Posted on by Californiacontrarian

Caution! (Part 2)


In answer to whether or not there are any good studies about masks, I will refer you to the Annals of Internal Medicine from this November, a summary of which is to follow.

Again I need to reemphasize that for a Karen or a Ken . . . “Caution!”

The following is taken from Townhall:

Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.

The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From early April to early June, researchers at the University of Copenhagen recruited 6,024 participants who had been tested beforehand to be sure they were not infected with the coronavirus.

Half were given surgical masks and told to wear them when leaving their homes; the others were told not to wear masks in public.

At that time, 2 percent of the Danish population was infected — a rate lower than that in many places in the United States and Europe today. Social distancing and frequent hand-washing were common, but masks were not.

About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant. 

Dr. Mette Kalager, a researcher at Telemark Hospital in Norway and the Harvard School of Public Health, was persuaded. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.

[…]

Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, described the previous evidence that masks protect wearers as weak. “These studies cannot differentiate between source control and personal protection of the mask wearer,” she said.

Dr. Laine said the new study underscored the need for adherence to other precautions, like social distancing. Masks “are not a magic bullet,” she said. “There are people who say, ‘I’m fine, I’m wearing a mask.’ They need to realize they are not invulnerable to infection.”

My take on this study from the Annals of Internal Medicine (which by the way is not politically biased as is The Lancet) is the following:

Do masks actually protect the wearer of the mask? – Apparently no.

Is it possible that the ubiquitous wearing of masks could actually encourage lackadaisical attention to social distancing? Very possibly.

Will there be any reevaluation of this present over the top recommendations on masks by those who know best? Not likely, as it is much easier to blame the general populace when “those in the know” do not know what to do next.

48 Replies to “Caution! (Part 2)”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.