Help support TMP


"CDC Report Shows Masks Not Effective" Topic


51 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board


Action Log

16 Oct 2020 9:10 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Changed title from "CDC Repot Shows Masks Not Effective" to "CDC Report Shows Masks Not Effective"

Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Showcase Article

Red Sable Brushes from Miniaturelovers

Hobby brushes direct from Sri Lanka.


Featured Profile Article

How Scurvy Got His "Style"

How Scurvy developed his unique approach to miniatures.


781 hits since 14 Oct 2020
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Doc Martens from Canada15 Oct 2020 8:42 p.m. PST

A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.

A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 "case-patients," who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.

"In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public," the report stated.

In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they "often" wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they "never" wore a mask or face covering.

Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants' efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at "gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation," they still contracted the virus.

PDF link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian15 Oct 2020 9:31 p.m. PST

Not what it says.

"Exposures and
activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult
to maintain, including going to locations that offer on-site
eating and drinking, might be important risk factors for "

Doc Martens from Canada15 Oct 2020 9:48 p.m. PST

Yes, it is what it says.

Page 1259 (right hand column, top of page).


Your key word of

might

is just that; no evidence. Mere speculation.

However, there is objective concrete proof for the "effectiveness" of masks these people wore.

Martin From Canada16 Oct 2020 3:54 a.m. PST

I'll say it again, if you want absolute metaphysical certainty, you'll be disappointed in any field other than theology.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian16 Oct 2020 8:04 a.m. PST

other than theology.

I would argue that all this mystical magic thinking is grasping for a theological solution.

Don't like science? Either claim all the numbers are wrong or simply grasp at magic fringe solutions.

Hydrochloriquine is simply the 21st century equivalent of relying on a magic charm to ward off evil.

Don't like masks? Try Eye of Newt to ward off droplets.

And of course, demon sperm.

Magically wishful thinking.

Andrew Walters16 Oct 2020 8:34 a.m. PST

Skimming that PDF there are so many qualifiers I'd have to make a table to see if there's anything that wasn't excluded from their conclusions. But more importantly I don't like some of their design. They "dichotomized" between *never* going out and going out one or more times in a two week period. I suspect that there's a big difference between people who go out once a week for shopping only and people who go out every day to eat at restaurants.

Yet more important, mask use is self-reported and there is no discernment of they type of mask and how it's worn. A cheap cotton mask you can see through hanging under your nose would count the same way as a KN-95 properly fitted. I suspect we will eventually learn that the quality of the mask and how you wear it matters.

Bottom line, the CDC still recommends wearing masks, and there is a lot of info on their web page on how to select and use them. Even though this is their study, they're still telling us to wear masks.

So while I'm sure these people worked very hard and if you read the report properly to what they actually learned instead of cherry-picking the most exciting paragraphs there is some info there, but it's meaningless to me or anyone just trying to figure out how to live safely in these times.

Wear a mask. Make it a good one. Wear it properly. Minimize time out.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian16 Oct 2020 9:05 a.m. PST

Chris Christie urges Americans to wear a mask.

link

Doc Martens from Canada16 Oct 2020 10:58 a.m. PST

As for mystical magical thinking, it may be the wearing of masks if the evidence keeps indicating what it seems.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian16 Oct 2020 11:12 a.m. PST

What is so hard about wearing a mask? If it works fine, if not, so what?

Whether you believe in the efficacy or not (and most science supports it), what is the big deal?

Doc Martens from Canada16 Oct 2020 1:17 p.m. PST

It would be great if all a person had to do was wear a mask and problem solved.

Mounting evidence is pointing to the fact masks are not an effective solution.

Not to mention the negative health aspects of wearing a mask.

TMP link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian16 Oct 2020 2:27 p.m. PST

Negative effects refers only to N-95's which are not recommended for the general public.

Once again, for the 5,000th time, masks are for other people.

Masks are to protect others from droplets, not the wearer.

N-95's are a pain BUT they are not the recommended mask for the general public.

So, what is so hard about wearing a regular mask?

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian16 Oct 2020 2:29 p.m. PST

Mounting evidence

Not mounting enough for the CDC, FDA, NIH, AMA, WHO and the President of the United States.

And so what if they MIGHT not be effective. Is it so hard to wear a simple mask if it MIGHT not kill Grandma?

Ed Mohrmann Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2020 6:55 a.m. PST

Wife and I frequently access Duke hospital (main or
outlying clinics) and go in wearing N95 masks.

These are NOT fake/fraud/useless rip-off copies. She
bought two boxes of them in January. A nurse friend
of hers made the buy recommendation back in January.
But we almost always are told to remove our masks and
use a cheap one.

That is bad enough, but then we find that some of the
staff (DOCTORS especially) are NOT masked or wear them
improperly.

