3 ms·
That paper also has: > Hand washing (1.447, 1.274–1.644) and gargling (1.319, 1.183–1.471), however, were not associated with protection. In the natural settin
by brigandish 7y ago
That paper also has:
> Hand washing (1.447, 1.274–1.644) and gargling (1.319, 1.183–1.471), however, were not associated with protection. In the natural setting, hand washing and gargling showed a negative association, which may have been due to inappropriate infection control measures or aggregating infected and non-infected children to conduct those measures.
So hand washing isn't effective and masks are? That's the opposite of what we're being told for a different disease. Are you going to say we shouldn't wash our hands?
- jjeaff 7y agoI think there are plenty of other studies showing that hand washing can make a big difference. But I don't think that negates the whole paper. It could be that the methodology used for the hand washing data is more flawed than the mask portion.