We have been told that masks will prevent us from getting infected. In fact the head of the CDC even told Congress that a mask is better than a vaccine.
In a September NEJM article the authors state:
One important reason for population-wide facial masking became apparent in March, when reports started to circulate describing the high rates of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding from the noses and mouths of patients who were presymptomatic or asymptomatic — shedding rates equivalent to those among symptomatic patients. Universal facial masking seemed to be a possible way to prevent transmission from asymptomatic infected people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) therefore recommended on April 3 that the public wear cloth face coverings in areas with high rates of community transmission — a recommendation that has been unevenly followed across the United States....To test our hypothesis that population-wide masking is one of those strategies, we need further studies comparing the rate of asymptomatic infection in areas with and areas without universal masking. To test the variolation hypothesis, we will need more studies comparing the strength and durability of SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell immunity between people with asymptomatic infection and those with symptomatic infection, as well as a demonstration of the natural slowing of SARS-CoV-2 spread in areas with a high proportion of asymptomatic infections. Ultimately, combating the pandemic will involve driving down both transmission rates and severity of disease. Increasing evidence suggests that population-wide facial masking might benefit both components of the response.
Now several respondents in NEJM note the opposite:
We caution against incorporating hypotheses about masks functioning as effective “variolation” — a notion that was advanced by Gandhi and Rutherford in the Journal (online September 8) — into public health messaging without considering the implications and nuances. The term “variolation” should be avoided because it is inaccurate with respect to coronaviruses, and it describes an obsolete and risky practice that was used for the iatrogenic inoculation of smallpox. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that masks reduce the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of Covid-19, much less that their use can induce protective immunity. Substantial knowledge gaps must be addressed before claims are made about the efficacy of face masks in reducing morbidity or eliciting immune responses. Masks are used primarily to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission rather than reduce the dose of infectious particles or mitigate the severity of Covid-19. The suggestion that masks offer an alternative to vaccination without evidence that the benefits outweigh the great risks implicitly encourages reckless behavior. With the lack of a vaccine, nonpharmaceutical interventions continue to be the best preventive tools. Transparent, contextualized messaging and embracing uncertainty are essential while science moves forward. Currently, there are too many research gaps to conclude that masks offer benefits beyond reducing transmission risk. We should not advocate for these benefits without fully comprehending the risks.
This back and forth lacks fundamental reliable data. The latter states that masks may work preventing an infected person infecting others. Whereas the former seems to rely upon masks no matter what. Despite the Politicians relying on Science, science by its very nature is Hegelian, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And then we start all over again. The paradigm of mask wearing has clearly become a political statement. It is the Tricolore of the Jacobins, wear it or get beheaded.
It would be worthwhile to have some reasonable studies. Not academic one offs, such as photographing a sneeze. Aerosols are real, but they are also quite complex. Newtons laws fundamentally apply, assuming we can account for all the forces, downward and upward. Thus if an aerosol contains warm air from the lungs of an infected person, in the winter the warm air is much less dense than the cold and thus this particle "floats" on the denser cold air. Archimedes knew this in his bathtub on Sicily millennia ago. Our "scientists" seem clueless regarding this, at least for publishing results.
Thus should we wear a mask? Like Descartes and others, it is akin to believing in God, what do you have to lose.
Posts
