Studies showing mask wearing has negative health affects.

[Gary K]

Here is a group of studies showing negative effects of wearing a mask upon a persons's health.




https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/


Cloth Mask Study


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/


SOME of the mask studies on efficacy:


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2


https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214


https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/


https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/


https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747


https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736


https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf


https://web.archive.org/web/2020071...ntary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data


https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25776/r...-masks-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-8-2020


https://www.nap.edu/read/25776/chapter/1#6


https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article


https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/


https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y


https://clinmedjournals.org/article...ases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1130147308702355

 

[chair]

do you ever actually open your own links and read them?

 

[Clete]

do you ever actually open your own links and read them?

I read them! I haven't read them all yet but here's just a sampling of what you can expect if you go through the trouble of actually bothering to read and learn for yourself instead of excepting as truth the things that those who seek to rule over you say....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

Results​

The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.​

Conclusions​

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs (Health Care Workers), particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.​

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1

The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations. Further high quality trials are needed to assess when wearing a facemask in the community is most likely to be protective.​

​

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50). There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators: for ILI (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.08), for influenza (Risk Ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.43). Harms were poorly reported and limited to discomfort with lower compliance. The only trial testing quarantining workers with household ILI contacts found a reduction in ILI cases, but increased risk of quarantined workers contracting influenza. All trials were conducted during seasonal ILI activity.​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.​

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

Question Is the use of N95 respirators or medical masks more effective in preventing influenza infection among outpatient health care personnel in close contact with patients with suspected respiratory illness?​

​

Findings In this pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial involving 2862 health care personnel, there was no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among health care personnel with the use of N95 respirators (8.2%) vs medical masks (7.2%).​

​

Meaning As worn by health care personnel in this trial, use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks, in the outpatient setting resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.​

​

https://clinmedjournals.org/article...ases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide

Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed. As a second wave of COVID-19 is expected, and in preparation for future pandemics, it is imperative to identify solutions to manage these adverse effects. Frequent breaks, improved hydration and rest, skin care, and potentially newly designed comfortable masks are recommendations for future management of adverse effects related to prolonged mask use.​

​

 

[chair]

I read them! I haven't read them all yet but here's just a sampling of what you can expect if you go through the trouble of actually bothering to read and learn for yourself instead of excepting as truth the things that those who seek to rule over you say....

​

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50). There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators: for ILI (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.08), for influenza (Risk Ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.43). Harms were poorly reported and limited to discomfort with lower compliance. The only trial testing quarantining workers with household ILI contacts found a reduction in ILI cases, but increased risk of quarantined workers contracting influenza. All trials were conducted during seasonal ILI activity.​

​

pick and choose what part you report?

 

[annabenedetti]

I read them! I haven't read them all yet but here's just a sampling of what you can expect if you go through the trouble of actually bothering to read and learn for yourself instead of excepting as truth the things that those who seek to rule over you say....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

​

Results​

The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.​

​

Conclusions​

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs (Health Care Workers), particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.​

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1

The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations. Further high quality trials are needed to assess when wearing a facemask in the community is most likely to be protective.​

​

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50). There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators: for ILI (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.08), for influenza (Risk Ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.43). Harms were poorly reported and limited to discomfort with lower compliance. The only trial testing quarantining workers with household ILI contacts found a reduction in ILI cases, but increased risk of quarantined workers contracting influenza. All trials were conducted during seasonal ILI activity.​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.​

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

Question Is the use of N95 respirators or medical masks more effective in preventing influenza infection among outpatient health care personnel in close contact with patients with suspected respiratory illness?​

​

Findings In this pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial involving 2862 health care personnel, there was no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among health care personnel with the use of N95 respirators (8.2%) vs medical masks (7.2%).​

​

Meaning As worn by health care personnel in this trial, use of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks, in the outpatient setting resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.​

​

https://clinmedjournals.org/article...ases-and-epidemiology-jide-6-130.php?jid=jide

Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed. As a second wave of COVID-19 is expected, and in preparation for future pandemics, it is imperative to identify solutions to manage these adverse effects. Frequent breaks, improved hydration and rest, skin care, and potentially newly designed comfortable masks are recommendations for future management of adverse effects related to prolonged mask use.​

​

Your first choice was published April 2015, the study was conducted in 2011. There's no "no mask" control, so no way to gauge if a cloth mask was better than no mask at all.

