A Randomized Prospective Study of the Use-effectiveness of Two Methods of Natural Family Planning

Updated: March 2022
First published: July 2020
Share on: Twitter / Facebook

An overview of the current show regarding the effectiveness of face masks.

Contents

A) Studies ⇓ B) WHO review ⇓ C) Real-world prove ⇓ D) N95/FFP2 masks ⇓ E) Boosted aspects ⇓ F) The droplets result ⇓ G) Contrary evidence ⇓ H) Mask-related risks ⇓ I) Conclusion ⇓

A) Studies on the effectiveness of face up masks

So far, most studies found petty to no show for the effectiveness of face masks in the full general population, neither equally personal protective equipment nor as a source control.

1. A May 2020 meta-written report on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face up masks had no effect, neither equally personal protective equipment nor equally a source control. (Source)
2. A WHO review of ten randomized controlled trials of confront masks against influenza-like illness, published in September 2019, establish no statistically pregnant benefit. (Source)
3. A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in Nov 2020, found no statistically pregnant effect of loftier-quality medical face masks confronting SARS-CoV-2 infection in a customs setting. (Source)
4. A big randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS 1, found that face masks "did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection." (Source)
5. A February 2021 review past the European CDC found no high-quality evidence in favor of face up masks and recommended their apply just based on the 'precautionary principle'. (Source)
6. A July 2020 review past the Oxford Middle for Evidence-Based Medicine establish that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of confront masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)
7. A Nov 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like affliction (ILI) cases, neither in the full general population nor in wellness care workers. (Source)
8. An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public Wellness found "no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-nineteen spread in U.s.a. states." (Source)
9. A July 2021 experimental study published by the American Establish of Physics constitute that face masks reduced indoor aerosols by at most 12% and even increased them locally. (Source)
10. A May 2020 commodity by researchers from Harvard Medical School, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that confront masks offer "petty, if any, protection". (Source)
11. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that textile masks were penetrated past 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)
12. An August 2020 review by a High german professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections. (Source)

For a review of studies claiming face masks are effective, see section G) below.

B) WHO review of face mask trials (2019)

In September 2019, shortly before the coronavirus pandemic, the World Wellness Organization (WHO) published a comprehensive report on "Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and touch on of epidemic and pandemic influenza".

The study reviewed ten randomized controlled trials apropos the effectiveness of face up masks against flu-like illness (ILI). As the following table shows, none of the trials found a statistically significant benefit of face masks.

WHO: 2019 review of face mask RCTs (WHO report/annex)

C) Evolution of cases after mask mandates

In many states, coronavirus infections strongly increased after mask mandates had been introduced. The following charts show the typical examples of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Republic of ireland, Italy, Spain, the Britain, California and Hawaii. Furthermore, a direct comparing betwixt Usa states with and without mask mandates indicates that mask mandates have made no divergence. (Charts: Y. Weiss)

For an updated version of these charts, run across the postscript below.

D) Effectiveness of N95/FFP2 mask mandates

In January 2021, the German state of Bavaria was one of the first places in the world to mandate N95/FFP2 masks in nigh public settings. A comparison with other German language states, which required fabric or medical masks, indicates that even N95/FFP2 masks take made no difference.

Covid cases in the High german land of Bavaria (FFP2/N95 mandate since 01/21) vs. Germany overall (RKI/ISC)

In January 2021, Republic of austria was the starting time country in the world to introduce an N95/FFP2 mask mandate at the national level. The mandate was further expanded in September 2021. All the same, by November 2021 Republic of austria reported the highest infection rate in the earth.

Republic of austria: Interventions and infections (IanMSC)

Eastward) Additional aspects

1. There is increasing show that the novel coronavirus is transmitted, at least in indoor settings, non primarily by droplets just by much smaller aerosols. However, due to their large pore size and poor fit, most face masks cannot filter out aerosols (come across video analysis below): over 90% of aerosols penetrate or bypass the mask and fill up a medium-sized room within minutes.
2. The WHO admitted to the BBC that its June 2020 mask policy update was due not to new evidence merely "political lobbying": "We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the testify had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did non deny." (D. Cohen, BBC Medical Corresponent).
3. To date, the just randomized controlled trial (RCT) on face masks against SARS-CoV-two infection in a customs setting found no statistically significant benefit (see above). Withal, three major journals refused to publish this written report, delaying its publication by several months.
4. An assay past the The states CDC institute that 85% of people infected with the new coronavirus reported wearing a mask "always" (lxx.6%) or "often" (14.4%). Compared to the command grouping of uninfected people, always wearing a mask did not reduce the risk of infection.
5. Researchers from the University of Minnesota found that the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-two is just 300 virions (virus particles), whereas a single infinitesimal of normal speaking may generate more than 750,000 virions, making face masks unlikely to prevent infection.
6. Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations didn't reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.
7. Many health authorities argued that confront masks suppressed influenza; in reality, influenza was temporarily displaced by the more infectious coronavirus. Indeed, influenza disappeared even in states without masks, lockdowns and school closures (eastward.g. Sweden and Florida).
8. The initially low coronavirus infection rate in some Asian countries was not due to masks, simply due to very rapid border controls. For instance, Nippon, despite its widespread use of face up masks, had experienced its most contempo flu epidemic just 1 yr prior to the covid pandemic.
9. Early on in the pandemic, the advocacy group "Mask for All" argued that Czechia had few infections thanks to the early use of masks. In reality, the pandemic but hadn't reached Eastern Europe yet; a few months later, Czechia had one of the highest infection rates in the globe.
10. During the notorious 1918 influenza pandemic, the use of face up masks among the general population was widespread and in some places mandatory, merely they made no departure.

