Covid 19

• A Vietnamese study published in the Journal of Community Health this year took a look at mask use among university students. Researchers noted Vietnam’s strict mitigation polices during the pandemic, especially given its proximity to China, helped keep case numbers low (about 28 cases per 10 million people). Measures including mandatory masking in public places—and a monetary fine of about $13 US—led to the successful containment of the coronavirus, researchers write. Again, while surgical masking is the preferred method, researchers urge mask use and community education on their importance.

• This January 2021 study published in Journal of Econometrics used robust models, experiments and data sets to review how further masking during the pandemic’s onset may have prevented infections and deaths. They conclude that their analysis “robustly indicates” face mask mandates have reduced the spread of COVID-19. They explain that if all U.S. states had implemented mandatory masking polices on March 14, 2020, the cumulative death toll by the end of May would have been about 19% to 45% smaller—or about 19,000 to 47,000 saved lives.

• Just last month, research published on scholarly site PLOS One examined the “substantial” decline in new COVID-19 cases when mask mandates began amid a surge in Melbourne, Australia. Using models and logarithm data analysis, it’s estimated that mask usage in public spaces rose from around 43% to 97%—resulting in a plunge in virus reproduction and new cases. The authors say they strongly support mask usage in communities.

• “Of Masks and Methods,” published in March in Annals of Internal Medicine, explored how the way masks are worn and implemented affect how effective they are. Researchers examined observational studies and other experiments to conclude that community mask use, especially if widespread, correlates to reduced risk for COVID-19. They write: “Across all analyses odds ratios were approximately 0.8, consistent with a 20% reduction in incident SARS-CoV-2 infection if masks are recommended… Multiple observational studies have documented an association between mask mandates and reduced COVID-19 incidence.”

• This Irish study appearing in scientific journal publisher MDPI observed the transmission of particles through various mask materials to determine filtration, how porous they were and how much they resist airflow (among other factors). Using mathematical models, statistical data and historical data, they found masks to be an overall effective and necessary tool for the foreseeable future. They explain that as advancements in material occur—including many existing antimicrobial fabrics—masks will prove even more effective. They write: “Current materials used in production including non-woven fibrous substances have been in use since the beginning of the 20th century and have been shown to be still sufficiently viable in their use.”

• A February 2021 study from Ethiopia and published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy medical journal combed through databases and other COVID-19 writings to conclude that universal face mask use can contribute to community containment if properly used and available as needed.

• This February 2021 JAMA-published study examined several other studies and created a table of different populations around the globe and how their masking use affected spread. They found: “When masks are worn and combined with other recommended mitigation measures, they protect not only the wearer but also the greater community.” Further, they explain that as mutations emerge, masking will be even more important.

• Echoing other findings, the doctor/researcher behind this December 2020 Wisconsin Medical Journal review used over 88 scholarly references to aggregate his ultimate conclusion that the bulk of mask wearing works to control community spread. The author notes that while a mask can only protect wearers from infection to a certain extent, they can help control the viral load they’re exposed to and thus, the severity of their infection.

• This May 2021 Medical Decision Making analysis used models to test the ability of masks to slow the spread of COVID-19 during an initial outbreak and an insurgence. The authors used over 50 sources to determine that even with moderately effective masking “it is evident that mask effectiveness significantly affects transmission.” The researchers recommend masking until at least widespread vaccination occurs.

 

Peer-review pending

1. Researchers in this study carried out several simulations where one infected person was put into a population of other participants who were susceptible. Mask wearing among the uninfected was gradually increased and a “striking” decrease was seen in the overall number of COVID-19 cases. In addition to several other mask-affirming findings, authors of the study published in the Yale University-BMJ-affiliated health sciences site MedRxiv, write: “If all individuals move freely and randomly interact with others (i.e., 0% SD), the rate of daily infection through the population depends on the percentage of individuals wearing masks.”
   
2. University of North Texas Health Science Center researchers found in this July 2020 study that “states with an early mask mandate have been able to protect against the June [2020] surge across the country. Here, researchers reviewed data—including number of daily case numbers and transmission rate—to determine if local mask mandates affected spread in that state. Observing the four counties in the Dallas-Forth Worth metroplex, researchers found Dallas and Tarrant counties (both had mask mandates) showed a dramatic drop in new cases, hospitalizations and ER visits. The other two counties, Collin and Denton, did not have mask mandates experienced either growth or marginal decrease.
   
3. A study from the Population Research Institute at the Family Federation of Finland found that if 80% of people in the U.K. masked, it would do more to squelch the pandemic than a full shutdown.
   
4. This Malaysian observational study tracked mask use among patients being admitted into hospitals. They concluded that extensive use of facemasks could help mitigate impact and more work is needed to make sure people are correctly wearing them.
   
5. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performed testing of various face masks—while effectiveness varied, certain cloth masks were found to be even better than medical-grade masks. All masks were found to be effective at stopping transmission at some level.
   
