To mask or not to mask. That is the scientific question. Early on in the infection we were told by both the WHO and Dr. Fauci that masks did not help and had some negative effects, including giving a false sense of security and encouraging facial touching. There has now been a complete 180 such that not only are the 2 authorities mentioned above advising masks but CDC head, Dr. Robert Redfield, said in September that masks are a more effective tool than a vaccine. At this point various state authorities, citing "the science" have gone whole hog and are requiring mask wearing indoors on Thanksgiving, and also while eating, carefully lowering the mask between bites.
But what about "the science"? Well, up until now there has been precious little to support an almost puritanical trust in masking as a major key to controlling our modern-day plague. The number of supporting studies are few, and all of the observational variety, the type that was disparaged as being of little value in the great hydroxychloroquine debate.
But now we have an honest to goodness randomized controlled trial on the subject, the first of this type to be done, from Denmark, carried out in the spring and eventually published only a couple of days ago in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study randomized 2 large groups of people, one of which wore no masks, and the other of which was given a large supply of surgical masks and was asked to wear them full time, and then the number of subsequent infections in the two groups was observed. There was no meaningful difference.
This finding does not sit well with the authorities in academic medical circles as reflected in 2 accompanying editorials commenting on the findings, and nevertheless recommending continued universal mask wearing. Some points are well taken, such as that the study was conducted during a time when there was as yet little mask wearing in the community so that perhaps it might not apply where there was general mask wearing. On the other hand, the mask-wearing group in this study was given a large supply of high quality surgical masks which were not reused and was carefully instructed in the proper technique of mask use, such as avoiding touching them when putting them on and off and many other precautions which are not followed at all in the general mask wearing we presently see around us.
The negative findings in this study are buttressed by a study of about 300 patients by the CDC in July which found that extended mask wearing seemed to give little protection from contracting the disease. Indeed, the common experience of a rising number of cases in areas where there is a fairly high amount of mask wearing suggests the same conclusion. It should be pointed out that the new Danish study says nothing about the question of whether masks prevent an infected person from passing on the germ, but just that evidence for a protective function in those wearing them is weak.
A major problem with this issue, like everything connected to the epidemic, is that it has become political. Mr. Trump early on eschewed mask usage seeing that he and everyone around him was being tested regularly, so that mask wearing has become to some extent symbolic of one's political feelings. Mr. Biden has made it a fetish, a reflection of his earnestness in his contention that Mr. Trump bears the responsibility for our troubles. Personally, I'm somewhat neutral. I don't like wearing a mask, and I have plenty of company there, and I think that the appearance of everyone walking around wearing a mask is strangely inhuman. On the other hand, I carry one in my pocket and put it on when the sign says to do it, which is almost everywhere. At the same time, I couldn't disagree more with Dr. Redfield that general mask wearing will prove to be more helpful than the new vaccines waiting in the wings.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
No comments:
Post a Comment