{"id":6742,"date":"2022-01-22T10:36:32","date_gmt":"2022-01-22T15:36:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=6742"},"modified":"2022-01-22T10:36:34","modified_gmt":"2022-01-22T15:36:34","slug":"masks-ineffectiveness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2022\/01\/22\/masks-ineffectiveness\/","title":{"rendered":"Masks Ineffectiveness"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
MASKS-INEFFECTIVENESS <\/td><\/tr>
1) Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers<\/a>, Bundgaard<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cInfection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was \u22120.3 percentage point (95% CI, \u22121.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results\u2026the 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
2) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Marine Recruits during Quarantine,<\/a> Letizia, 2020<\/td>\u201cOur study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine. Multiple, independent virus strain transmission clusters were identified\u2026all recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
3) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses<\/a>, Jefferson, 2020<\/td>\u201cThere is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza\u2010like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory\u2010confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants)\u2026the pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical\/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
4) The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh<\/a>, Abaluck, 2021
Heneghan et al.<\/a> <\/td>		A cluster-randomized trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N=600 villages, N=342,126 adults. Heneghan writes: \u201cIn a Bangladesh study<\/a>, surgical masks reduced symptomatic COVID infections by between 0 and 22 percent, while the efficacy of cloth masks led to somewhere between an 11 percent increase to a 21 percent decrease. Hence, based on these randomized studies, adult masks appear to have either no or limited efficacy.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
5) Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review<\/a>, Liu\/CATO, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent-to-treat populations. Of sixteen quantitative meta-analyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks, and the remaining eight supported a public mask intervention on limited evidence primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
6) Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings\u2014Personal Protective and Environmental Measures<\/a>, CDC\/Xiao, 2020<\/td>\u201cEvidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza\u2026none of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group\u2026the overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
7) CIDRAP: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data<\/a>, Brosseau, 2020<\/td>\u201cWe agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing\u2026though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
8) Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era<\/a>, Klompas\/NEJM, 2020<\/td>\u201cWe 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\u2026The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection\u2026universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
9) Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review<\/a>, Dugr\u00e9<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cThis systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenza-like illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenza-like illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
10) Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Saunders-Hastings<\/a>, 2017<\/td>\u201cFacemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.16\u20131.71; I2<\/sup> = 48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
11) Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumulation in the context of COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation<\/a>, Shah, 2021<\/td>\u201cNevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%), and therefore are still the recommended choice in mitigating airborne disease transmission indoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
12) Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil\u2019s sword?- A physiological hypothesis<\/a>, Chandrasekaran<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cExercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
13) Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms\u2013a costly and unnecessary ritual?,<\/a> Mitchell, 1991<\/td>\u201cFollowing the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one metre from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
14) Facemask against viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims: A challenging cluster-randomized trial<\/a>, Alfelali, 2020<\/td>\u201cBy intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.18) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4, p = 0.40).\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
15) Simple respiratory protection\u2013evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles<\/a>, Rengasamy<\/a>, 2010<\/td>\u201cResults obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
16) Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range<\/a>, Lee, 2008<\/td>\u201cThe study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection; it appears to be an appropriate alternative to reduce the breathing resistance.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
17) Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry<\/a>, Weber, 1993<\/td>\u201cWe conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous sub-micrometer-sized aerosols.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
18) Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery<\/a>, Vincent, 2016<\/td>\u201cWe included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials\u2026from the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
19) Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review<\/a>, Lipp, 2005<\/td>\u201cFrom the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
20) Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols<\/a>, Shimasaki<\/a> <\/sup>, 2018<\/td>\u201cWe conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
21) The use of masks and respirators to preventtransmission of in\ufb02uenza: a systematic review of thescienti\ufb01c evidence21) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence<\/a>, Bin-Reza<\/a>, 2012<\/td>The use of masks and respirators to preventtransmission of in\ufb02uenza: a systematic review of thescienti\ufb01c evidence\u201cNone of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask\/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
22) Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review<\/a>, Godoy, 2020<\/td>\u201cCompared with surgical masks, N95 respirators perform better in laboratory testing, may provide superior protection in inpatient settings and perform equivalently in outpatient settings. Surgical mask and N95 respirator conservation strategies include extended use, reuse or decontamination, but these strategies may result in inferior protection. Limited evidence suggests that reused and improvised masks should be used when medical-grade protection is unavailable.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
23) Assessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among the General Public in Singapore<\/a>, Yeung, 2020<\/td>\u201cThese findings support ongoing recommendations against the use of N95 masks by the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic.5<\/sup><\/a> N95 mask use by the general public may not translate into effective protection but instead provide false reassurance. Beyond N95 masks, proficiency among the general public in donning surgical masks needs to be assessed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
24) Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure<\/a>, Shakya, 2017<\/td>\u201cStandard N95 mask performance was used as a control to compare the results with cloth masks, and our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5 \u03bcm.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
25) Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial<\/a>, Jacobs, 2009<\/td>\u201cFace mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
26) N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel<\/a>, Radonovich, 2019 <\/a><\/td>\u201cAmong outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
27) Does Universal Mask Wearing Decrease or Increase the Spread of COVID-19?,<\/a> Watts up with that? 2020<\/td>\u201cA survey of peer-reviewed studies shows that universal mask wearing (as opposed to wearing masks in specific settings) does not decrease the transmission of respiratory viruses from people wearing masks to people who are not wearing masks.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
28) Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence<\/a>, Alexander, 2021<\/td>\u201cIn fact, it is not unreasonable at this time to conclude that surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
29) Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults \u226518 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities \u2014 United States, July 2020<\/a>, Fisher, 2020<\/td>Reported characteristics of symptomatic adults \u226518 years who were outpatients in 11 US academic health care facilities and who received positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (N = 314)* \u2014 United States, July 1\u201329, 2020, revealed that 80% of infected persons wore face masks almost all or most of the time<\/a>. <\/td><\/tr>
30) Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study<\/a>, Hunter, 2020<\/td>Face masks in public was not associated with reduced incidence. <\/td><\/tr>
31) Masking lack of evidence with politics<\/a>, CEBM, Heneghan, 2020<\/td>\u201cIt would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks, or benefits of medical masks.  The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base so unsurprisingly broadly reach the same conclusions.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
32) Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study<\/a>, Marks, 2021<\/td>\u201cWe observed no association of risk of transmission with reported mask usage by contacts, with the age or sex of the index case, or with the presence of respiratory symptoms in the index case at the initial study visit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
33) Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza<\/a>, WHO, 2020<\/td>\u201cTen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
34) The Strangely Unscientific Masking of America<\/a>, Younes, 2020<\/td>\u201cOne report reached its conclusion based on observations of a \u201cdummy head attached to a breathing simulator<\/a>.\u201d  Another<\/a> analyzed use of surgical masks on people experiencing at least two symptoms of acute respiratory illness. Incidentally, not one of these studies<\/a> involved cloth masks or accounted for real-world mask usage (or misusage) among lay people, and none established efficacy of widespread mask-wearing by people not exhibiting symptoms.  There was simply no evidence whatsoever that healthy people ought to wear masks when going about their lives, especially outdoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
35) Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid systematic review<\/a>, Brainard, 2020<\/td>\u201c31 eligible studies (including 12 RCTs). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention in 28 studies were performed. Based on the RCTs we would conclude that wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks. However, the RCTs often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