With such evidence (implied) as to the efficiency or
utility of masks is it any wonder some choose not to
use them ?

There is truth somewhere, but it is darn difficult to
discern.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2020 7:42 a.m. PST

But we almost always are told to remove our masks and
use a cheap one.

The protocol for most EMS systems is to not use N-95's on patients and tell them to remove one if they are wearing one and there is any possibility of respiratory issues, even Covid. N-95's if properly fitted do restrict comfortable breathing and if the Doctors didn't think there was an active Covid threat, I'm unsurprised they were cheating on wearing them.

Outside of a genuine hot zone, N-95's are unnecessary. Masks are only for protecting others from droplets, period.

Whether masks are or are not effective and by how much does not matter. If there is a chance you will kill Gramdma, Grandpa or the poor SOB next to you at Starbucks, why not wear a simple mask?

Mr Elmo17 Oct 2020 9:00 a.m. PST

Whether masks are or are not effective and by how much does not matter. If there is a chance you will kill Gramdma, Grandpa or the poor SOB next to you at Starbucks, why not wear a simple mask?

I'd depends how a mandate to wear them came into effect. Take Wisconsin: we are under an illegal mandate. Right or wrong, we are talking about the law here.

All you need to do is look at the statistics for Wisconsin: 1044 daily new cases when it went into effect and 4039 today. Really, that's working?

The OPs CDC report, 84% of people that Aways or Often wore masks got the RONA. Really, that's working? The CDC director testified that masks are "more effective than a vaccine." Let's hope the vaccine is better than 16%

We live under illegal actions that are not working. Some people us believe that " Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither" Especially since the survival rate is 99.97%

We have turned masks into some sort of religious amulet.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2020 9:35 a.m. PST

Always or Often wore masks got the RONA.

You wearing a mask is not, was not , never was, about you avoiding Covid. It is about everyone else.

The OPs CDC report, 84%

Not what it says BUT, 16% chance of killing Grandma is OK?

essential Liberty

So wearing a mask indoors, in a pandemic, that MIGHT help is a violation of essential liberty?

I strongly doubt Franklin (who originally said that) would agree with the definition of essential.

Where do seat belts, speed limits and dress codes fit in there?

illegal actions

Most, not all but most, Courts have disagreed.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2020 10:32 a.m. PST

Especially since the survival rate is 99.97%

Using relatively simple math and slightly rounded numbers, I get 220,000 US deaths divided by 8,000,000 US cases for a fatality rate of 2.75% and thus a survival rate of 97.25%.

Obviously much worse or better depending on age, race and co-morbidities but if Grandma is over 70 and has any slight co-morbidities, she has a 15% or greater chance of dying.

WillBGoode Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2020 2:20 p.m. PST

I am so very tired of the anti mask argument. They twist the evidence and mis quote the evidence.

Doc Martens from Canada17 Oct 2020 3:50 p.m. PST

Whether masks are or are not effective and by how much does not matter.

That IS what matters!

If we are doing something that is not effective or worse yet, counterproductive, that is making the whole situation worse.

Wolfhag17 Oct 2020 3:51 p.m. PST

They twist the evidence and misquote the evidence.

If they didn't do that there would not be anything to talk about.

Wolfhag

Martin From Canada17 Oct 2020 5:14 p.m. PST

These are NOT fake/fraud/useless rip-off copies. She
bought two boxes of them in January. A nurse friend
of hers made the buy recommendation back in January.
But we almost always are told to remove our masks and
use a cheap one.

I didn't say that yours were fraudulent, but there's no way for the hospital to know for sure that yours are genuine. For the rest, I don't have anything to add to what McKinstry wrote.

Mr Elmo17 Oct 2020 6:03 p.m. PST

This is stupidity extra ordinaire. Wear a mask when seated at dinner with people you will go home and live with.

link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2020 6:46 p.m. PST

That IS what matters!

Nope. How well it works for the wearer means nothing as it is not the reason for wearing them. And outside of that disingenuous use of an N-95 only article, nobody has suggested it is counter productive,

It doesn't matter to the WEARER as the purpose is for EVERYONE else where it is significantly effective.

And again, even if it is only X% effective, and the CDC, WHO,FDA,AMA, NIH and the whole US Administration say it is effective, isn't that a very good reason to not kill Grandma?

So, what is so hard about wearing a simple mask?

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2020 6:51 p.m. PST

Wear a mask when seated at dinner with people you will go home and live with.

Pulling it down between bites does seem pretty stupid.

Not as stupid as staying maskless in large crowds which is lemming level stupid but very high on the clueless meter.

Doc Martens from Canada18 Oct 2020 6:57 a.m. PST

Claim:

Prior to March 2020 there were no medical scientific peer-reviewed journal articles stating masks could protect from a virus.

