To Mask or not to two - Mask Megathread cont.

You mean the study that was debated here very recently on the thread? I think it's premature (that's a diplomatic word for it) to jump into a thread, ignoring recent posts, demanding apologies and calling the debate closed.

Here's some of the responses:

One of studies cited showed there was no benefit if staff in a hospital wore a reusable cloth mask as PPE versus flu.

We knew that already. How is that relevant to covid mask mandates?

One of the other studies showed regular mask wearers in Denmark had fewer cases than non mask wearers but due to low level of covid significant case numbers were not hit in the study.

The advice from health authorities was always not to rely on such masks as PPE.

Mask mandates were about reducing transmission from an infected person.

Not in light of these findings no, for the reasons already mentioned on the thread.

The mask studies referenced in the Cochrane report have almost all been discussed and debated on the thread over its history.

How about engaging with some of the actual comments discussing the relevance of the Cochrane report to mask mandates, both directly on the thread and in the linked article?

For example the Denmark study is listed in the Cochrane report. Yet you think it is 'extraordinary vague'. What does that say about the Cochrane report?

And:

One of studies cited showed there was no benefit if staff in a hospital wore a reusable cloth mask as PPE versus flu.

We knew that already. How is that relevant to covid mask mandates?

It's not symbolic, and it's on a case by case basis for hospitals. I suspect many will keep masks as they reduce the spread of (respiratory) diseases that are predominantly spread by aerosols and droplets from the mouth/nose. Which makes sense in a hospital environment.

On a side note, it's very telling and I'm not the slightest bit surprised to see you also harbour these views.

The HSE are a law upon themselves, there is no legal requirement to wear a mask in a hospital, right now. They have been playing dress up since the mandate was dropped and we just go along with it.

Regardless the Cochrane meta study concludes that it could not find any conclusive evidence that masks had any measurable effect in the public realm.

There were attempts in finding contradictions in that and even claims that this core message of Cochrane was later retracted - which it was not.

No conclusive evidence could be found.

Which is not the same as saying masks may not work to some degree in certain scenarios. But it certainly is a far cry from 'masks work, case closed' which seemed to be sponsored consensus in here for a long time. In fact quite the opposite.

Wearing masks during a pandemic of a infectious virus is not "draconian", it's basic common sense.

I suspect many hospitals will probably keep mask rules, to reduce infection within the hospital and to better protect at-risk patients in general.

Covid appears to be far more infectious than any of them. Which is why masks were mandated to protect vulnerable people from infectious 'healthy' people.

Covid killed over 6 million people in just two years and it's estimated to have killed 80,000 health professionals. The key concern was not so much the deaths, which were still serious, but more the critical strain it was putting on national health systems and staff. ICU's were filling up, city hospitals in certain countries were having to ship patients to country hospitals, in India they ran out of oxygen resulting in deaths.

You're just looking at the situation now and applying hindsight. In 2020, it was a new disease, it was spreading rapidly and people were dying. We didn't have the information we have now, we didn't have the resistances, we didn't have the vaccines we have now.

Therefore we took measures, such as masks, which were a no-brainer and a pretty minor inconvenience.

You must be kidding me. You go to the studie's 'frontpage' and read the clarifying statement by Cochrane's editor in chief and it literally says the exact opposite of what you're throwing at me. That it tried to attempt finding evidence about effects on spread in the public realm and couldn't. But can make no statement about individual effects and risks.

Next time before you come all high and mighty and pontificate about people's ability for 'basic comprehension' you better get your own in order.

I mean how did you even get to the conclusion? It makes no sense whatsoever if you think about it for a second even. How could a meta study that essentially collates studies on case spread in masked scenarios vs non-masks scenarios make statements or even attempt to make statements about individual risk? It always had to be about wider effects in the public realm. And then to throw 'comprehension' at me. Some neck on you, I give you that.

How does the wearing of cloth masks by healthcare support staff to as PPE protection versus flu have anything to say about 'wider effects in the public realm'? It wasnt tracking case spread in the public realm. It wasnt setup to track transmission from infected people which is why masks were mandated.

Its one of the studies Cochrane included.

Yet you seem to think that but dont explain how. Or you are deliberately misrepresenting its findings.

Cochrane wasnt doing anything. It was only collating many studies not all of them with an identical setup. But they collated what they felt was relevant and their methodology is there to see and scrutinise for the whole world as it should be and apart from the resident boards experts I have not heard it being torn apart by their peers. But you know that and just like you always do you want to have the last word and get digs like 'deliberately misrepresenting' however far fetched in.

More evidence that mask wearing was pointless in preventing the spread of covid in hospitals, hand hygiene was far more important.

Way to make up your own headline there...the first study said fomite transmission is a issue, never once mentioned hospitals, in fact it explicitly talks about in the home. But you seem to have decided that the first study relates to the second study. Why did you do that?

The second study contributor said “That doesn’t mean masks are worthless against omicron, but their real-world benefit in isolation appears to be, at best, modest in a healthcare setting.”

Again no mention of hand washing, did you need to make up a connection in the two of them to try make your point seem more valid? You should at least mention that you are making great leaps in logic.

Or the reason why they got infected was because someone was exhaling the virus and they breathed it in, and the virus droplets also left their trace on surfaces. The people who were concerned about virus spread and cleansed surfaces may also have been taking other measures such as distancing and masks and isolation. After all, why were some households more sanitary than others.

Impossible to say from the limited data in the study how the transmission actually occurred.

How can you reply like that to a post that was posted in Nov 2021 , when there were climbing numbers of Covid everywhere , most people had only just had one or two doses of vaccine , and Delta a very dangerous variant was on the go ? Totally different , no comparison to now .. 🙄

Sure , now its totally different and hindsight is a wonderful thing once Omicron started to be the main variant . Noone would disagree that those methods are not necessary the way things are now and people are and have moved on . Blaming individual sectors for the outcomes and effects post pandemic is just dogwhistling.

But main point is this is a ridiculous post , and very unfair, replying in that manner 17 months later . How did you even dig it up?

Did you ever hear of context?

You've no idea why they are wearing the mask, yet feel you're in a position to make these comments about their personality and identify.

Other people may come to the 'quite sad really' conclusion about that behaviour.