36) The Year of Disguises<\/a>, Koops, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe healthy people in our society should not be punished for being healthy, which is exactly what lockdowns, distancing, mask mandates, etc. do\u2026Children should not be wearing face coverings. We all need constant interaction with our environments and that is especially true for children. This is how their immune system develops. They are the lowest of the low-risk groups. Let them be kids and let them develop their immune systems\u2026 The \u201cMask Mandate\u201d idea is a truly ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction and needs to be withdrawn and thrown in the waste bin of disastrous policy, along with lockdowns and school closures. You can vote for a person without blindly supporting all of their proposals!\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
37) Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden<\/a>, Ludvigsson, 2020<\/td>\u201c1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age, were examined\u2026social distancing was encouraged in Sweden, but wearing face masks was not\u2026No child with Covid-19 died.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
38) Double-Masking Benefits Are Limited, Japan Supercomputer Finds<\/a>, Reidy, 2021<\/td>\u201cWearing two masks offers limited benefits in preventing the spread of droplets that could carry the coronavirus compared to one well-fitted disposable mask, according to a Japanese study that modeled the dispersal of droplets on a supercomputer.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
39) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 \u2013 Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Jefferson, 2020<\/td>\u201cThere 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
40) Should individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms wear facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19?,<\/a> NIPH, 2020<\/td>\u201cNon-medical facemasks include a variety of products. There is no reliable evidence of the effectiveness of non-medical facemasks in community settings. There is likely to be substantial variation in effectiveness between products. However, there is only limited evidence from laboratory studies of potential differences in effectiveness when different products are used in the community.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
41) Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?,<\/a> Orr, 1981<\/td>\u201cIt would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all but operating in silence. Whatever its relation to contamination, bacterial counts, or the dissemination of squames, there is no direct evidence that the wearing of masks reduces wound infection.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
42) The surgical mask is a bad fit for risk reduction<\/a>, Neilson, 2016<\/td>\u201cAs recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, \u201cface masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.\u201d A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
43) Facemask versus No Facemask in Preventing Viral Respiratory Infections During Hajj: A Cluster Randomised Open Label Trial<\/a>, Alfelali, 2019<\/td>\u201cFacemask use does not prevent clinical or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
44) Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis<\/a>, Vainshelboim<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
45) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence<\/a>, Bin-Reza<\/a>, 2011<\/td>\u201cNone of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask\/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
46) Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence<\/a>., Swiss Policy Research, 2021<\/td>\u201cMost studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
47) Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study<\/a>, Tunevall<\/a>, 1991<\/td>\u201cThese results indicate that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
48) Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment<\/a>, Guerra, 2021<\/td>\u201cMask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
49) Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral<\/a>, Manley, 2021<\/td>\u201cA CDC-funded review<\/a> on masking in May 2020 came to the conclusion: \u201cAlthough mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza\u2026 None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group.\u201d If masks can\u2019t stop the regular flu, how can they stop SAR-CoV-2?\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
50) A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers<\/a>, MacIntyre<\/a>, 2015<\/td>\u201cFirst 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\u2026the 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%.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
51) Horowitz: Data from India continues to blow up the \u2018Delta\u2019 fear narrative<\/a>, Blazemedia, 2021<\/td>\u201cRather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India \u2014 the source of the \u201cDelta\u201d variant \u2014 continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism\u2026Masks failed to stop the spread there.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
52) An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in a secondary care hospital in Finland, May 2021<\/a>, Hetem\u00e4ki<\/a>, 2021<\/td>Reporting on a nosocomial hospital outbreak<\/a> in Finland, Hetem\u00e4li et al. observed that \u201cboth symptomatic and asymptomatic infections were found among vaccinated health care workers, and secondary transmission occurred from those with symptomatic infections despite use of personal protective equipment.\u201d <\/td><\/tr>
53) Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021<\/a>, Shitrit, 2021<\/td>In a hospital outbreak<\/a> investigation in Israel, Shitrit et al. observed \u201chigh transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals.\u201d They added that \u201cthis suggests some waning of immunity, albeit still providing protection for individuals without comorbidities.\u201d Again, despite use of personal protective equipment.<\/td><\/tr>
54) 47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects,<\/a> Lifesite news staff, 2021<\/td>\u201cNo studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
55) Are EUA Face Masks Effective in Slowing the Spread of a Viral Infection?,<\/a> Dopp, 2021<\/td>The vast evidence shows that masks are ineffective. <\/td><\/tr>
56) CDC Study finds overwhelming majority of people getting coronavirus wore masks<\/a>, Boyd\/Federalist, 2021<\/td>\u201cA Centers for Disease Control report<\/a> released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
57) Most Mask Studies Are Garbage<\/a>, Eugyppius, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe other kind of study, the proper kind, would be a randomised controlled trial. You compare the rates of infection in a masked cohort against rates of infection in an unmasked cohort. Here things have gone much, much worse for mask brigade. They spent months trying to prevent the publication of the Danish randomised controlled trial<\/a>, which found that masks do zero. When that paper finally squeaked into print, they spent more months trying desperately to poke holes in it. You could feel their boundless relief when the Bangladesh study<\/a> finally appeared to save them in early September. Every last Twitter blue-check could now proclaim that Science Shows Masks Work. Such was their hunger for any scrap of evidence to prop up their prior convictions, that none of them noticed the sad nature of the Science in question. The study found a mere 10% reduction in seroprevalence among the masked cohort, an effect so small that it fell within the confidence interval. Even the study authors couldn\u2019t exclude the possibility that masks in fact do zero.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
58) Using face masks in the community: first update<\/a>, ECDC, 2021<\/td>\u201cNo high-quality evidence in favor of face masks and recommended their use only based on the \u2018precautionary principle<\/a>.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
59) Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?<\/a>, Cochrane, 2020<\/td>\u201cSeven studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
60) Mouth-nose protection in public: No evidence of effectiveness<\/a>, Thieme\/ Kappstein, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe use of masks in public spaces is questionable simply because of the lack of scientific data. If one also considers the necessary precautions, masks must even be considered a risk of infection in public spaces according to the rules known from hospitals\u2026 If masks are worn by the population, the risk of infection is potentially increased, regardless of whether they are medical masks or whether they are so-called community masks designed in any way. If one considers the precautionary measures that the RKI as well as the international health authorities have pronounced, all authorities would even have to inform the population that masks should not be worn in public spaces at all. Because no matter whether it is a duty for all citizens or voluntarily borne by the citizens who want it for whatever reason, it remains a fact that masks can do more harm than good in public.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
61) US mask guidance for kids is the strictest across the world<\/a>,  Skelding<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cKids need to see faces,\u201d Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, told The Post. Youngsters watch people\u2019s mouths to learn to speak, read and understand emotions, he said.\u201cWe have this idea that this disease is so bad that we must adopt any means necessary to stop it from spreading,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s not that masks in schools have no costs. They actually do have substantial costs.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
62) Masking young children in school harms language acquisition<\/a>, Walsh, 2021<\/td>\u201cThis is important because children and\/or students do not have the speech or language ability that adults have \u2014 they are not equally able and the ability to see the face and especially the mouth is critical to language acquisition which children and\/or students are engaged in at all times. Furthermore, the ability to see the mouth is not only essential to communication but also essential to brain development.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
63) The Case Against Masks for Children<\/a>, Makary, 2021<\/td>\u201cIt\u2019s abusive to force kids who struggle with them to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults\u2026 Do masks reduce Covid transmission in children? Believe it or not, we could find only a single retrospective study on the question, and its results were inconclusive. Yet two weeks ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sternly decreed that 56 million U.S. children and adolescents, vaccinated or not, should cover their faces regardless of the prevalence of infection in their community. Authorities in many places took the cue to impose mandates in schools and elsewhere, on the theory that masks can\u2019t do any harm. That isn\u2019t true. Some children are fine wearing a mask, but others struggle. Those who have myopia can have difficulty seeing because the mask fogs their glasses. (This has long been a problem for medical students in the operating room.) Masks can cause severe acne and other skin problems. The discomfort of a mask distracts some children from learning. By increasing airway resistance during exhalation, masks can lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the blood. And masks can be vectors for pathogens<\/a> if they become moist or are used for too long.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
64) Face Covering Mandates<\/a>, Peavey, 2021<\/td>\u201cFace Covering Mandates And Why They AREN\u2019T Effective.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