Can anyone disprove this by providing the article(s) published prior to that date which do state masks are effective in protecting from any virus?

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian18 Oct 2020 8:43 a.m. PST

could protect from a virus.

NOTE: MASKS ARE NOT TO PROTECT THE WEARER

Again. Not the purpose of masks.

Here is the a couple of fact checks from real sources-
link

link

link


CDC link
link

Prior to March 2020 there were no medical scientific peer-reviewed journal articles stating masks could protect from a virus.

How about 2013?

Not that it was hard to disprove (and really a bit silly given we've had SARS, MERS etc.)

Can you source that "claim"?

link


link

Several hundred more out there. Google is your friend.

MiniPigs18 Oct 2020 8:47 a.m. PST

Looks like masks do have a beneficial preventative effect.

link

Doc Martens from Canada18 Oct 2020 2:41 p.m. PST

The 2013 article states:

a recent report suggested that surgical masks can capture influenza virus in large droplet spray. However, there is minimal data on influenza virus aerosol shedding, the infectiousness of exhaled aerosols, and none on the impact of facemasks on viral aerosol shedding from patients with seasonal influenza.

So that one doesn't have any evidence, just speculation.

Claim source: TMP link

The LiveScience one lumps everything together and makes non-controlled claims.

Mr Elmo18 Oct 2020 4:14 p.m. PST

Nope. How well it works for the wearer means nothing as it is not the reason for wearing them

CDC Director Robert Redfield had told lawmakers last month that he "might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine,"

So if masks protect you like a vaccine, that's for other people?

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian18 Oct 2020 7:47 p.m. PST

A regular mask is for droplets, nothing more.

I'd have to see the full context but I'm guessing he feels better with everyone masked.

Still looking for a simple answer ,if it couldn't hurt and might help, why not wear one?

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian18 Oct 2020 7:55 p.m. PST

link

link

link

These fact checks all point towards people subbing politics for science.

This claim source is a tiny collection of publicity seeking axe grinders flogging a "summit". I saw no attached paper and they still are on the rapidly diminishing hydroxychloriquine bandwagon which you will note wasn't allowed within a time zone by the docs at Walter Reed.


Claim source: TMP link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian18 Oct 2020 7:59 p.m. PST

So that one doesn't have any evidence, just speculation

I think you might look up the word speculation.

Fine particles contained 8.8 (95% CI 4.1 to 19) fold more viral copies than did coarse particles. Surgical masks reduced viral copy numbers in the fine fraction by 2.8 fold (95% CI 1.5 to 5.2) and in the coarse fraction by 25 fold (95% CI 3.5 to 180). Overall, masks produced a 3.4 fold (95% CI 1.8 to 6.3) reduction in viral aerosol shedding. Correlations between nasopharyngeal swab and the aerosol fraction copy numbers were weak (r = 0.17, coarse; r = 0.29, fine fraction).

That ain't it.

Doc Martens from Canada18 Oct 2020 8:16 p.m. PST

Time will tell, I hope. Even Fauci stated masks would not help months ago – and his area of study has been in this area, but are just to bring a measure of peace of mind to the general public.

You keep asking

why not wear one?

The answer is clear and has been discussed:

TMP link

MiniPigs19 Oct 2020 12:39 p.m. PST

The live science article on wearing masks is compelling.

But if you want more direct evidence that masks work, ask the hamsters:

link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian19 Oct 2020 1:06 p.m. PST

Even Fauci stated masks would not help months ago – and his area of study has been in this area

Let's quote Dr. Fauci, from yesterday, on 60 minutes.

"Fauci, who said he wished to "put this to rest once and for all," explained that his early statements telling people not to rush out and buy masks were rooted in a concern about hospitals experiencing a shortage of surgical or N95 masks. Since then, studies have shown that masks are more effective than he thought, and that cloth coverings work, reducing the strain on the supply of masks like those used in hospitals."

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian19 Oct 2020 1:08 p.m. PST

The answer is clear and has been discussed:

TMP link

All I see is the same old same old irrelevance around N-95's.

Again -Why not wear one?

Doc Martens from Canada19 Oct 2020 4:05 p.m. PST

Again -Why not wear one?

TMP link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian19 Oct 2020 9:20 p.m. PST

So, again excluding the N-95 silliness, you are doing extended exercises and the mere cloth mask will harm you?

I've seen any number of ordinary folks working with simple masks to no ill effect?

Do you have a condition that renders you particularly fragile?

And please, no more TMP links. I dislike wading through the chaff.

Doc Martens from Canada19 Oct 2020 10:28 p.m. PST

You've not read the papers posted on there, then?

You asked why and the dangerous effects of masks are posted there.

Why keep posting the same peer reviewed journal articles when they are already posted?