F) The facemask droplets upshot

In the following video, Dr. Theodore Noel explains the facemask droplets issue.

G) Studies challenge confront masks are effective

Some recent studies argued that confront masks are indeed effective confronting the new coronavirus and could at to the lowest degree forestall the infection of other people. However, nearly of these studies suffer from poor methodology and sometimes show the opposite of what they claim to show.

Typically, these studies ignore the effect of other measures, the natural evolution of infection rates, changes in test activeness, or they compare places with different epidemiological conditions. Studies performed in a lab or as a figurer simulation oft aren't applicable to the existent world.

An overview:

1. A meta-study in the periodical Lancet, commissioned by the WHO, claimed that masks could reduce the adventure of infection by fourscore%, but the studies considered mainly N95 respirators in a hospital setting, non cloth masks in a community setting, the strength of the testify was reported as "low", and experts institute numerous flaws in the report. Professor Peter Jueni, epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, called the WHO written report "substantially useless".
2. A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections in three global hotspots (including New York City), but the study did not have into account the natural decrease in infections and other simultaneous measures. The written report was and so flawed that over forty scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.
3. A US study claimed that U.s.a. counties with mask mandates had lower Covid infection and hospitalization rates, merely the authors had to withdraw their study as infections and hospitalizations increased in many of these counties shortly after the report was published.
4. A large study run in People's republic of bangladesh claimed that surgical masks, only not fabric masks, reduced "symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections" past 0.08% (ARR), and only in people over l. But a subsequent re-analysis of the study by statisticians found that at that place was in fact no do good at all. According to one reviewer, the People's republic of bangladesh study was designed so poorly that information technology "ended before it fifty-fifty began".
5. A High german written report claimed that the introduction of mandatory confront masks in High german cities had led to a significant decrease in infections. Merely the data did not back up this claim: in some cities there was no modify, in others a decrease, in others an increase in infections (see graph below). The urban center of Jena was an 'exception' simply considering information technology simultaneously introduced the strictest quarantine rules in Germany, but the study did non mention this.
6. A review by the University of Oxford claimed that face masks are constructive, but it was based on studies about SARS-ane and in health intendance settings, not in customs settings.
7. A review past members of the lobby group 'Masks for All', published in the journal PNAS, claimed that masks are constructive equally a source control against aerosol transmission in the customs, but the review provided no existent-globe evidence supporting this proffer.
8. A study published in Nature Communications in June 2021 claimed that masks reduced the risk of infection by 62%, but the study relied on self-reported online survey results and diverse modelling assumptions, not on actual measurements.
9. A meta-study published in the BMJ claimed confront masks reduced infections by 53%, only the meta-study was based on seven low-quality observational studies. In response, the BMJ published an editorial acknowledging the "lack of practiced research" and the implausibility of the upshot.
10. A High german study, published in PNAS, claimed that N95/FFP2 masks are highly effective confronting coronavirus infections, just the written report consisted just of a mathematical model without whatsoever real-earth or lab data (encounter section D in a higher place).

The annex of the German Jena study showed that face masks weren't effective:

Mandatory masks in German cities: no relevant impact. (IZA 2020)

H) Risks associated with face masks

Wearing masks for a prolonged period of time may non be harmless, as the following evidence shows:

1. The WHO warns of various "side furnishings" such every bit difficulty breathing and pare rashes.
2. An Israeli-Canadian study, published in Cognitive Research in February 2022, found that "face masks disrupt holistic processing and face up perception in schoolhouse-age children".
3. Tests conducted by the University Hospital of Leipzig in Germany have shown that confront masks significantly reduce the resilience and functioning of healthy adults.
4. A German psychological study with most k participants found "astringent psychosocial consequences" due to the introduction of mandatory face masks in Germany.
5. The Hamburg Environmental Institute warned of the inhalation of chlorine compounds in polyester masks as well every bit bug in connexion with face mask disposal.
6. The European rapid alarm organization RAPEX has already recalled over 100 mask models because they did non meet Eu quality standards and could pb to "serious risks".
7. A report by the University of Muenster in Deutschland found that on N95 (FFP2) masks, Sars-CoV-two may remain infectious for several days, thus increasing the risk of self-contamination.
8. In Prc, several children who had to wear a mask during gym classes fainted and died; autopsies found a sudden cardiac arrest as the probable crusade of death. In the US, a motorcar driver wearing an N95 (FFP2) mask fainted and crashed due to CO2 intoxication.

Video: A mask-wearing, nineteen-year-sometime Us athlete complanate during an 800-meter run (April 2021):

Conclusion

Face masks in the general population might be effective, at least in some circumstances, but there is currently little to no evidence supporting this proposition. If the coronavirus is primarily transmitted via indoor aerosols, face masks are unlikely to be protective. Thus, health regime should not presume or suggest that face masks will reduce the rate or risk of infection.

United states: mask mandates without benefit

U.s.: mask mandates without benefit (IanMSC)

Postscript (August 2021)

A long-term analysis shows that infections accept been driven primarily by seasonal and endemic factors, whereas mask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact (charts: IanMSC).

Farther reading

• The face mask folly in hindsight (August 2021)

Meet also

• Facts about covid
• Covid vaccine review
• Handling of covid

---

Share on: Twitter / Facebook

clarkenur1971.blogspot.com

Source: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/

Share this post