Your second and third choices have right at the top: This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

In the Conclusion of the third choice:

CONCLUSIONS Most included trials had poor design, reporting and sparse events. There was insufficient evidence to provide a recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures. We found insufficient evidence for a difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators and limited evidence to support effectiveness of quarantine. Based on observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic included in the previous version of our Cochrane review we recommend the use of masks combined with other measures.​

In the Discussion of the second choice:

Facemasks appear be most effective when worn to prevent primary respiratory illness in relatively low risk situations: community settings where contact may be casual and relatively brief, such as on public transport, in shops, in workplaces and perhaps in university residences or schools with limited shared public spaces. Facemask wearing is probably not protective during mass gatherings, but evidence on use during mass gatherings is inconsistent. All studies focussed on Hajj pilgrimage which may not be a typical mass gathering event (especially large and prolonged). Facemask wearing within households where infection was already present was modestly effective in the included studies, and this evidence was fairly consistent (low-medium heterogeneity, I from 0% to 45%). Limited effectiveness of primary prevention at Hajj or secondary prevention within households may be because of the multiplicity of transmission pathways within these settings and high level of recurring contact. It may also be due to the late use of facemasks, usually > 24 hours after a household or group member became symptomatic which could be 48 hours after they became infectious (Centers for Disease Control, 2018).​

​

That facemasks might protect wearers has been cast in doubt during the COVID-19 outbreak (eg., Abramson, 2020; Geggel, 2020; Harris, 2020), often supported by the observation that surgical facemasks were designed (originally) to protect patients from the wearers, and that facemasks soon become very moist with condensation from wearer’s breath (facilitating microbial ingress and growth). Nevertheless, worn correctly for brief periods, wearing surgical masks have been shown to provide an average 6-fold reduction in exposure to aerosolized influenza virus (Booth et al., 2013), so it is unsurprising that facemask wearing was linked to fewer cases in our synthesis, especially primary observational studies in community settings.​

Your fourth choice:

At the top:

Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org. In a letter to the editor on June 3, 2020, the authors of this article state “We strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”​

Fifth choice:

Is a "perspective" article, not a study, references health care workers in a clinical setting, not the general public, and notes:

"Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.​

​

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures."​

Your sixth choice:

Doesn't advocate against mask use or challenge their efficacy, it addresses common adverse effects on medical personnel having to wear them for the extraordinary amount of time they've had to during Covid. Many of us have seen photos of exhausted medical personnel with bruised and broken skin from extended mask use and the ways they've tried to innovate to protect their skin. This study of adverse effects in no way supports the OP's intent to discourage mask use.

Limitations​

While this survey captured the experiences of many health care professionals working on the front lines during COVID-19, there are some limitations to this study. First, preexisting conditions such as high BMI, asthma, and other conditions were not assessed in this survey, and these could be impacting or increasing the adverse effects addressed in this survey. Second, issues such as stress level and quality sleep were also not included in this survey, and these important factors could also attribute to adverse effects in the survey respondents.​

Conclusion​

This study identified various adverse effects of prolonged mask use experienced by healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. While healthcare professionals and the world at large wish this pandemic to end, and never return, various recommendations are presented for future prevention and management of these adverse effects.​

 

[JudgeRightly]

pick and choose what part you report?

If you think there's a problem, why not show what the problem is?

 

[chair]

If you think there's a problem, why not show what the problem is?

Anna has done me the favor.

I'm running out of time and energy chasing after all these alternate realities. What is the theory behind all this? That the official medical community is a bunch of idiots? That they've been paid off?

That PEG thread (which I never got an answer to) is an extreme example of what people will do when they've bought into a cult idea.

 

[Right Divider]

Anna has done me the favor.

I'm running out of time and energy chasing after all these alternate realities. What is the theory behind all this? That the official medical community is a bunch of idiots? That they've been paid off?

That PEG thread (which I never got an answer to) is an extreme example of what people will do when they've bought into a cult idea.

Are you really unable to understand the simple facts of the negative effects of long term wearing of masks... especially cloth masks?

 

[annabenedetti]

Anna has done me the favor.

I'm running out of time and energy chasing after all these alternate realities. What is the theory behind all this? That the official medical community is a bunch of idiots? That they've been paid off?

That PEG thread (which I never got an answer to) is an extreme example of what people will do when they've bought into a cult idea.

I can think of at least three times in my interactions with ffreeloader when I've provided facts contrary to his narrative and asked him to come back and address them, but he wouldn't, he just moved on to the next thing.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anna has done me the favor.

I'm running out of time and energy

If you think they're a waste of time and energy, then why do you post in these threads?

 

[annabenedetti]

If you think they're a waste of time and energy, then why do you post in these threads?

He said he was "running out" of time and energy. You put words in his mouth when you added "a waste"

He also told you directly on Tuesday:

Judge- there are so many baseless rumors being kicked around this site, that I cannot possibly answer all of them in detail. Nor can a watch hours of lying videos. I only point out a few blatant ones, so that innocent bystanders realize what's going on.

 

[ok doser]

I'm running out of time and energy chasing after ...

So log off

 

[JudgeRightly]

He said he was "running out" of time

And he would have more time to spend on other things if he didn't waste his time on threads he doesn't deem worth the effort.

You will always have time for things you deem important, generally speaking.

