Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

road_high wrote: »

Really- so you condone violence over a just piece of cotton? Chilling how far some in society have sunken in the 7 months from previous norms

Slag a mask, get a yellow. Encourage violence, nothing said. Just about sums boards up these days.

Nermal wrote: »

Well I bothered.

Your first link is not a study, it's a literature review and a simulation.

Your second I have addressed before. It's a meta-review of studies that were almost entirely conducted in healthcare settings or small dormitories, not in the general population.

Your third actually explicitly states in the conclusion: "evidence was weak due to few conclusive RCT (randomised controlled trial) results in community settings".

Don't get me wrong, it's very likely that mask wearing will slow transmission in the general population. But by how much? How many lives will we save?

If you're the type of poster that responds in platitudes like 'if it saves one life, then we should do it' - then leave the discussion to people who are willing to discuss things like adults.

From that Literature Review and Simulation article you obviously did not read:

"When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress,
it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for source control. When
someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny
amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in
aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets.
Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into
aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point
of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller
aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).
Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively
detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed
that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade
mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber
bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled
without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind
of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as
strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the
pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."
An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing
is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of
blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and
are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton
mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a
layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter
effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for
blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).
In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant
droplet size range, as well some efficacy in blocking droplets
and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help
people keep their droplets to themselves.

