Danish study shows no significant reduction of Covid-19 in wearers of surgical masks

Status
Not open for further replies.
PeterNSteinmetz

PeterNSteinmetz

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
2,653
Location
Tempe, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
PeterNSteinmetz
Danish study finally out. NO significant difference in infection rate between those wearing surgical masks and those who do not.

"Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon."

This is rather consistent with the prior randomized trials on masks and the seasonal flu as well.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
 
Yeah, but......is it not true that the real benefit of masking has always been thought to mitigate the TRANSMISSION rather than the CONTRACTION of infection?
As seems to be discussed in your cited study. Nothing to see here; I certainly hope no one will use this as rationale not to mask up....as I’m sure some will.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was well known. That mask wearing is done for the other person, not yourself.

(I was reading a Sept study on the NIH site a few hours ago, showing mask wearing does work to prevent spread, not like this study - to prevent yourself becoming infected)
 
Studies can say a lot of things, especially if the researcher(s) has a predetermined bias (not saying this one did), but common sense will tell you, that proper mask wearing will absolutely reduce the spread of any airborne virus.

A video for reference :

 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Danish study finally out. NO significant difference in infection rate between those wearing surgical masks and those who do not.

"Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon."

This is rather consistent with the prior randomized trials on masks and the seasonal flu as well.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Click to expand...

I ask that you either correct your thread title and the statement, or delete the thread, as you are spreading fake news.
The context is EXTREMELY important, which is outdoors and in addition to other measures, such as social distancing.

Intervention:
"Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home."

Limitation:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

Conclusion:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.
 
Isn't the operative part of this "in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect"?
 
MountainDude said:
I ask that you either correct your thread title and the statement, or delete the thread, as you are spreading fake news.
The context is EXTREMELY important, which is outdoors and in addition to other measures, such as social distancing.

Intervention:
"Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home."

Limitation:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

Conclusion:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.
Click to expand...

What do you is "fake news"? The study showed no significant effect of the intervention of people wearing surgical masks.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What do you is "fake news"? The study showed no significant effect of the intervention of people wearing surgical masks.
Click to expand...

Your thread title is horribly misleading. Directly from the paper you cited:

"These findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections."​
 
Here is one of the main quotes from the paper, as above,

"Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon"

My title was "Danish study shows no significant reduction in Covid-19 with surgical mask wearing".

The quote you cite was proceeded by "Reduction in release of virus from infected persons into the environment may be the mechanism for mitigation of transmission in communities where mask use is common or mandated, as noted in observational studies. Thus, "

I would read those statements in context as saying that the study does not really say anything about source control. Which is true. But that lack of data about source control is not evidence that source control works. I am not aware of any actual clinical data or study that says that source control works. Are you? If so, please cite. It is a theory. And one that I frankly find improbable. Here is why.

The likelihood of being infected by Covid-19 is likely related to the number of virions you are exposed to. Why should it matter whether a, for example, 90% reduction in virion load is achieved at the source or the the person exposed? And I don't think there is any evidence that the masks are somehow a rectifier. This is a popular theory, I agree, but I am not aware of any real evidence for it. And frankly, measuring an effect of source control would be rather difficult.

So I don't think that the primary result of the study should somehow be watered down in a brief title summary to reflect a theory for which there is no good evidence.

But in a spirit of improved precision I changed the title to "Danish study shows no significant reduction of Covid-19 in wearers of surgical masks".
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Here is one of the main quotes from the paper, as above,

"Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon"

My title was "Danish study shows no significant reduction in Covid-19 with surgical mask wearing".
Click to expand...

That is indeed a quote from the paper. That was indeed your thread title. Now did you have a point there or are you just exercising your copy paste skills?

PeterNSteinmetz said:
I would read those statements in context as saying that the study does not really say anything about source control. Which is true. But that lack of data about source control is not evidence that source control works. I am not aware of any actual clinical data or study that says that source control works. Are you? If so, please cite. It is a theory. And one that I frankly find improbable.
Click to expand...

You're deflecting. The thread is about the Danish study. It did not research source control. Whether source control by mask works or not, or whether there is data one way or the other, or whether you personally feel it works or doesn't work, is beyond the point being discussed at present.

PeterNSteinmetz said:
So I don't think that the primary result of the study should somehow be watered down in a brief title summary to reflect a theory for which there is no good evidence.
Click to expand...

Not extrapolating a study beyond its scope is not equivalent to watering it down.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Not extrapolating a study beyond its scope is not equivalent to watering it down.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I don't think either the original title or the original post was extrapolating in any way. Where did it extrapolate?

Again here is the original title "Danish study shows no significant reduction in Covid-19 with surgical mask wearing".

If we parse that very finely, a "reduction in Covid-19 with surgical mask wearing" would quite normally be construed to apply to the people or persons wearing the masks. Another example would be a reported "increase in lifespan with coffee drinking". I think normally one would interpret that as meaning the people who drink coffee live longer.

The only reason to think it was extrapolating to the general population would be if you thought that source control worked for masks and that somehow this argued against it. But neither my title nor my original post said anything explicitly about source control, did they?

Perhaps those who believe strongly that source control works might read that into it, but that would be reading more into it than was stated.

While I can see the point that some might read it that way, I think it is rather unfair to try and characterize the original title as "horribly misleading" and then support that assertion by quoting a phrase out of context and chopping off the transitional "Thus," which indicated that more context was required.
 
Last edited:
4CornerFlyer said:
This is a good review of the subject:
https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-masks.html

Jon
Click to expand...

I think it best to stick to the scientific reviews, rather than these secondary or tertiary media reports.