65) Do masks work?<\/a> A Review of the evidence<\/a>, Anderson, 2021<\/td>\u201cIn truth, the CDC\u2019s, U.K.\u2019s, and WHO\u2019s earlier guidance was much more consistent with the best medical research on masks\u2019 effectiveness in preventing the spread of viruses. That research suggests that Americans\u2019 many months of mask-wearing has likely provided little to no health benefit and might even have been counterproductive in preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
66) Most face masks won\u2019t stop COVID-19 indoors, study warns<\/a>, Anderer, 2021<\/td>\u201cNew research reveals that cloth masks filter just 10% of exhaled aerosols, with many people not wearing coverings that fit their face properly.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
67) How face masks and lockdowns failed<\/a>\/the face mask folly in retrospect, Swiss Policy Research, 2021<\/td>\u201cMask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
68) CDC Releases School COVID Transmission Study But Buries One of the Most Damning Parts<\/a>, Davis, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional\u2026 With tens of millions of American kids headed back to school in the fall, their parents and political leaders owe it to them to have a clear-sighted, scientifically rigorous discussion about which anti-COVID measures actually work and which might put an extra burden on vulnerable young people without meaningfully or demonstrably slowing the spread of the virus\u2026that a masking requirement of students failed to show independent benefit is a finding of consequence and great interest.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
69) World Health Organization internal meeting, COVID-19 \u2013 virtual press conference \u2013 30 March 2020<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cThis is a question on Austria. The Austrian Government has a desire to make everyone wear a mask who\u2019s going into the shops. I understood from our previous briefings with you that the general public should not wear masks because they are in short supply. What do you say about the new Austrian measures?\u2026 I\u2019m not specifically aware of that measure in Austria. I would assume that it\u2019s aimed at people who potentially have the disease not passing it to others. In general WHO recommends that the wearing of a mask by a member of the public is to prevent that individual giving the disease to somebody else. We don\u2019t generally recommend the wearing to masks in public by otherwise well individuals because it has not been up to now associated with any particular benefit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
70) Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review<\/a>, Cowling, 2010<\/td>\u201cReview highlights the limited evidence base supporting the efficacy or effectiveness of face masks to reduce influenza virus transmission.\u201d\u201cNone of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households<\/a> (H).\u201d <\/td><\/tr>
71) Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,<\/a> Smith, 2016<\/td>\u201cAlthough N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
72) Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis<\/a>, Offeddu, 2017<\/td>\u201cWe found evidence to support universal medical mask use in hospital settings as part of infection control measures to reduce the risk of CRI and ILI among HCWs. Overall, N95 respirators may convey greater protection, but universal use throughout a work shift is likely to be less acceptable due to greater discomfort\u2026Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended. The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization\u2026We found no clear benefit of either medical masks or N95 respirators against pH1N1\u2026Overall, the evidence to inform policies on mask use in HCWs is poor, with a small number of studies that is prone to reporting biases and lack of statistical power.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
73) N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel<\/a>, Radonovich, 2019<\/td>\u201cUse of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks, in the outpatient setting resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks againstinfluenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis74) Masks Don\u2019t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy<\/a>, Rancourt, 2020<\/td>The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with alower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be rec-ommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact withinfluenza patients or suspected patients. \u201cNo RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below). Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
75) More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!,<\/a> Firstenberg, 2020<\/td>\u201cMandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
76) Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of surgical facemasks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgery<\/a>?, Bahli, 2009<\/td>\u201cFrom the limited randomized trials it is still not clear that whether wearing surgical face masks harms or benefit the patients undergoing elective surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
77) Peritonitis prevention in CAPD: to mask or not?,<\/a> Figueiredo<\/a>, 2000<\/td>\u201cThe current study suggests that routine use of face masks during CAPD bag exchanges may be unnecessary and could be discontinued.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
78) The operating room environment as affected by people and the surgical face mask<\/a>, Ritter, 1975<\/td>\u201cThe wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination and probably work only to redirect the projectile effect of talking and breathing. People are the major source of environmental contamination in the operating room.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
79) The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using \u201ctracer particles<\/a>, Ha\u2019eri<\/a>, 1980<\/td>\u201cParticle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
80) Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterization<\/a>, Laslett, 1989<\/td>\u201cProspectively evaluated the experience of 504 patients undergoing percutaneous left heart catheterization, seeking evidence of a relationship between whether caps and\/or masks were worn by the operators and the incidence of infection. No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used. Thus, we found no evidence that caps or masks need to be worn during percutaneous cardiac catheterization.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
81) Do anaesthetists need to wear surgical masks in the operating theatre? A literature review with evidence-based recommendations<\/a>, Skinner, 2001<\/td>\u201cA questionnaire-based survey, undertaken by Leyland\u2019 in 1993 to assess attitudes to the use of masks, showed that 20% of surgeons discarded surgical masks for endoscopic work. Less than 50% did not wear the mask as recommended by the Medical Research Council. Equal numbers of surgeons wore the mask in the belief they were protecting themselves and the patient, with 20% of these admitting that tradition was the only reason for wearing them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
82) Mask mandates for children are not backed by data,<\/a> Faria, 2021<\/td>\u201cEven if you want to use the 2018-19 flu season to avoid overlap with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC paints a similar picture: It estimated <\/a>480 flu deaths among children during that period, with 46,000 hospitalizations. COVID-19, mercifully, is simply not as deadly for children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, preliminary data from 45 states show <\/a>that between 0.00%-0.03% of child COVID-19 cases resulted in death. When you combine these numbers with the CDC study <\/a>that found mask mandates for students \u2014 along with hybrid models, social distancing, and classroom barriers \u2014 did not have a statistically significant benefit in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in schools, the insistence that we force students to jump through these hoops for their own protection makes no sense.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
83) The Downsides of Masking Young Students Are Real,<\/a> Prasad, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe benefits of mask requirements in schools might seem self-evident\u2014they have to help contain the coronavirus, right?\u2014but that may not be so. In Spain, masks are used in kids ages 6 and older. The authors of one study there examined the risk of viral spread at all ages. If masks provided a large benefit, then the transmission rate among 5-year-olds would be far higher than the rate among 6-year-olds. The results don\u2019t show that<\/a>. Instead, they show that transmission rates, which were low among the youngest kids, steadily increased with age\u2014rather than dropping sharply for older children subject to the face-covering requirement. This suggests that masking kids in school does not provide a major benefit and might provide none at all. And yet many officials prefer to double down on masking mandates, as if the fundamental policy were sound and only the people have failed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
84) Masks In Schools: Scientific American Fumbles Report On Childhood COVID Transmission<\/a>, English\/ACSH, 2021<\/td>\u201cMasking is a low-risk, inexpensive intervention. If we want to recommend it as a precautionary measure, especially in situations where vaccination isn\u2019t an option, great. But that\u2019s not what the public has been told. \u201cFlorida governor Ron DeSantis and politicians in Texas say research does not support mask mandates,\u201d SciAm\u2019s sub-headline bellowed. \u201cMany studies show they are wrong.\u201dIf that\u2019s the case, demonstrate that the intervention works before you mandate its use in schools. If you can\u2019t, acknowledged what UC San Francisco hematologist-oncologist and Associate Professor of Epidemiology Vinay Prasad wrote over at the Atlantic<\/a>:\u201dNo scientific consensus exists about the wisdom of mandatory-masking rules for schoolchildren \u2026 In mid-March 2020, few could argue against erring on the side of caution. But nearly 18 months later, we owe it to children and their parents to answer the question properly: Do the benefits of masking kids in school outweigh the downsides? The honest answer in 2021 remains that we don\u2019t know for sure.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
85) Masks \u2018don\u2019t work,\u2019 are damaging health and are being used to control population: Doctors panel<\/a>, Haynes, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe only randomized control studies that have ever been done on masks show that they don\u2019t work,\u201d began Dr. Nepute. He referred to Dr. Anthony Fauci\u2019s \u201cnoble lie,\u201d in which Fauci \u201cchanged his tune,\u201d from his March 2020 comments<\/a>, where he downplayed the need and efficacy of mask wearing, before urging Americans to use masks later in the year. \u201cWell, he lied to us. So if he lied about that, what else has he lied to you about?\u201d questioned Nepute.Masks have become commonplace in almost every setting, whether indoors or outdoors, but Dr. Popper mentioned how there have been \u201cno studies\u201d which actually examine the \u201ceffect of wearing a mask during all your waking hours.\u201d\u201cThere\u2019s no science to back any of this and particularly no science to back the fact that wearing a mask twenty four-seven or every waking minute, is health promoting,\u201d added Popper.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
86) Aerosol penetration through surgical masks<\/a>, Chen, 1992<\/td>\u201cThe mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the sub-micrometer-sized aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
