4 ms·

I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than n

by aflag 6y ago

I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that. For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have without face masks. Reason being that it seems like spread through surfaces is not as bad as through the air, so making the air cleaner seems better than making the surfaces cleaner to me.

Kiro 6y ago
I've only heard what the state epidemiologists say but here's the Finnish study that the current recommendations are based on: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benefit_to_widespread_mask_use/11376476 https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benef... With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.
- aflag 6y ago
  > five of eight systematic reviews found no evidence that the use of masks would provide any benefit in controlling sources of infection or protecting healthy persons from exposure to respiratory infections Unfortunately, that news article does not contain the links to those reviews. Maybe they are part of the full report, but I can't read Finnish.
- russholmes 6y ago
  According to this research in the Lancet, masks help but not as much as physical distancing. 2 m distance reduces risk by 10x face mask reduces risk by 6x eye protection by 5x There is some uncertainty in these figures https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
russholmes 6y ago
I think the reason that various authorities advised against masks is political - there simply weren't enough and to direct the supply to clinical workers.
- throw_away 6y ago
  Which is damning in that they treated us like children who couldn't handle the truth and were also so unimaginative that they did not consider alternative face coverings.
  - russholmes 6y ago
    The government communication in the UK has been lamentable. Confusing, inconsistent and patronising. On the other hand, we had idiots who stripped the supermarket shelves of toilet rolls and canned tomatoes for months despite being implored not to do so. If they had gone after the masks...
    - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
      Yes we should not have taken masks that would go to the NHS but don't forget those masks should have been in government stockpiles well out of reach. How can we blame and punish the publics self control (or lack of it) when it's a government failure that caused the issue. Had we all bought masks and the state made them instead of redundant hospitals perhaps we would be in a much better place (less NHS casualties and physical/mental suffering). All in all it just doesn't sit right with me to justify the government's decision without mentioning they were the ones that put us in the position where it had to be made.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    There is now, and was then, plenty of evidence to suppose that enough people would not handle the truth responsibly, and would panic-buy masks rather than adopt alternatives.
    - xapata 6y ago
lol2143651 6y ago
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%. Conclusions > This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
- bitcurious 6y ago
  To be clear, this compared cloth vs. medical masks. There was no “unmasked” arm. So the caution was of the “given the choice, choose medical masks.” Also this measures auto-protective properties of mask wearing, not preventing spread to others.
  - lol2143651 6y ago
    Yes cloth masks plausibly increased infection risk. And many people today are wearing cloth masks because local mandates require them to. That really should call into question the efficacy of most mask public policy. It is poorly guided and poorly supported by evidence. There isn't good science to support untrained people wearing masks throughout the day is providing a public health benefit.

by aflag 6y ago

Kiro 6y ago

I've only heard what the state epidemiologists say but here's the Finnish study that the current recommendations are based on: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benefit_to_widespread_mask_use/11376476 https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benef... With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.

aflag 6y ago
> five of eight systematic reviews found no evidence that the use of masks would provide any benefit in controlling sources of infection or protecting healthy persons from exposure to respiratory infections Unfortunately, that news article does not contain the links to those reviews. Maybe they are part of the full report, but I can't read Finnish.
russholmes 6y ago
According to this research in the Lancet, masks help but not as much as physical distancing. 2 m distance reduces risk by 10x face mask reduces risk by 6x eye protection by 5x There is some uncertainty in these figures https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

russholmes 6y ago

I think the reason that various authorities advised against masks is political - there simply weren't enough and to direct the supply to clinical workers.

throw_away 6y ago
Which is damning in that they treated us like children who couldn't handle the truth and were also so unimaginative that they did not consider alternative face coverings.
- russholmes 6y ago
  The government communication in the UK has been lamentable. Confusing, inconsistent and patronising. On the other hand, we had idiots who stripped the supermarket shelves of toilet rolls and canned tomatoes for months despite being implored not to do so. If they had gone after the masks...
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Yes we should not have taken masks that would go to the NHS but don't forget those masks should have been in government stockpiles well out of reach. How can we blame and punish the publics self control (or lack of it) when it's a government failure that caused the issue. Had we all bought masks and the state made them instead of redundant hospitals perhaps we would be in a much better place (less NHS casualties and physical/mental suffering). All in all it just doesn't sit right with me to justify the government's decision without mentioning they were the ones that put us in the position where it had to be made.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  There is now, and was then, plenty of evidence to suppose that enough people would not handle the truth responsibly, and would panic-buy masks rather than adopt alternatives.
  - xapata 6y ago

lol2143651 6y ago

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%. Conclusions > This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

bitcurious 6y ago
To be clear, this compared cloth vs. medical masks. There was no “unmasked” arm. So the caution was of the “given the choice, choose medical masks.” Also this measures auto-protective properties of mask wearing, not preventing spread to others.
- lol2143651 6y ago
  Yes cloth masks plausibly increased infection risk. And many people today are wearing cloth masks because local mandates require them to. That really should call into question the efficacy of most mask public policy. It is poorly guided and poorly supported by evidence. There isn't good science to support untrained people wearing masks throughout the day is providing a public health benefit.