3 ms·
From your study on point 2: "Results of our systematic review and meta-analysis show that there was no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgic
by fiter 7y ago
From your study on point 2: "Results of our systematic review and meta-analysis show that there was no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks when used by health care workers to prevent transmission of acute respiratory infections from patients. However, wide 95% CIs from our meta-analysis must be interpreted as insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a clinically significant difference."
What the study says is that we don't have enough information. As an example, one of the studies referenced in that study gives odds of 0.58 for getting infected with surgical and 0.42 with N95.
Bonus quote: "Furthermore, we do not have an adequate understanding of the number, size and dispersion of the droplets that contain live, infectious particles produced by infected patients.56 A laboratory-based study reported data that humans infected with influenza rarely produce aerosols that contain infectious viral particles.57 In 2 other laboratory studies, participants infected with influenza produced droplets containing viral RNA, but viral RNA could not be detected on manikin headforms or on filters of breathing manikins at distances as close as 0.1 m following participants breathing, counting, coughing or laughing.7"
- labcomputer 7y agoI don't understand your point. The quote you're referring to, regarding 95% CIs, in context specifically applies to comparing surgical masks vs. N95 respirators, not mask vs. no-mask. In other words, surgical masks are not shown to be worse than N95 respirators. That's in complete agreement with the point 2 that you're apparently trying to refute.