I have listed 4 of the recent ones on my medical interest page at http://steinmetz.org/peter/Medical.

Overall, prior to this study Inwould say it was fair to say they were evenly divided on the question of whether masks mandates were a good idea. With this study, I think the evidence now weighs on the side of NOT wise.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I think it best to stick to the scientific reviews, rather than these secondary or tertiary media reports.

I have listed 4 of the recent ones on my medical interest page at http://steinmetz.org/peter/Medical.

Overall, prior to this study Inwould say it was fair to say they were evenly divided on the question of whether masks mandates were a good idea. With this study, I think the evidence now weighs on the side of NOT wise.
Click to expand...

You are spreading false information by making statements out of context. The statement you made is NOT supported by the findings. The study results apply to being outdoors and social distancing. If you are away from infected people, of course the mask does not do anything. You are trying to make people believe that masks do not do anything under all circumstances, which is FALSE.
 
Completely non scientific observation. The trend since the beginning of this thing has been more diligence in mask wearing by a larger number of people. Yet infection rates have continued to climb.
 
You can get a study to say whatever you want. Common sense says that if you're hacking and coughing, a mask...


You shouldn't be around people anyway.
 
Sac Arrow said:
You can get a study to say whatever you want. Common sense says that if you're hacking and coughing, a mask...


You shouldn't be around people anyway.
Click to expand...

I've been telling my co-workers this for 15+ years. If you're not feeling well, don't come into the office! We don't need you to share whatever crud you have with us.

We're in IT, so we regularly work-from-home anyway. So even if it's a day you were planning to work in the office, don't. And if you feel really bad and can't work that day, that's what sick days are for.

Why is this so hard? :confused:
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Danish study finally out. NO significant difference in infection rate between those wearing surgical masks and those who do not.

"Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon."

This is rather consistent with the prior randomized trials on masks and the seasonal flu as well.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Click to expand...

I think empirically we are seeing what this study claims, it's just not PC to acknowledge that what is being demanded by politicians and others is not nearly as effective as they claim it is.

Unfortunately we are saddled with a highly contagious virus that spreads easily. While masks may help to some small degree, they are not stopping the spread of this virus. Let's hope these new vaccines coming quickly work.
 
So far the only people I have heard singing the absolute praises of masks and degrading those that question their effectiveness are laymen.

People educated in the medical sciences beyond the level of basic primary care all seem to have very different opinions than the layperson.

I find it even more amusing when high functioning educated people with no knowledge of the subject matter degrade, insult and shame those that do.

where is @Ted It’s time to start calling people children again.
 
Last edited:
There was a study in one of the medical journals a few months ago that came to the same conclusion.
 
wayne said:
I've been telling my co-workers this for 15+ years.
Click to expand...

The hourly guys at the chemical plant I worked at for 13 years all believed, "Never waste a sick day when you don't feel good." That and because of the rules, always take 2. The first day is a "start", 2nd day is a "gimme", and 3 or more days requires a doctor's note. The rest of the rule was that 3 starts in a quarter was subject to discipline. (typically time off without pay, but three of those was termination)

Amazing how rules dictate behavior. Kind of like wearing of masks.
 
Ravioli said:
The hourly guys at the chemical plant I worked at for 13 years all believed, "Never waste a sick day when you don't feel good." That and because of the rules, always take 2. The first day is a "start", 2nd day is a "gimme", and 3 or more days requires a doctor's note. The rest of the rule was that 3 starts in a quarter was subject to discipline. (typically time off without pay, but three of those was termination)

Amazing how rules dictate behavior. Kind of like wearing of masks.
Click to expand...
I have worked at flying jobs with similar points systems regarding sick day usage and discipline. Really promoted work place safety.
 
Ravioli said:
Amazing how rules dictate behavior. Kind of like wearing of masks.
Click to expand...
We need a note from day 1 and get paid after the 3rd day.

I use a handkerchief, easy enough to slip up into position at stores. AK airlines had no issues with the handkerchief.
 
cowman said:
It will be interesting to see what the scientific consensus is on all of this a few years later when it’s not so political.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. We'll never ever get to the bottom of all of the spin put on 2020. Covid, Election, you name it...
 
Ravioli said:
The hourly guys at the chemical plant I worked at for 13 years all believed, "Never waste a sick day when you don't feel good." That and because of the rules, always take 2. The first day is a "start", 2nd day is a "gimme", and 3 or more days requires a doctor's note. The rest of the rule was that 3 starts in a quarter was subject to discipline. (typically time off without pay, but three of those was termination)

Amazing how rules dictate behavior. Kind of like wearing of masks.
Click to expand...

I wish I had the rules my Dad had working at TVA. Their sick days just accumulated. Ours roll off at the end of the year, and we can only use them for sick days (including taking care of family), no using them for extra vacation time. I rarely take a sick day. With sick people staying at home and the ability to work from home if I don't feel well I almost never use a sick day. In 15+ years at my current employer I would have had months of sick day accrued and one BIG check when I retire.
 
DK37nuH.jpg
 
eman1200 said:
the dude IS pretty smart and has some skillz............

View attachment 91966
Click to expand...

Just because someone has an MD/PhD does not mean they are smart and does not mean they don't have a political agenda. I am not sure which case this is, but his thread title "Danish study shows no significant reduction of Covid-19 in wearers of surgical masks" is taken out of the context of the original quoted research and is spreading FALSE information.
 
Ref also Pascal's Wager
 
cowman said:
It will be interesting to see what the scientific consensus is on all of this a few years later when it’s not so political.
Click to expand...

Do we need a scientific consensus that a mask that covers the mouth and nose slows down the spread of a RESPIRATORY virus?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top