A recent Danish study on the use and wearing of masks to prevent the spread of corona virus has exposed to light some revealing results.
Basically the masks do not prevent the infection rate of the virus, in fact in the study by three eminent doctors they actually increased it much to their surprise.
The study, ‘Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers,’ The link of which is below, was submitted to three medical journals and refused, ostensibly on ‘political’ grounds rather than medical giving rise to the notion that masks are not insisted on medical grounds but for some other purpose.
The result of this study points out the fact that masks do little or nothing to lower the infection rate of COVID-19. In fact, it found a 2.1% vs 1.8% infection rate for unmasked vs masked groups (with around 3,000 participants in each group initially). However, as there was a low virus prevalence these figures correspond to only 53 and 42 participants respectively so the authors had to state that the result is not statistically significant. What is significant however is the low actual rate of infection in both groups.
Significantly when you look at participants who report wearing face masks “exactly as instructed” as opposed to just “predominantly as instructed” the proportion infected rises from 1.8% to 2.0% (22 participants). This demonstrates the opposite effect of wearing a mask to its intention. If masks are helping then using them correctly should reduce infections This indicates that the lower figure for all mask wearers was most likely just noise.
As per Lockdown skeptics, a few more observations:
Reported symptoms did not differ between those who wore masks and those who didn’t, giving no support to the masker theory that masks make the disease milder (or provide immunity) by reducing viral load.
For other respiratory viruses the study found 0.5% vs 0.6% infection rate (9 vs 11 participants) for masks vs non-masks, so again almost the same, supporting the primary finding.
Although 91 participants reported someone else in their household contracting COVID-19 during the study (52 masked and 39 non-masked), only three reported then catching it themselves – two with masks and one without. Strange, because the home is usually found to be a primary source of transmission.
The study looks at protecting the wearer not others (i.e., source control, the usual justification for masks). It couldn’t look at source control as the study took place in April and May before masks were mandated or in widespread use.
The lead author of the study, Dr Henning Bundgaard, a cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen, said:
“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask: Not a lot.”
Reading between the lines it seems the authors had to tone down their scepticism to get it past the editors and reviewers. They are at pains to stress that “this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.” The strongest they are allowed to get in their discussion is: “While we await additional data to inform mask recommendations, communities must balance the seriousness of COVID-19, uncertainty about the degree of source control and protective effect, and the absence of data suggesting serious adverse effects of masks.”
One anonymous mask user with a heart condition gave this story.
“On arrival in A&E I was handed a face mask to put on – which I did, feeling a sort of civic duty as it was a set of special circumstances – and my underlying medical condition was at least in the right place to be resolved if I had any problems (I have had a heart attack previously, so have to ensure I do not suffer from cardiac ischaemia). Up to this point, when I had had my readings taken, both by the paramedics immediately after the incident at home, in the ambulance, and on my arrival in the hospital, my blood oxygen levels had been fine (97 – in case you are unaware, the normal range is 95 to 100 and hypoxia begins at 90). After half an hour or so, I was moved into a side room – at which point, I took the mask off of one ear, as I was having trouble breathing properly through it, only putting it back on when a member of staff came in to check on me.After I had been there for an hour, a nurse came to take my readings again and I had put the mask back on whilst she set things up and, after a couple of minutes of wearing the mask, my readings were taken and my blood oxygen had dropped to 93 – a drop of four points (there are only five between normal and hypoxia. The first reaction of the nurse was to say that they were concerned because of the drop in oxygen, but that “it was probably just because of the mask”. I took it off one ear again so I could breathe normally and literally with each breath the reading went up by one, so after four breaths, I was back to where I had been without the mask. From that point on, I left the mask off and, each time my hourly readings were taken, it remained at 97, so clearly the drop in oxygen levels was down to the mask. During this time – and I was there for six hours – not a single member of staff told me to put the mask back on and indeed I saw several staff sitting behind desks or in corridors with their masks removed.”
The results showed, according to the paper, “A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.”
This, and the example above, point to the ineffectiveness of wearing a mask. About the most it does is increase respiratory issues and reduce the oxygen intake.
The obsessive insistence on wearing masks despite the health concerns seems to indicate a different agenda as many politicians will have been advised by the thousands of medical specialists of the dangers of covering up one’s breathing outlets for long periods of time which include oxygen deprivation, development of skin conditions under and around the mask such as acne, rosacea, eczema, facial itch, rash and allergies as indicated in a paper in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
According to Shane Neilson MD, Ph D, “The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.”
He goes on, “The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons. The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics. In the 1919 influenza pandemic, masks were available and were dispensed to populations, but they had no impact on the epidemic curve. At the time, it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier. As recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, “face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.” A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus,”
This all brings one to the conclusion that insistence on wearing a mask to prevent the infection of corona virus is little more than window dressing and is an epidemic in itself propagated by Politicians with a freakish control agenda.
Burgess A, Horii M. Risk, ritual and health responsibilisation: Japan’s ‘safety blanket’ of surgical face mask-wearing. Sociol Health Illn 2012;34:1184–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Beck U. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications; 1992. [Google Scholar]
Belkin NL. The evolution of the surgical mask: filtering efficiency versus effectiveness. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:49–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Spooner JL. History of surgical face masks: the myths, the masks, and the men and women behind them. AORN J 1967;5:76–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Larson EL, Liverman CT, editors. Preventing transmission of pandemic influenza and other viral respiratory diseases: personal protective equipment for healthcare workers: update 2010. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
MacIntyre CR, Cauchemez S, Dwyer DE, et al. Face mask use and control of respiratory virus transmission in households. Emerg Infect Dis 2009;15:233–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cowling BJ, Chan KH, Fang VJ, et al. Facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:437–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Smith JD, MacDougall CC, Johnstone J, et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2016. Mar. 7 [Epub ahead of print]. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Annex M: Public health measures. In: Canadian pandemic influenza preparedness: planning guidance for the health sector. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2006. [modified 2016 Feb. 12]. Available: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cpip-pclcpi/ann-m-eng.php (accessed 2016 Feb. 22). [Google Scholar]
Frequently asked questions — pandemic influenza preparedness. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2012. Available: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/influenza/pp-faq-eng.php (accessed 2016 Feb. 22). [Google Scholar]