6. A late 2020 study looking at COVID-19 transmission in Georgia school districts found that schools in the state that required masks to be worn had a 37% lower incidence of COVID-19 among teachers and staff than those that didn’t. The study, published as part of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, led researchers to recommend mask use for both adults and children during in-person learning.
   
7. Researchers at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that while mask types offer different degrees of protection and said they think more data is needed, they ultimately recommended mask wearing as a “non-pharmaceutical intervention.”
   
8. This March study included in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that county-level COVID-19 cases and death rates dropped increasingly in the 20 days following a mask mandate in that county. Mandates were associated with 0.5 percentage rate drops in the first 1-20 days and 1.1-1.8 percentage point drops between 21-100 days. Researchers highly recommended mask mandates in addition to other mitigation efforts following their work.

 

Retracted/disputed claims

1. A “research letter” published by JAMA Pediatrics just one month ago has since been retracted due to claims that the authors couldn’t back up their findings. The letter, “Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” claimed that toxic amounts of carbon dioxide were “measured” inside of face masks worn by children. The claim was touted by Fox News host Tucker Carlson in early July and proliferated online, however, the scientific community scrutinized the study before it was ultimately retracted.
   
2. A Texas A&M study took a look at how COVID-19 is transmitted found people who wore masks prevented a projected 66,000 people in New York City from getting infected in less than one month. Based on mathematical analysis, they explained that global statistics showed: “… Wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission,” researchers wrote. This research has been rejected for peer review twice due to ambiguous data, assumptions made by researchers, and uncontrolled factors. One peer who did not approve the findings wrote that while there’s “growing evidence” to support masking recommendations, it’s still too early.
   
3. This April 2020 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine was retracted in July 2020 after some data was found to be incorrect due to miscalculations, including data showing surgical masks were less effective than cloth masks and possibly led readers to believe surgical masks were ineffective. While researchers requested to correct the data, editors insisted the study be pulled.
   
4. One of the most famous and controversial mask studies is among the first that was performed during the pandemic. Dubbed “The Danish Study,” or “DANMASK-19“, the findings were labeled on social media as proof that cloth and surgical masks don’t work. However, the interpretation of its findings has been disputed by many who say it ultimately rules “more information needed” and is “inconclusive.” Overall, protection was deemed to be limited. Moreover, the study’s authors also wrote: “[the study] should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
   
5. Another often-cited study many say proves masks are inefficient was published in a January 2021 issue of Medical Hypotheses and called “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis.” The study concluded that masks—both cloth and medical—were “ineffective.” The study circulated on social media with some claiming it originated from Stanford University and/or the National Institutes of Health. Neither is true, with Stanford Medicine explaining strongly supports mask usage.

 

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19
View ORCID ProfileJeremy Howard, Austin Huang, View ORCID ProfileZhiyuan Li, View ORCID ProfileZeynep Tufekci, Vladimir Zdimal, View ORCID ProfileHelene-Mari van der Westhuizen, View ORCID ProfileArne von Delft, View ORCID ProfileAmy Price, Lex Fridman, View ORCID ProfileLei-Han Tang, View ORCID ProfileViola Tang, View ORCID ProfileGregory L. Watson, View ORCID ProfileChristina E. Bax, View ORCID ProfileReshama Shaikh, View ORCID ProfileFrederik Questier, Danny Hernandez, View ORCID ProfileLarry F. Chu, View ORCID ProfileChristina M. Ramirez, and View ORCID ProfileAnne W. Rimoin

See all authors and affiliations

PNAS January 26, 2021 118 (4) e2014564118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118

1. Edited by Lauren Ancel Meyers, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and accepted by Editorial Board Member Nils C. Stenseth December 5, 2020 (received for review July 13, 2020)
   

• Article
  
• Figures & SI
  
• Info & Metrics
• PDF

Abstract
The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people (“source control”) with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

Policy makers need urgent guidance on the use of masks by the general population as a tool in combating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the respiratory virus that causes COVID-19. Masks have been recommended as a potential tool to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic since the initial outbreak in China (1), although usage during the outbreak varied by time and location (2). Globally, countries are grappling with translating the evidence of public mask wearing to their contexts. These policies are being developed in a complex decision-making environment, with a novel pandemic, rapid generation of new research, and exponential growth in cases and deaths in many regions. There is currently a global shortage of N95/FFP2 respirators and surgical masks for use in hospitals. Simple cloth masks present a pragmatic solution for use by the public. This has been supported by most health bodies. We present an interdisciplinary narrative review of the literature on the role of face masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission in the community.

 

Jesse, you’ve got to do better than getting all your medical information from those conspiracy sites. Dr. Bridle is a Canadian, Associate Professor (these are untenured professors with very little academic power, or influence) who teaches VETERINARY medicine, and does not do research in HUMAN, communicable diseases. He is also the major wingnut responsible for spreading the popular anti-vaxx, conspiracy theory online which purports that “Covid vaccines produce a toxin that could cause heart damage and neurological problems”. This has all been proven false, yet in addition to the errors of his flawed video mask “experiment” (aren’t the flaws of this “experiment” obvious to you at all?), this associate professor still continues to shop this misinformation online, where paranoid, conspiracy theory sites amplify this unproven garbage.