4. Mask Efficacy Studies
Although no randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use
of masks as source control for SARS-CoV-2 has been published, a number of studies have attempted to indirectly estimate the efficacy of masks. Overall, an evidence review (29)
finds "moderate certainty evidence shows that the use of handwashing plus masks probably reduces the spread of respiratory
viruses."
The most relevant paper (30), with important implications
for public mask wearing during the COVID-19 outbreak, is
one that compares the efficacy of surgical masks for source control for seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and rhinovirus. With
ten participants, the masks were effective at blocking coronavirus droplets of all sizes for every subject. However, masks
were far less effective at blocking rhinovirus droplets of any
size, or of blocking small influenza droplets. The results suggest that masks may have a significant role in source control
for the current coronavirus outbreak. The study did not use
COVID-19 patients, and it is not yet known whether seasonal
coronavirus behaves the same as SARS-CoV-2; however, they
are of the same genus, so similar behavior is likely.
Another relevant (but under-powered, with n=4) study
(31) found that a cotton mask blocked 96% (reported as 1.5
log units or about a 36-fold decrease) of viral load on average,
at eight inches away from a cough from a patient infected with
COVID-19. If this is replicated in larger studies it would be
an important result, because it has been shown (32) that "every 10-fold increase in viral load results in 26% more patient
deaths" from "acute infections caused by highly pathogenic
viruses".
A comparison of homemade and surgical masks for bacterial and viral aerosols (21) observed that "the median-fit
factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of
microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical
mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than
the homemade mask." Research focused on aerosol exposure
has found all types of masks are at least somewhat effective
at protecting the wearer. Van der Sande et al (33) found that
"all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable
over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity",
and concluded that "any type of general mask use is likely
to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population
level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence". Overall
however, analysis of particle filtration is likely to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, since the fraction of particles
that are emitted as aerosol (vs. droplet) is quite small (26).
Analysis of seasonal coronavirus compared to rhinovirus (30)
suggests that filtration of COVID-19 may be much more effective, especially for source control.
The importance of using masks for health care workers
has been observed (34) in three Chinese hospitals where, in
each hospital, medical staff wearing masks (mainly in quarantine areas) had no COVID-19 infections, despite being around
COVID-19 patients far more often, whilst other medical staff
had 10 or more infections in each of the three hospitals.
Masks seem to be effective for source control in the controlled setting of an airplane. One case report (35) describes
a man who flew from China to Toronto and then tested positive for COVID-19. He was wearing a mask during the flight.
The 25 people closest to him on plane/flight attendants were
tested and all were negative. Nobody has been reported from
that flight as getting COVID-19. Another case study involving a masked influenza patient on an airplane (36) found that
"wearing a face mask was associated with a decreased risk for
influenza acquisition during this long-duration flight".
Guideline development for health worker personal protective equipment have focused on whether surgical masks or
N95 respirators should be recommended. Most of the research in this area focuses on influenza. At this point, it
is not known to what extent findings from influenza studies
apply to COVID-19 filtration. Wilkes et al (37) found that
"filtration performance of pleated hydrophobic membrane filters was demonstrated to be markedly greater than that of
electrostatic filters." However, even substantial differences in
materials and construction do not seem to impact the transmission of droplet-borne viruses in practice, such as a metaanalysis of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks (38)
that found "the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratoryconfirmed influenza." Johnson et al (39) showed that "surgical
and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread
of PCR-detectable influenza". Radonovich et al (40) found in
an outpatient setting that "use of N95 respirators, compared
with medical masks... resulted in no significant difference in
the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
One of the most frequently mentioned papers evaluating
the benefits and harms of cloth masks have been by MacIntyre
et al (41). Findings have been misinterpreted, and therefore
justify detailed discussion here. The authors "caution against
the use of cloth masks" for healthcare professionals compared
to the use of surgical masks and regular procedures, based on
an analysis of transmission in hospitals in Hanoi. We emphasize the setting of the study - health workers using masks to
protect themselves against infection. The study compared a
"surgical mask" group which received 2 new masks per day, to
a "cloth mask" group that received 5 masks for the entire 4
week period and were required to wear the masks all day, to
a "control group" which used masks in compliance with existing hospital protocols, which the authors describe as a "very
high level of mask use". It is important to note that the authors did not have a "no mask" control group because it was
deemed "unethical to ask participants to not wear a mask."
The study does not inform policy pertaining to public mask
wearing as compared to the absence of masks in a community
setting, since there is not a "no mask" group. The results of
the study show that the group with a regular supply of new
surgical masks each day had significantly lower infection of
rhinovirus than the group that wore a limited supply of cloth
masks. This paper lends support to the use of clean, surgical
masks by medical staff in hospital settings to avoid rhinovirus
infection by the wearer, and is consistent with other studies
that show cloth masks provide poor filtration for rhinovirus
(30). Its implementation does not inform the effect of using
cloth masks versus not using masks in a community setting for
source control of SARS-CoV-2, which is of the same genus as
seasonal coronavirus, which has been found to be effectively
filtered by cloth masks in a source control setting (30).
A. Studies of Impact on Community Transmission. When
evaluating the available evidence for the impact of masks on
community transmission, it is critical to clarify the setting of
the research study (health care facility or community), the resHoward et al. PNAS | April 10, 2020 | vol. XXX | no. XX | 3
piratory illness being evaluated and what reference standard
was used (no mask or surgical mask). There are no RCTs
that have been done to evaluate the impact of masks on community transmission during a coronavirus pandemic. While
there is some evidence from influenza outbreaks, the current
global pandemic poses a unique challenge. A review (42) of
67 studies including randomized controlled trials and observational studies found that simple and lowcost interventions
would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. The review recommended that "the following
effective interventions should be implemented, preferably in a
combined fashion, to reduce transmission of viral respiratory
disease: 1. frequent handwashing with or without adjunct
antiseptics; 2. barrier measures such as gloves, gowns, and
masks with filtration apparatus; and 3. suspicion diagnosis
with the isolation of likely cases". However, it cautioned that
routine longterm implementation of some measures assessed
might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.
Seuess et al conducted an RCT (43)that suggests household transmission of influenza can be reduced by the use
of non-pharmaceutical interventions, namely the use of face
masks and intensified hand hygiene, when implemented early
and used diligently. Concerns about acceptability and tolerability of the interventions should not be a reason against their
recommendation (43). Cowling et al (44) investigated hand
hygiene and face masks in an RCT that seemed to prevent
household transmission of influenza virus when implemented
within 36 hours of index patient symptom onset. These findings suggest that non-pharmaceutical interventions are important for mitigation of pandemic and inter-pandemic influenza.
RCT findings by Aiello et al (45) "suggest that face masks
and hand hygiene may reduce respiratory illnesses in shared
living settings and mitigate the impact of the influenza A
(H1N1) pandemic". A randomized intervention trial (46)
found that "face masks and hand hygiene combined may reduce the rate of ILI [influenza-like illness] and confirmed influenza in community settings. These non-pharmaceutical
measures should be recommended in crowded settings at the
start of an influenza pandemic." The authors noted that their
study "demonstrated a significant association between the
combined use of face masks and hand hygiene and a substantially reduced incidence of ILI during a seasonal influenza
outbreak. If masks and hand hygiene have similar impacts on
primary incidence of infection with other seasonal and pandemic strains, particularly in crowded, community settings,
then transmission of viruses between persons may be significantly decreased by these interventions."
An observational study in Hong Kong on SARS (47) found
"frequent mask use in public venues, frequent hand washing,
and disinfecting the living quarters were significant protective
factors (OR 0.36 to 0.58)". An important observation was
that "members of the case group [infected with SARS] were
less likely than members of the control group [not infected] to
have frequently worn a face mask in public venues (27.9% vs.
58.7%)"

(...)

6. Discussion and Recommendations
Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of
widespread mask use to reduce community transmission: nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct droplets of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period
post-infection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (10–16); non-medical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of influenza; non-medical masks have been
shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission
of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower
community transmission.
The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of non-medical masks when out in public, in combination
with complementary public health measures could successfully
reduce effective-R to below 1.0, thereby stopping community
spread. Economic analysis suggests that the impact of mask
wearing could be thousands of US dollars saved per person
per mask (93)."

Like I expected, you did not bother to read one single word of it.

Adding to that there is the list of Refferences for this article which pertain to 96 scientific articles to which the article I shared compiles in you easy to understand article.

But for you the article is "simulation".

Kool! Go ahead!

Donn't use a mask, actually go and kiss everyone on your next pub crawl, go ahead also and lick the tables, glasses and the floors! Because why not? Darwin would be proud of you!

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Anyone arguing against masks is just plain wrong.

You’ll have the evidence to back that up?