« WRGO Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

How effective are those 'face diapers' after all?? 

By: hydro_gen in WRGO | Recommend this post (1)
Sat, 27 Nov 21 2:35 PM | 35 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Reality news,,,,,,,,
Msg. 18484 of 18626
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

We all know what diapers are full of - the same 'sh*t' as the 'know it all" face mask safety proponents!!

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”

VARIOUS FACE MASK STUDIES PROVE THEIR INEFFECTIVENESS
1. Surgical mask / cloth face mask studies
Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities — United States, July 2020

The US Centre for Disease Control performed a study which showed that 85 percent of those who contracted Covid-19 during July 2020 were mask wearers. Just 3.9 percent of the study participants never wore a mask.
Original: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
Erratum. correction: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6938a7.htm?s_cid=mm6938a7_w https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-study-covid-masks

2. Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review
This study used 5462 peer-reviewed articles and 41 grey literature records.

“Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of medical-grade PPE. Alternative forms of facial protection offer inferior protection. More robust evidence is required on different types of medical-grade facial protection. As research on COVID-19 advances, investigators should continue to examine the impact on alternatives of medical-grade facial protection”
So how is your cloth and surgical mask working again if EVEN medical grade alternatives are failing ?
Study Article: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32371574/

3. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses
“There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask”

Study article: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33215698/

4. Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery
“We included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials”

Study article: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27115326/

5. Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review
Two randomized controlled trials were included involving a total of 1453 patients. In a small trial there was a trend towards masks being associated with fewer infections, whereas in a large trial there was no difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group.

Study article: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16295987/

6. Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure
“Our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles




» You can also:
« WRGO Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next