 

Just a reminder of a post dwk & ACW liked.
Seeing how they rant on about others that don’t think like themselves and have called out Webbie
Multiple times. I found it too be very hypocritical of themselves to be liking such a post.
dwk & ACW are more worried about the use of B & ACW than the couple words in the post they liked.
That pretty much sums up these 2 quite well.

 

So just because someone is a PhD or MD in immunology, that means we shouldn't trust everything they say?

 

This is a public health issue that is awash in disinformation deliberately started and promoted by the profiteering cretins you have listed above. If any Democrat, Libertarian, or Green Party figure spewed the same nonsense on here, I’d take ‘em down just the same.

 

Now you’re deliberately twisting things, Jesse. As a Canadian, Associate Professor of Veterinary Medicine, he didn’t have much of a public platform before this pandemic, but it seems as though he has found another way to increase his income by profiteering online. He has also complained that his views are being “canceled”, which is laughable since his debunked, disinformation claptrap has thousands of views online, and is most likely monetized. Do not doubt for a minute that MONEY, and not truth, is the motivating factor of these online grifters. And if a computer algorithm is shoving these grifters onto your feed every single day, and you’re just buying it, (and boy, are you BUYING it), you’ve got no one else to blame for being so gullible.

 

Dr Bridle HAS monetized this video for himself. He has 2 advertisements (one for insurance, and the other for arthritis problems, so it looks like the ads are targeting the elderly population), placed in the front of his video, and when you click on the video, or send it to someone else who clicks on it, the money goes straight into Dr. Bridle’s pocket, and not yours. He is is simply USING viewers to make money on YouTube, and spread this debunked disinformation to make even more money as the video gets amplified and goes “viral”. Worse, he has tainted his academic credentials for his self-interested, financial purposes. REPUTABLE immunologists and epidemiologists do not seek a monetized platform in which to spread harmful disinformation.

[

Insurance advertisement and Arthritis advertisement that prefaces Dr. Bridle’s disinformation video, while he profits from it.

 

Youtube always shows ads now, people don't request to monitize them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnko...n-if-creators-dont-want-them/?sh=150fe1f24913
YouTube Will Now Show Ads On All Videos Even If Creators Don’t Want Them
YouTube just changed its rules on video monetization, and YouTube creators aren’t happy. Essentially, Google will now show ads on all videos, even if their creators don’t want ads.

And creators won’t get a penny.

 

That’s not the whole story. YouTube policy is simply forcing content creators to join their YPP (YouTube Partner Program). If content creators don’t join YPP, their content can still be monetized by advertisers, but they won’t see any money themselves. But if they DO choose to join YPP as a member, then they can share in the advertising profits that way, which monetizes their online content. So, you still can monetize content, even though YouTube has strong-armed content creators and has restricted their ability to monetize freely. As long as your online content fulfills all of the criteria required for YPP membership, a content creator can still make money on YouTube. Forbes explains that fact in the article that you posted:

 

Another important issue that you are not addressing here, is that while a content creator doesn’t necessarily need to “monetize” a particular video on YouTube, these videos which have gone “viral”, or have attracted a number of viewers, can be monetized in other ways outside of a YouTube platform, which may prove to be even MORE LUCRATIVE than the original YouTube content. In other words, even a non-monetized video can put a content creator’s “name on the map” and create an identifiable consumer “brand” that the content creator can then later financially profit from.

Many popular content creators, or YouTube “stars”, have gone on to sell books, or hawk products, or get paid to participate in media interviews, like Dr. Bridle is doing, and these ventures are based on the initial popularity of their YouTube content. Used in this way, YouTube can be seen as a “marketing springboard” for content creators in order to diversify into other markets. So “monetization” is not necessarily strictly limited to YouTube content. Since most of this Covid disinformation we are seeing lately is directly related to the “Attention Economy”, and how online sites compete for our attention and dollars, maybe we should discuss the pitfalls of the Attention Economy” instead!

 

YPP Monetization Information Straight from Google. You can STILL make money….Cha…Ching!

 

Sigh. You ruined the fun! But you're right. Ok, next subject.

 

I like how you have the ability to rethink something and change direction based on new information. That’s a valuable survival skill and something that some posters on here can NEVER do. Even if they saw a tsunami coming straight at them, and somebody told them it was just a “ripple”, they’d roll up their pants and try to wade right through it. Good for you.

 

No, but if they are the random outlier it is very unlikely they should be trusted, especially if that person has been shown to be inaccurate in the past.

 

Or a MONETIZED, CANADIAN, YouTube personality, trading his “credentials” for the Almighty Dollar!

 

Can somebody start a rants and raves thread? I don't wanna be the one

 

Sounds like you’ve had a tough day with one of your difficult customers again, Lawnboy! You can start a “rant and rave” thread, but maybe a joke, or a bowl of ice cream might take care of that stress too!