mine
=====

Second study, the 8 page PDF you never read:

REVIEW ARTICLE Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review B. J. COWL ING1 *, Y. ZHOU1 , D. K. M. IP1 , G. M. LEUNG1 AND A. E. A IELLO2 1 School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 2 Department of Epidemiology, Center for Social Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA (Accepted 16 December 2009; first published online 22 January 2010)

SUMMARY Influenza viruses circulate around the world every year. From time to time new strains emerge and cause global pandemics. Many national and international health agencies recommended the use of face masks during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. We reviewed the English-language literature on this subject to inform public health preparedness. 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 in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

red bolding mine
=====

Third study:

There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to
reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was
undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the
United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November
2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion
criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi-
experimental and observational studies of humans published in
English with an outcome of laboratory-confirmed or clinically-
diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There
were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials
found no significant differences between control and
intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene;
N95 ⁄ P2 respirators). One household trial found that mask
wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary
transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like
illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education;

hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-
based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness
associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with
medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies
found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently
associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to
influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the
studies established a conclusive relationship between
mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.
Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part
of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The
effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early,
consistent and correct usage.

Introduction
Personal protective equipment to help reduce transmission
of influenza is generally advised according to the risk of
exposure to the influenza virus and the degree of infectivity
and human pathogenicity of the virus. The paucity of sci-
entific evidence upon which to base guidance for the use of
masks and respirators in healthcare and community set-
tings has been a particularly vexing issue for policymakers.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) undertook a scien-
tific evidence-based review of the use of masks and respira-
tors in an influenza pandemic to inform relevant guidance
following the emergence of pandemic A (H1N1) 2009
influenza. The Department of Health commissioned the

HPA to update the review in support of the revision of the
United Kingdom (UK) influenza pandemic preparedness
strategy.

1The review was published on-line at: http://
www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/
documents/digitalasset/dh_125425.pdf. A further update of
the evidence base subsequently was performed in January
2011 and described herein

red boldings mine
=============

Don't need to continue here to show that you made a blatantly dishonest post.

ummmm.... that was from 2009. updated no later than 2011.

got anything more recent?

Have virus cells all of a sudden supposed to have grown a thousand fold in size so that your stupid fucking masks are now effective?
You're one of those very low energy green new deal kinda light bulbs aren't you?

They are too stupid to realize that the China Virus is a Corona Virus strain

Corona Virus Group

Encyclopedia Britannica

Excerpt:


Coronavirus, any virus belonging to the family Coronaviridae. Coronaviruses have enveloped virions (virus particles) that measure approximately 120 nm (1 nm = 10−9 metre) in diameter. Club-shaped glycoprotein spikes in the envelope give the viruses a crownlike, or coronal, appearance. The nucleocapsid, made up of a protein shell known as a capsid and containing the viral nucleic acids, is helical or tubular. The coronavirus genome consists of a single strand of positive-sense RNA (ribonucleic acid).




LINK

COVID-19 isn't a brand new virus, just a variation of the existing Corona Virus.