87) CDC: Schools With Mask Mandates Didn\u2019t See Statistically Significant Different Rates of COVID Transmission From Schools With Optional Policies<\/a>, Miltimore, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe CDC did not include its finding that \u201crequired mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional\u201d in the summary of its report.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
88) Horowitz: Data from India continues to blow up the \u2018Delta\u2019 fear narrative<\/a>, Howorwitz, 2021<\/td>\u201cRather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India \u2014 the source of the \u201cDelta\u201d variant \u2014 continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism\u2026Unless we do that, we must return to the very effective lockdowns and masks. In reality, India\u2019s experience proves the opposite true; namely:1) Delta is largely an attenuated version, with a much lower fatality rate, that for most people is akin to a cold.2) Masks failed to stop the spread there.3) The country has come close to the herd immunity threshold with just 3% vaccinated.<\/td><\/tr>
89) Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam<\/a>, Chau, 2021<\/td>While not definitive in the LANCET publication, it can be inferred that the nurses were all masked up and had PPE etc. as was the case in Finland and Israel nosocomial outbreaks, indicating the failure of PPE and masks to constrain Delta spread. <\/td><\/tr>
90) Aerosol penetration through surgical masks<\/a>, Willeke, 1992<\/td>\u201cThe mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
91) The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using \u201ctracer particles\u201d<\/a>, Wiley, 1980<\/td>\u201cParticle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all aexperiments. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound. The wearing of the mask beneath the headgear curtails this route of contamination.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
92) An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful<\/a>, Meehan, 2020<\/td>\u201cDecades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2\u2026those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence, arguments, and risks of mask mandates.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
93) Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media<\/a>, AIER, 2020<\/td>\u201cOral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
94) Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Long, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
95) Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19<\/a>, WHO, 2020<\/td>\u201cHowever, the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
96) Farce mask: it\u2019s safe for only 20 minutes<\/a>, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2003<\/td>\u201cHealth authorities have warned that surgical masks may not be an effective protection against the virus.\u201dThose masks are only effective so long as they are dry,\u201d said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.\u201dAs soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets.\u201dProfessor Cossart said that could take as little as 15 or 20 minutes, after which the mask would need to be changed. But those warnings haven\u2019t stopped people snapping up the masks, with retailers reporting they are having trouble keeping up with demand.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
97) Study: Wearing A Used Mask Is Potentially Riskier Than No Mask At All<\/a>, Boyd, 2020

Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway<\/a><\/td>		\u201cAccording to researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University, a three-layer surgical mask is 65 percent efficient in filtering particles in the air. That effectiveness, however, falls to 25 percent once it is used.\u201cIt is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,\u201d said<\/a> author Jinxiang Xi.\u201cOur results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers,\u201d he continued.\u201d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
MASKS-INEFFECTIVENESS <\/td><\/tr>
1) Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers<\/a>, Bundgaard<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cInfection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was \u22120.3 percentage point (95% CI, \u22121.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results\u2026the 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
2) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Marine Recruits during Quarantine,<\/a> Letizia, 2020<\/td>\u201cOur study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine. Multiple, independent virus strain transmission clusters were identified\u2026all recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
3) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses<\/a>, Jefferson, 2020<\/td>\u201cThere is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza\u2010like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory\u2010confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants)\u2026the pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical\/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
4) The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh<\/a>, Abaluck, 2021
Heneghan et al.<\/a> <\/td>		A cluster-randomized trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N=600 villages, N=342,126 adults. Heneghan writes: \u201cIn a Bangladesh study<\/a>, surgical masks reduced symptomatic COVID infections by between 0 and 22 percent, while the efficacy of cloth masks led to somewhere between an 11 percent increase to a 21 percent decrease. Hence, based on these randomized studies, adult masks appear to have either no or limited efficacy.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
5) Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review<\/a>, Liu\/CATO, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent-to-treat populations. Of sixteen quantitative meta-analyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks, and the remaining eight supported a public mask intervention on limited evidence primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
6) Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings\u2014Personal Protective and Environmental Measures<\/a>, CDC\/Xiao, 2020<\/td>\u201cEvidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza\u2026none of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group\u2026the overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
7) CIDRAP: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data<\/a>, Brosseau, 2020<\/td>\u201cWe agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing\u2026though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
8) Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era<\/a>, Klompas\/NEJM, 2020<\/td>\u201cWe 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\u2026The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection\u2026universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
9) Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review<\/a>, Dugr\u00e9<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cThis systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenza-like illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenza-like illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
10) Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Saunders-Hastings<\/a>, 2017<\/td>\u201cFacemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.16\u20131.71; I2<\/sup> = 48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
11) Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumulation in the context of COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation<\/a>, Shah, 2021<\/td>\u201cNevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%), and therefore are still the recommended choice in mitigating airborne disease transmission indoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
12) Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil\u2019s sword?- A physiological hypothesis<\/a>, Chandrasekaran<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cExercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
13) Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms\u2013a costly and unnecessary ritual?,<\/a> Mitchell, 1991<\/td>\u201cFollowing the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one metre from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
14) Facemask against viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims: A challenging cluster-randomized trial<\/a>, Alfelali, 2020<\/td>\u201cBy intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.18) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4, p = 0.40).\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
15) Simple respiratory protection\u2013evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles<\/a>, Rengasamy<\/a>, 2010<\/td>\u201cResults obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
16) Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range<\/a>, Lee, 2008<\/td>\u201cThe study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection; it appears to be an appropriate alternative to reduce the breathing resistance.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
17) Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry<\/a>, Weber, 1993<\/td>\u201cWe conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous sub-micrometer-sized aerosols.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
18) Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery<\/a>, Vincent, 2016<\/td>\u201cWe included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials\u2026from the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
19) Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review<\/a>, Lipp, 2005<\/td>\u201cFrom the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
20) Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols<\/a>, Shimasaki<\/a> <\/sup>, 2018<\/td>\u201cWe conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
21) The use of masks and respirators to preventtransmission of in\ufb02uenza: a systematic review of thescienti\ufb01c evidence21) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence<\/a>, Bin-Reza<\/a>, 2012<\/td>The use of masks and respirators to preventtransmission of in\ufb02uenza: a systematic review of thescienti\ufb01c evidence\u201cNone of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask\/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
22) Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review<\/a>, Godoy, 2020<\/td>\u201cCompared with surgical masks, N95 respirators perform better in laboratory testing, may provide superior protection in inpatient settings and perform equivalently in outpatient settings. Surgical mask and N95 respirator conservation strategies include extended use, reuse or decontamination, but these strategies may result in inferior protection. Limited evidence suggests that reused and improvised masks should be used when medical-grade protection is unavailable.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
23) Assessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among the General Public in Singapore<\/a>, Yeung, 2020<\/td>\u201cThese findings support ongoing recommendations against the use of N95 masks by the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic.5<\/sup><\/a> N95 mask use by the general public may not translate into effective protection but instead provide false reassurance. Beyond N95 masks, proficiency among the general public in donning surgical masks needs to be assessed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
24) Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure<\/a>, Shakya, 2017<\/td>\u201cStandard N95 mask performance was used as a control to compare the results with cloth masks, and our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5 \u03bcm.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
25) Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial<\/a>, Jacobs, 2009<\/td>\u201cFace mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
26) N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel<\/a>, Radonovich, 2019 <\/a><\/td>\u201cAmong outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
27) Does Universal Mask Wearing Decrease or Increase the Spread of COVID-19?,<\/a> Watts up with that? 2020<\/td>\u201cA survey of peer-reviewed studies shows that universal mask wearing (as opposed to wearing masks in specific settings) does not decrease the transmission of respiratory viruses from people wearing masks to people who are not wearing masks.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
28) Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence<\/a>, Alexander, 2021<\/td>\u201cIn fact, it is not unreasonable at this time to conclude that surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
29) Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults \u226518 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities \u2014 United States, July 2020<\/a>, Fisher, 2020<\/td>Reported characteristics of symptomatic adults \u226518 years who were outpatients in 11 US academic health care facilities and who received positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (N = 314)* \u2014 United States, July 1\u201329, 2020, revealed that 80% of infected persons wore face masks almost all or most of the time<\/a>. <\/td><\/tr>
30) Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study<\/a>, Hunter, 2020<\/td>Face masks in public was not associated with reduced incidence. <\/td><\/tr>
31) Masking lack of evidence with politics<\/a>, CEBM, Heneghan, 2020<\/td>\u201cIt would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks, or benefits of medical masks.  The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base so unsurprisingly broadly reach the same conclusions.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
32) Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study<\/a>, Marks, 2021<\/td>\u201cWe observed no association of risk of transmission with reported mask usage by contacts, with the age or sex of the index case, or with the presence of respiratory symptoms in the index case at the initial study visit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
33) Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza<\/a>, WHO, 2020<\/td>\u201cTen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
34) The Strangely Unscientific Masking of America<\/a>, Younes, 2020<\/td>\u201cOne report reached its conclusion based on observations of a \u201cdummy head attached to a breathing simulator<\/a>.\u201d  Another<\/a> analyzed use of surgical masks on people experiencing at least two symptoms of acute respiratory illness. Incidentally, not one of these studies<\/a> involved cloth masks or accounted for real-world mask usage (or misusage) among lay people, and none established efficacy of widespread mask-wearing by people not exhibiting symptoms.  There was simply no evidence whatsoever that healthy people ought to wear masks when going about their lives, especially outdoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
35) Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid systematic review<\/a>, Brainard, 2020<\/td>\u201c31 eligible studies (including 12 RCTs). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention in 28 studies were performed. Based on the RCTs we would conclude that wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks. However, the RCTs often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
36) The Year of Disguises<\/a>, Koops, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe healthy people in our society should not be punished for being healthy, which is exactly what lockdowns, distancing, mask mandates, etc. do\u2026Children should not be wearing face coverings. We all need constant interaction with our environments and that is especially true for children. This is how their immune system develops. They are the lowest of the low-risk groups. Let them be kids and let them develop their immune systems\u2026 The \u201cMask Mandate\u201d idea is a truly ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction and needs to be withdrawn and thrown in the waste bin of disastrous policy, along with lockdowns and school closures. You can vote for a person without blindly supporting all of their proposals!\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
37) Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden<\/a>, Ludvigsson, 2020<\/td>\u201c1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age, were examined\u2026social distancing was encouraged in Sweden, but wearing face masks was not\u2026No child with Covid-19 died.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
38) Double-Masking Benefits Are Limited, Japan Supercomputer Finds<\/a>, Reidy, 2021<\/td>\u201cWearing two masks offers limited benefits in preventing the spread of droplets that could carry the coronavirus compared to one well-fitted disposable mask, according to a Japanese study that modeled the dispersal of droplets on a supercomputer.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
39) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 \u2013 Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Jefferson, 2020<\/td>\u201cThere 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
40) Should individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms wear facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19?,<\/a> NIPH, 2020<\/td>\u201cNon-medical facemasks include a variety of products. There is no reliable evidence of the effectiveness of non-medical facemasks in community settings. There is likely to be substantial variation in effectiveness between products. However, there is only limited evidence from laboratory studies of potential differences in effectiveness when different products are used in the community.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
41) Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?,<\/a> Orr, 1981<\/td>\u201cIt would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all but operating in silence. Whatever its relation to contamination, bacterial counts, or the dissemination of squames, there is no direct evidence that the wearing of masks reduces wound infection.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
42) The surgical mask is a bad fit for risk reduction<\/a>, Neilson, 2016<\/td>\u201cAs recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, \u201cface masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.\u201d A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
43) Facemask versus No Facemask in Preventing Viral Respiratory Infections During Hajj: A Cluster Randomised Open Label Trial<\/a>, Alfelali, 2019<\/td>\u201cFacemask use does not prevent clinical or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
44) Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis<\/a>, Vainshelboim<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
45) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence<\/a>, Bin-Reza<\/a>, 2011<\/td>\u201cNone of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask\/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
46) Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence<\/a>., Swiss Policy Research, 2021<\/td>\u201cMost studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
47) Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study<\/a>, Tunevall<\/a>, 1991<\/td>\u201cThese results indicate that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
48) Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment<\/a>, Guerra, 2021<\/td>\u201cMask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
49) Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral<\/a>, Manley, 2021<\/td>\u201cA CDC-funded review<\/a> on masking in May 2020 came to the conclusion: \u201cAlthough mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza\u2026 None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group.\u201d If masks can\u2019t stop the regular flu, how can they stop SAR-CoV-2?\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
50) A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers<\/a>, MacIntyre<\/a>, 2015<\/td>\u201cFirst 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\u2026the 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%.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
51) Horowitz: Data from India continues to blow up the \u2018Delta\u2019 fear narrative<\/a>, Blazemedia, 2021<\/td>\u201cRather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India \u2014 the source of the \u201cDelta\u201d variant \u2014 continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism\u2026Masks failed to stop the spread there.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
52) An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in a secondary care hospital in Finland, May 2021<\/a>, Hetem\u00e4ki<\/a>, 2021<\/td>Reporting on a nosocomial hospital outbreak<\/a> in Finland, Hetem\u00e4li et al. observed that \u201cboth symptomatic and asymptomatic infections were found among vaccinated health care workers, and secondary transmission occurred from those with symptomatic infections despite use of personal protective equipment.\u201d <\/td><\/tr>
53) Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021<\/a>, Shitrit, 2021<\/td>In a hospital outbreak<\/a> investigation in Israel, Shitrit et al. observed \u201chigh transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals.\u201d They added that \u201cthis suggests some waning of immunity, albeit still providing protection for individuals without comorbidities.\u201d Again, despite use of personal protective equipment.<\/td><\/tr>
54) 47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects,<\/a> Lifesite news staff, 2021<\/td>\u201cNo studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
55) Are EUA Face Masks Effective in Slowing the Spread of a Viral Infection?,<\/a> Dopp, 2021<\/td>The vast evidence shows that masks are ineffective. <\/td><\/tr>
56) CDC Study finds overwhelming majority of people getting coronavirus wore masks<\/a>, Boyd\/Federalist, 2021<\/td>\u201cA Centers for Disease Control report<\/a> released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
57) Most Mask Studies Are Garbage<\/a>, Eugyppius, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe other kind of study, the proper kind, would be a randomised controlled trial. You compare the rates of infection in a masked cohort against rates of infection in an unmasked cohort. Here things have gone much, much worse for mask brigade. They spent months trying to prevent the publication of the Danish randomised controlled trial<\/a>, which found that masks do zero. When that paper finally squeaked into print, they spent more months trying desperately to poke holes in it. You could feel their boundless relief when the Bangladesh study<\/a> finally appeared to save them in early September. Every last Twitter blue-check could now proclaim that Science Shows Masks Work. Such was their hunger for any scrap of evidence to prop up their prior convictions, that none of them noticed the sad nature of the Science in question. The study found a mere 10% reduction in seroprevalence among the masked cohort, an effect so small that it fell within the confidence interval. Even the study authors couldn\u2019t exclude the possibility that masks in fact do zero.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
58) Using face masks in the community: first update<\/a>, ECDC, 2021<\/td>\u201cNo high-quality evidence in favor of face masks and recommended their use only based on the \u2018precautionary principle<\/a>.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
59) Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?<\/a>, Cochrane, 2020<\/td>\u201cSeven studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
