Lanman87
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2020
- Messages
- 733
- Age
- 55
- Location
- Bible Belt
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Non-Denominational
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
There is know doubt that you can find conflicting "studies". It is important to see if a report is an actual study or just someone's opinion. Also, the date of the study/report matters. A lot of studies came out early in the pandemic that have since been proven to be false or flawed.New England Journal of Medicine (emphasis mine):
"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."
Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era | NEJM
Perspective from The New England Journal of Medicine — Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Erawww.nejm.org
Also see,
The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses -- Sott.net
"There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles."
As far as the NEJM article on April 1st 2020, here is a follow up from the writers of the article
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836
Here is the text:
We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions.2,3 Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not.4
We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.8 We therefore 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.