Conclusion
Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

link

link

link

However, researchers have found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause; a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia).

It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to at least one individual driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask. This caused him to pass out, and to crash his car. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a [surgical] face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a mask of any kind —which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of an entire lung.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity.

Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immunity cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, such as COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver.

In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infection and if so, a much worse outcome.

Individuals with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers. It has been proposed that repeated episodes of hypoxia pose a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. It has been said that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. Apparently this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

Newer evidence even suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. It is stated that wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses would concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and therefore travel into the brain.

Martin From Canada20 Oct 2020 4:18 a.m. PST

Wmeyers, you're mixing and matching studies to fit your predetermined outcome (masks bad), by complaining about cloth masks (intended to protect others from your expelled droplets) with N95 masks that that are intended to work both ways, and really should mostly be reserved for those working in a hot zone.

Doc Martens from Canada20 Oct 2020 5:08 a.m. PST

That's a bit long. Here's more:

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

C Raina MacIntyre, Holly Seale, Tham Chi Dung, Nguyen Tran Hien, Phan Thi Nga, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, Bayzidur Rahman, Dominic E Dwyer, Quanyi Wang


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%.

link

The risk of respiratory infection of HCWs working in low risk areas was similar to that of HCWs in high risk area.

AKA Even in "low risk" areas masks did not make a difference.

link

69% had diagnoses associated with craniofacial anomalies. Stage I pressure ulcers were the most common injury. Skin hydration difference was 317 ± 29 for sites with erythema versus 75 ± 28 for sites without erythema (P < .05)

Dermal injuries caused by wearing masks.

link

Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure

commercially available fabric masks were the least effective with a filtration efficiency of 39–65% for PSL particles, and they performed better as the particle size increased. When the cloth masks were tested against lab-generated whole diesel particles, the filtration efficiency for three particle sizes (30, 100, and 500 nm) ranged from 15% to 57%. Standard N95 mask performance was used as a control to compare the results with cloth masks, and our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles< 2.5 μm.

link

In regards to

Given these problems with the experimental design, we believe that the authors' conclusions can lead the public to overestimate the protection these fabric masks can truly offer. As of this writing on June 30, 2020, the articles has been viewed over 350,000 times. We encourage readers to consider the broader literature in which sound aerosol science has shown lower filtration efficiencies for fabric materials.(2,3,8)

link

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian20 Oct 2020 9:12 a.m. PST

MASKS ARE NOT TO PROTECT THE WEARER

Everything posted above except the N-95 irrelevancy relates to protecting the wearer. Talking efficacy and there is no doubt that, for cloth or non N-95 paper that the efficiency lies somewhere between 100% to 0%.

So even if it is one on the low end (which the bulk of science still believes in not the case), why not wear one?

If there is even a 1% chance of not killing Grandma, why not wear one?

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian20 Oct 2020 9:15 a.m. PST

It is known that the N95 mask

Unless you are talking about a health care worker in a hot zone, STOP using N-95 data. It is irrelevant as you should not be using one.

Doc Martens from Canada20 Oct 2020 1:43 p.m. PST

What is the definition of continuing to do the same thing hoping for a different outcome?

You ask why not? The answer remains the same.

Personal logo Silurian Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2020 4:33 p.m. PST

This is hilarious.

There are millions of people worldwide wearing masks for the sake of their fellow citizens.
Do they like it? No. Is it perfect? No.
But they're doing it. Selflessly. Pulling together.

There will always be that minority, using any excuse, just looking out for themselves. Perhaps it's a stand against authority or some perceived infringement on their liberties. It's just selfishness and a FU to their fellow countrymen. Considering the possible result, perhaps worse than selfish.

This is such a relatively minor inconvenience for 99.9% of people. Yeah, it's not a cure; not completely effective, but it boggles my mind that some people can be so resistant to a (hopefully) temporary measure that probably SAVES LIVES.

Personal logo McKinstry Supporting Member of TMP Fezian20 Oct 2020 4:51 p.m. PST

You can buy them books and buy them books but sometimes they just eat the covers.

Doc Martens from Canada20 Oct 2020 7:21 p.m. PST

As opposed to the acknowledgement that it is really a sincere desire to ensure what is being done is actually effective.

Tumbleweed Supporting Member of TMP21 Oct 2020 6:44 a.m. PST

You give them food, and they want to look under the plate.

Doc Martens from Canada21 Oct 2020 5:32 p.m. PST

I like it. That's a good analogy of AGW conspiracy theory advocates!

JSchutt13 Nov 2020 7:16 p.m. PST

Our ancestors that braved extraordinary dangers to live life to it's fullest… to explore, to discover and adventure… to live with the expectation that any day could be their last… yet toughed it out with nothing but their courage must be terribly ashamed of us now. I certainly am.

Pages: 1 2