60) Mouth-nose protection in public: No evidence of effectiveness<\/a>, Thieme\/ Kappstein, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe use of masks in public spaces is questionable simply because of the lack of scientific data. If one also considers the necessary precautions, masks must even be considered a risk of infection in public spaces according to the rules known from hospitals\u2026 If masks are worn by the population, the risk of infection is potentially increased, regardless of whether they are medical masks or whether they are so-called community masks designed in any way. If one considers the precautionary measures that the RKI as well as the international health authorities have pronounced, all authorities would even have to inform the population that masks should not be worn in public spaces at all. Because no matter whether it is a duty for all citizens or voluntarily borne by the citizens who want it for whatever reason, it remains a fact that masks can do more harm than good in public.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
61) US mask guidance for kids is the strictest across the world<\/a>,  Skelding<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cKids need to see faces,\u201d Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, told The Post. Youngsters watch people\u2019s mouths to learn to speak, read and understand emotions, he said.\u201cWe have this idea that this disease is so bad that we must adopt any means necessary to stop it from spreading,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s not that masks in schools have no costs. They actually do have substantial costs.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
62) Masking young children in school harms language acquisition<\/a>, Walsh, 2021<\/td>\u201cThis is important because children and\/or students do not have the speech or language ability that adults have \u2014 they are not equally able and the ability to see the face and especially the mouth is critical to language acquisition which children and\/or students are engaged in at all times. Furthermore, the ability to see the mouth is not only essential to communication but also essential to brain development.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
63) The Case Against Masks for Children<\/a>, Makary, 2021<\/td>\u201cIt\u2019s abusive to force kids who struggle with them to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults\u2026 Do masks reduce Covid transmission in children? Believe it or not, we could find only a single retrospective study on the question, and its results were inconclusive. Yet two weeks ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sternly decreed that 56 million U.S. children and adolescents, vaccinated or not, should cover their faces regardless of the prevalence of infection in their community. Authorities in many places took the cue to impose mandates in schools and elsewhere, on the theory that masks can\u2019t do any harm. That isn\u2019t true. Some children are fine wearing a mask, but others struggle. Those who have myopia can have difficulty seeing because the mask fogs their glasses. (This has long been a problem for medical students in the operating room.) Masks can cause severe acne and other skin problems. The discomfort of a mask distracts some children from learning. By increasing airway resistance during exhalation, masks can lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the blood. And masks can be vectors for pathogens<\/a> if they become moist or are used for too long.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
64) Face Covering Mandates<\/a>, Peavey, 2021<\/td>\u201cFace Covering Mandates And Why They AREN\u2019T Effective.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
65) Do masks work?<\/a> A Review of the evidence<\/a>, Anderson, 2021<\/td>\u201cIn truth, the CDC\u2019s, U.K.\u2019s, and WHO\u2019s earlier guidance was much more consistent with the best medical research on masks\u2019 effectiveness in preventing the spread of viruses. That research suggests that Americans\u2019 many months of mask-wearing has likely provided little to no health benefit and might even have been counterproductive in preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
66) Most face masks won\u2019t stop COVID-19 indoors, study warns<\/a>, Anderer, 2021<\/td>\u201cNew research reveals that cloth masks filter just 10% of exhaled aerosols, with many people not wearing coverings that fit their face properly.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
67) How face masks and lockdowns failed<\/a>\/the face mask folly in retrospect, Swiss Policy Research, 2021<\/td>\u201cMask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
68) CDC Releases School COVID Transmission Study But Buries One of the Most Damning Parts<\/a>, Davis, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional\u2026 With tens of millions of American kids headed back to school in the fall, their parents and political leaders owe it to them to have a clear-sighted, scientifically rigorous discussion about which anti-COVID measures actually work and which might put an extra burden on vulnerable young people without meaningfully or demonstrably slowing the spread of the virus\u2026that a masking requirement of students failed to show independent benefit is a finding of consequence and great interest.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
69) World Health Organization internal meeting, COVID-19 \u2013 virtual press conference \u2013 30 March 2020<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cThis is a question on Austria. The Austrian Government has a desire to make everyone wear a mask who\u2019s going into the shops. I understood from our previous briefings with you that the general public should not wear masks because they are in short supply. What do you say about the new Austrian measures?\u2026 I\u2019m not specifically aware of that measure in Austria. I would assume that it\u2019s aimed at people who potentially have the disease not passing it to others. In general WHO recommends that the wearing of a mask by a member of the public is to prevent that individual giving the disease to somebody else. We don\u2019t generally recommend the wearing to masks in public by otherwise well individuals because it has not been up to now associated with any particular benefit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
70) Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review<\/a>, Cowling, 2010<\/td>\u201cReview highlights the limited evidence base supporting the efficacy or effectiveness of face masks to reduce influenza virus transmission.\u201d\u201cNone of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households<\/a> (H).\u201d <\/td><\/tr>
71) Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,<\/a> Smith, 2016<\/td>\u201cAlthough N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
72) Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis<\/a>, Offeddu, 2017<\/td>\u201cWe found evidence to support universal medical mask use in hospital settings as part of infection control measures to reduce the risk of CRI and ILI among HCWs. Overall, N95 respirators may convey greater protection, but universal use throughout a work shift is likely to be less acceptable due to greater discomfort\u2026Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended. The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization\u2026We found no clear benefit of either medical masks or N95 respirators against pH1N1\u2026Overall, the evidence to inform policies on mask use in HCWs is poor, with a small number of studies that is prone to reporting biases and lack of statistical power.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
73) N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel<\/a>, Radonovich, 2019<\/td>\u201cUse of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks, in the outpatient setting resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks againstinfluenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis74) Masks Don\u2019t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy<\/a>, Rancourt, 2020<\/td>The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with alower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be rec-ommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact withinfluenza patients or suspected patients. \u201cNo RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below). Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
75) More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!,<\/a> Firstenberg, 2020<\/td>\u201cMandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
76) Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of surgical facemasks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgery<\/a>?, Bahli, 2009<\/td>\u201cFrom the limited randomized trials it is still not clear that whether wearing surgical face masks harms or benefit the patients undergoing elective surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
77) Peritonitis prevention in CAPD: to mask or not?,<\/a> Figueiredo<\/a>, 2000<\/td>\u201cThe current study suggests that routine use of face masks during CAPD bag exchanges may be unnecessary and could be discontinued.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
78) The operating room environment as affected by people and the surgical face mask<\/a>, Ritter, 1975<\/td>\u201cThe wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination and probably work only to redirect the projectile effect of talking and breathing. People are the major source of environmental contamination in the operating room.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
79) The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using \u201ctracer particles<\/a>, Ha\u2019eri<\/a>, 1980<\/td>\u201cParticle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
80) Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterization<\/a>, Laslett, 1989<\/td>\u201cProspectively evaluated the experience of 504 patients undergoing percutaneous left heart catheterization, seeking evidence of a relationship between whether caps and\/or masks were worn by the operators and the incidence of infection. No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used. Thus, we found no evidence that caps or masks need to be worn during percutaneous cardiac catheterization.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
81) Do anaesthetists need to wear surgical masks in the operating theatre? A literature review with evidence-based recommendations<\/a>, Skinner, 2001<\/td>\u201cA questionnaire-based survey, undertaken by Leyland\u2019 in 1993 to assess attitudes to the use of masks, showed that 20% of surgeons discarded surgical masks for endoscopic work. Less than 50% did not wear the mask as recommended by the Medical Research Council. Equal numbers of surgeons wore the mask in the belief they were protecting themselves and the patient, with 20% of these admitting that tradition was the only reason for wearing them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
82) Mask mandates for children are not backed by data,<\/a> Faria, 2021<\/td>\u201cEven if you want to use the 2018-19 flu season to avoid overlap with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC paints a similar picture: It estimated <\/a>480 flu deaths among children during that period, with 46,000 hospitalizations. COVID-19, mercifully, is simply not as deadly for children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, preliminary data from 45 states show <\/a>that between 0.00%-0.03% of child COVID-19 cases resulted in death. When you combine these numbers with the CDC study <\/a>that found mask mandates for students \u2014 along with hybrid models, social distancing, and classroom barriers \u2014 did not have a statistically significant benefit in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in schools, the insistence that we force students to jump through these hoops for their own protection makes no sense.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