 

[ok doser]

I can think of at least three times in my interactions with ffreeloader when I've provided facts contrary to his narrative and asked him to come back and address them, but he wouldn't, he just moved on to the next thing.

Do you consider it to be your life's mission to confront ffreeloader and others like him who are disseminating facts with which you disagree?

 

[annabenedetti]

Do you consider it to be your life's mission to confront ffreeloader and others like him who are disseminating facts with which you disagree?

No.

Considering you've been here for many, many more hours than I've been, is it your life's mission to call people retards?

 

[annabenedetti]

And he would have more time to spend on other things if he didn't waste his time on threads he doesn't deem worth the effort.

You will always have time for things you deem important, generally speaking.

Do you have anything to say about the OP, or only about chair?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do you have anything to say about the OP, or only about chair?

Do you have anything to say about the OP, or only about me?

 

[Gary K]

Your first choice was published April 2015, the study was conducted in 2011. There's no "no mask" control, so no way to gauge if a cloth mask was better than no mask at all.

Your second and third choices have right at the top: This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

In the Conclusion of the third choice:

CONCLUSIONS Most included trials had poor design, reporting and sparse events. There was insufficient evidence to provide a recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures. We found insufficient evidence for a difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators and limited evidence to support effectiveness of quarantine. Based on observational evidence from the previous SARS epidemic included in the previous version of our Cochrane review we recommend the use of masks combined with other measures.​

In the Discussion of the second choice:

Facemasks appear be most effective when worn to prevent primary respiratory illness in relatively low risk situations: community settings where contact may be casual and relatively brief, such as on public transport, in shops, in workplaces and perhaps in university residences or schools with limited shared public spaces. Facemask wearing is probably not protective during mass gatherings, but evidence on use during mass gatherings is inconsistent. All studies focussed on Hajj pilgrimage which may not be a typical mass gathering event (especially large and prolonged). Facemask wearing within households where infection was already present was modestly effective in the included studies, and this evidence was fairly consistent (low-medium heterogeneity, I from 0% to 45%). Limited effectiveness of primary prevention at Hajj or secondary prevention within households may be because of the multiplicity of transmission pathways within these settings and high level of recurring contact. It may also be due to the late use of facemasks, usually > 24 hours after a household or group member became symptomatic which could be 48 hours after they became infectious (Centers for Disease Control, 2018).​

​

That facemasks might protect wearers has been cast in doubt during the COVID-19 outbreak (eg., Abramson, 2020; Geggel, 2020; Harris, 2020), often supported by the observation that surgical facemasks were designed (originally) to protect patients from the wearers, and that facemasks soon become very moist with condensation from wearer’s breath (facilitating microbial ingress and growth). Nevertheless, worn correctly for brief periods, wearing surgical masks have been shown to provide an average 6-fold reduction in exposure to aerosolized influenza virus (Booth et al., 2013), so it is unsurprising that facemask wearing was linked to fewer cases in our synthesis, especially primary observational studies in community settings.​

Your fourth choice:

At the top:

Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org. In a letter to the editor on June 3, 2020, the authors of this article state “We strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”​

Fifth choice:

Is a "perspective" article, not a study, references health care workers in a clinical setting, not the general public, and notes:

"Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.​

​

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures."​

Your sixth choice:

Doesn't advocate against mask use or challenge their efficacy, it addresses common adverse effects on medical personnel having to wear them for the extraordinary amount of time they've had to during Covid. Many of us have seen photos of exhausted medical personnel with bruised and broken skin from extended mask use and the ways they've tried to innovate to protect their skin. This study of adverse effects in no way supports the OP's intent to discourage mask use.

Limitations​

While this survey captured the experiences of many health care professionals working on the front lines during COVID-19, there are some limitations to this study. First, preexisting conditions such as high BMI, asthma, and other conditions were not assessed in this survey, and these could be impacting or increasing the adverse effects addressed in this survey. Second, issues such as stress level and quality sleep were also not included in this survey, and these important factors could also attribute to adverse effects in the survey respondents.​

Conclusion​

This study identified various adverse effects of prolonged mask use experienced by healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. While healthcare professionals and the world at large wish this pandemic to end, and never return, various recommendations are presented for future prevention and management of these adverse effects.​

LOL. You just crack me up.

Now you're complaining because I gave a balanced viewpoint. The overall balance of all the studies is negative on masks. And that's using medical establishment sources. You seem to have FDS: ffreeloader derangement syndrome.

 

[annabenedetti]

LOL. You just crack me up.

Now you're complaining because I gave a balanced viewpoint. The overall balance of all the studies is negative on masks. And that's using medical establishment sources. You seem to have FDS: ffreeloader derangement syndrome.

I was responding to Clete. Not you.

 

[annabenedetti]

Do you have anything to say about the OP, or only about me?

I did say something about the OP, as you know. So - do you have anything to say about the OP?