83) The Downsides of Masking Young Students Are Real,<\/a> Prasad, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe benefits of mask requirements in schools might seem self-evident\u2014they have to help contain the coronavirus, right?\u2014but that may not be so. In Spain, masks are used in kids ages 6 and older. The authors of one study there examined the risk of viral spread at all ages. If masks provided a large benefit, then the transmission rate among 5-year-olds would be far higher than the rate among 6-year-olds. The results don\u2019t show that<\/a>. Instead, they show that transmission rates, which were low among the youngest kids, steadily increased with age\u2014rather than dropping sharply for older children subject to the face-covering requirement. This suggests that masking kids in school does not provide a major benefit and might provide none at all. And yet many officials prefer to double down on masking mandates, as if the fundamental policy were sound and only the people have failed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
84) Masks In Schools: Scientific American Fumbles Report On Childhood COVID Transmission<\/a>, English\/ACSH, 2021<\/td>\u201cMasking is a low-risk, inexpensive intervention. If we want to recommend it as a precautionary measure, especially in situations where vaccination isn\u2019t an option, great. But that\u2019s not what the public has been told. \u201cFlorida governor Ron DeSantis and politicians in Texas say research does not support mask mandates,\u201d SciAm\u2019s sub-headline bellowed. \u201cMany studies show they are wrong.\u201dIf that\u2019s the case, demonstrate that the intervention works before you mandate its use in schools. If you can\u2019t, acknowledged what UC San Francisco hematologist-oncologist and Associate Professor of Epidemiology Vinay Prasad wrote over at the Atlantic<\/a>:\u201dNo scientific consensus exists about the wisdom of mandatory-masking rules for schoolchildren \u2026 In mid-March 2020, few could argue against erring on the side of caution. But nearly 18 months later, we owe it to children and their parents to answer the question properly: Do the benefits of masking kids in school outweigh the downsides? The honest answer in 2021 remains that we don\u2019t know for sure.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
85) Masks \u2018don\u2019t work,\u2019 are damaging health and are being used to control population: Doctors panel<\/a>, Haynes, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe only randomized control studies that have ever been done on masks show that they don\u2019t work,\u201d began Dr. Nepute. He referred to Dr. Anthony Fauci\u2019s \u201cnoble lie,\u201d in which Fauci \u201cchanged his tune,\u201d from his March 2020 comments<\/a>, where he downplayed the need and efficacy of mask wearing, before urging Americans to use masks later in the year. \u201cWell, he lied to us. So if he lied about that, what else has he lied to you about?\u201d questioned Nepute.Masks have become commonplace in almost every setting, whether indoors or outdoors, but Dr. Popper mentioned how there have been \u201cno studies\u201d which actually examine the \u201ceffect of wearing a mask during all your waking hours.\u201d\u201cThere\u2019s no science to back any of this and particularly no science to back the fact that wearing a mask twenty four-seven or every waking minute, is health promoting,\u201d added Popper.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
86) Aerosol penetration through surgical masks<\/a>, Chen, 1992<\/td>\u201cThe mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the sub-micrometer-sized aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
87) CDC: Schools With Mask Mandates Didn\u2019t See Statistically Significant Different Rates of COVID Transmission From Schools With Optional Policies<\/a>, Miltimore, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe CDC did not include its finding that \u201crequired mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional\u201d in the summary of its report.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
88) Horowitz: Data from India continues to blow up the \u2018Delta\u2019 fear narrative<\/a>, Howorwitz, 2021<\/td>\u201cRather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India \u2014 the source of the \u201cDelta\u201d variant \u2014 continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism\u2026Unless we do that, we must return to the very effective lockdowns and masks. In reality, India\u2019s experience proves the opposite true; namely:1) Delta is largely an attenuated version, with a much lower fatality rate, that for most people is akin to a cold.2) Masks failed to stop the spread there.3) The country has come close to the herd immunity threshold with just 3% vaccinated.<\/td><\/tr>
89) Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam<\/a>, Chau, 2021<\/td>While not definitive in the LANCET publication, it can be inferred that the nurses were all masked up and had PPE etc. as was the case in Finland and Israel nosocomial outbreaks, indicating the failure of PPE and masks to constrain Delta spread. <\/td><\/tr>
90) Aerosol penetration through surgical masks<\/a>, Willeke, 1992<\/td>\u201cThe mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
91) The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using \u201ctracer particles\u201d<\/a>, Wiley, 1980<\/td>\u201cParticle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all aexperiments. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound. The wearing of the mask beneath the headgear curtails this route of contamination.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
92) An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful<\/a>, Meehan, 2020<\/td>\u201cDecades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2\u2026those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence, arguments, and risks of mask mandates.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
93) Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media<\/a>, AIER, 2020<\/td>\u201cOral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
94) Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Long, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
95) Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19<\/a>, WHO, 2020<\/td>\u201cHowever, the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
96) Farce mask: it\u2019s safe for only 20 minutes<\/a>, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2003<\/td>\u201cHealth authorities have warned that surgical masks may not be an effective protection against the virus.\u201dThose masks are only effective so long as they are dry,\u201d said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.\u201dAs soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets.\u201dProfessor Cossart said that could take as little as 15 or 20 minutes, after which the mask would need to be changed. But those warnings haven\u2019t stopped people snapping up the masks, with retailers reporting they are having trouble keeping up with demand.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
97) Study: Wearing A Used Mask Is Potentially Riskier Than No Mask At All<\/a>, Boyd, 2020

Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway<\/a><\/td>		\u201cAccording to researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University, a three-layer surgical mask is 65 percent efficient in filtering particles in the air. That effectiveness, however, falls to 25 percent once it is used.\u201cIt is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,\u201d said<\/a> author Jinxiang Xi.\u201cOur results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers,\u201d he continued.\u201d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
MASKS-INEFFECTIVENESS <\/td><\/tr>
1) Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers<\/a>, Bundgaard<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cInfection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was \u22120.3 percentage point (95% CI, \u22121.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results\u2026the 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
2) SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Marine Recruits during Quarantine,<\/a> Letizia, 2020<\/td>\u201cOur study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine. Multiple, independent virus strain transmission clusters were identified\u2026all recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
3) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses<\/a>, Jefferson, 2020<\/td>\u201cThere is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza\u2010like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory\u2010confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants)\u2026the pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical\/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
4) The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh<\/a>, Abaluck, 2021
Heneghan et al.<\/a> <\/td>		A cluster-randomized trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021 (N=600 villages, N=342,126 adults. Heneghan writes: \u201cIn a Bangladesh study<\/a>, surgical masks reduced symptomatic COVID infections by between 0 and 22 percent, while the efficacy of cloth masks led to somewhere between an 11 percent increase to a 21 percent decrease. Hence, based on these randomized studies, adult masks appear to have either no or limited efficacy.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
5) Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review<\/a>, Liu\/CATO, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent-to-treat populations. Of sixteen quantitative meta-analyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks, and the remaining eight supported a public mask intervention on limited evidence primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
6) Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings\u2014Personal Protective and Environmental Measures<\/a>, CDC\/Xiao, 2020<\/td>\u201cEvidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza\u2026none of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group\u2026the overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
7) CIDRAP: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data<\/a>, Brosseau, 2020<\/td>\u201cWe agree that the data supporting the effectiveness of a cloth mask or face covering are very limited. We do, however, have data from laboratory studies that indicate cloth masks or face coverings offer very low filter collection efficiency for the smaller inhalable particles we believe are largely responsible for transmission, particularly from pre- or asymptomatic individuals who are not coughing or sneezing\u2026though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
8) Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era<\/a>, Klompas\/NEJM, 2020<\/td>\u201cWe 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\u2026The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection\u2026universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
9) Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review<\/a>, Dugr\u00e9<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cThis systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenza-like illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenza-like illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
10) Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Saunders-Hastings<\/a>, 2017<\/td>\u201cFacemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.16\u20131.71; I2<\/sup> = 48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
11) Experimental investigation of indoor aerosol dispersion and accumulation in the context of COVID-19: Effects of masks and ventilation<\/a>, Shah, 2021<\/td>\u201cNevertheless, high-efficiency masks, such as the KN95, still offer substantially higher apparent filtration efficiencies (60% and 46% for R95 and KN95 masks, respectively) than the more commonly used cloth (10%) and surgical masks (12%), and therefore are still the recommended choice in mitigating airborne disease transmission indoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
12) Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil\u2019s sword?- A physiological hypothesis<\/a>, Chandrasekaran<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cExercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
13) Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms\u2013a costly and unnecessary ritual?,<\/a> Mitchell, 1991<\/td>\u201cFollowing the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one metre from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
14) Facemask against viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims: A challenging cluster-randomized trial<\/a>, Alfelali, 2020<\/td>\u201cBy intention-to-treat analysis, facemask use did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.1, p = 0.18) nor against clinical respiratory infection (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4, p = 0.40).\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
15) Simple respiratory protection\u2013evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles<\/a>, Rengasamy<\/a>, 2010<\/td>\u201cResults obtained in the study show that common fabric materials may provide marginal protection against nanoparticles including those in the size ranges of virus-containing particles in exhaled breath.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
16) Respiratory performance offered by N95 respirators and surgical masks: human subject evaluation with NaCl aerosol representing bacterial and viral particle size range<\/a>, Lee, 2008<\/td>\u201cThe study indicates that N95 filtering facepiece respirators may not achieve the expected protection level against bacteria and viruses. An exhalation valve on the N95 respirator does not affect the respiratory protection; it appears to be an appropriate alternative to reduce the breathing resistance.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
17) Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry<\/a>, Weber, 1993<\/td>\u201cWe conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous sub-micrometer-sized aerosols.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
18) Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery<\/a>, Vincent, 2016<\/td>\u201cWe included three trials, involving a total of 2106 participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials\u2026from the limited results it is unclear whether the wearing of surgical face masks by members of the surgical team has any impact on surgical wound infection rates for patients undergoing clean surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
19) Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review<\/a>, Lipp, 2005<\/td>\u201cFrom the limited results it is unclear whether wearing surgical face masks results in any harm or benefit to the patient undergoing clean surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
20) Comparison of the Filter Efficiency of Medical Nonwoven Fabrics against Three Different Microbe Aerosols<\/a>, Shimasaki<\/a> <\/sup>, 2018<\/td>\u201cWe conclude that the filter efficiency test using the phi-X174 phage aerosol may overestimate the protective performance of nonwoven fabrics with filter structure compared to that against real pathogens such as the influenza virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
21) The use of masks and respirators to preventtransmission of in\ufb02uenza: a systematic review of thescienti\ufb01c evidence21) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence<\/a>, Bin-Reza<\/a>, 2012<\/td>The use of masks and respirators to preventtransmission of in\ufb02uenza: a systematic review of thescienti\ufb01c evidence\u201cNone of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask\/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
22) Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review<\/a>, Godoy, 2020<\/td>\u201cCompared with surgical masks, N95 respirators perform better in laboratory testing, may provide superior protection in inpatient settings and perform equivalently in outpatient settings. Surgical mask and N95 respirator conservation strategies include extended use, reuse or decontamination, but these strategies may result in inferior protection. Limited evidence suggests that reused and improvised masks should be used when medical-grade protection is unavailable.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
23) Assessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among the General Public in Singapore<\/a>, Yeung, 2020<\/td>\u201cThese findings support ongoing recommendations against the use of N95 masks by the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic.5<\/sup><\/a> N95 mask use by the general public may not translate into effective protection but instead provide false reassurance. Beyond N95 masks, proficiency among the general public in donning surgical masks needs to be assessed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
24) Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure<\/a>, Shakya, 2017<\/td>\u201cStandard N95 mask performance was used as a control to compare the results with cloth masks, and our results suggest that cloth masks are only marginally beneficial in protecting individuals from particles<2.5 \u03bcm.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
25) Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial<\/a>, Jacobs, 2009<\/td>\u201cFace mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
26) N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel<\/a>, Radonovich, 2019 <\/a><\/td>\u201cAmong outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
27) Does Universal Mask Wearing Decrease or Increase the Spread of COVID-19?,<\/a> Watts up with that? 2020<\/td>\u201cA survey of peer-reviewed studies shows that universal mask wearing (as opposed to wearing masks in specific settings) does not decrease the transmission of respiratory viruses from people wearing masks to people who are not wearing masks.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
28) Masking: A Careful Review of the Evidence<\/a>, Alexander, 2021<\/td>\u201cIn fact, it is not unreasonable at this time to conclude that surgical and cloth masks, used as they currently are, have absolutely no impact on controlling the transmission of Covid-19 virus, and current evidence implies that face masks can be actually harmful.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
29) Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults \u226518 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities \u2014 United States, July 2020<\/a>, Fisher, 2020<\/td>Reported characteristics of symptomatic adults \u226518 years who were outpatients in 11 US academic health care facilities and who received positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (N = 314)* \u2014 United States, July 1\u201329, 2020, revealed that 80% of infected persons wore face masks almost all or most of the time<\/a>. <\/td><\/tr>
30) Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study<\/a>, Hunter, 2020<\/td>Face masks in public was not associated with reduced incidence. <\/td><\/tr>
31) Masking lack of evidence with politics<\/a>, CEBM, Heneghan, 2020<\/td>\u201cIt would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks, or benefits of medical masks.  The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base so unsurprisingly broadly reach the same conclusions.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
32) Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study<\/a>, Marks, 2021<\/td>\u201cWe observed no association of risk of transmission with reported mask usage by contacts, with the age or sex of the index case, or with the presence of respiratory symptoms in the index case at the initial study visit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
33) Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza<\/a>, WHO, 2020<\/td>\u201cTen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
34) The Strangely Unscientific Masking of America<\/a>, Younes, 2020<\/td>\u201cOne report reached its conclusion based on observations of a \u201cdummy head attached to a breathing simulator<\/a>.\u201d  Another<\/a> analyzed use of surgical masks on people experiencing at least two symptoms of acute respiratory illness. Incidentally, not one of these studies<\/a> involved cloth masks or accounted for real-world mask usage (or misusage) among lay people, and none established efficacy of widespread mask-wearing by people not exhibiting symptoms.  There was simply no evidence whatsoever that healthy people ought to wear masks when going about their lives, especially outdoors.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
35) Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid systematic review<\/a>, Brainard, 2020<\/td>\u201c31 eligible studies (including 12 RCTs). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention in 28 studies were performed. Based on the RCTs we would conclude that wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks. However, the RCTs often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
36) The Year of Disguises<\/a>, Koops, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe healthy people in our society should not be punished for being healthy, which is exactly what lockdowns, distancing, mask mandates, etc. do\u2026Children should not be wearing face coverings. We all need constant interaction with our environments and that is especially true for children. This is how their immune system develops. They are the lowest of the low-risk groups. Let them be kids and let them develop their immune systems\u2026 The \u201cMask Mandate\u201d idea is a truly ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction and needs to be withdrawn and thrown in the waste bin of disastrous policy, along with lockdowns and school closures. You can vote for a person without blindly supporting all of their proposals!\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
37) Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden<\/a>, Ludvigsson, 2020<\/td>\u201c1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age, were examined\u2026social distancing was encouraged in Sweden, but wearing face masks was not\u2026No child with Covid-19 died.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
38) Double-Masking Benefits Are Limited, Japan Supercomputer Finds<\/a>, Reidy, 2021<\/td>\u201cWearing two masks offers limited benefits in preventing the spread of droplets that could carry the coronavirus compared to one well-fitted disposable mask, according to a Japanese study that modeled the dispersal of droplets on a supercomputer.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
39) Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 \u2013 Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Jefferson, 2020<\/td>\u201cThere 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.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
40) Should individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms wear facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19?,<\/a> NIPH, 2020<\/td>\u201cNon-medical facemasks include a variety of products. There is no reliable evidence of the effectiveness of non-medical facemasks in community settings. There is likely to be substantial variation in effectiveness between products. However, there is only limited evidence from laboratory studies of potential differences in effectiveness when different products are used in the community.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
41) Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?,<\/a> Orr, 1981<\/td>\u201cIt would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all but operating in silence. Whatever its relation to contamination, bacterial counts, or the dissemination of squames, there is no direct evidence that the wearing of masks reduces wound infection.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
42) The surgical mask is a bad fit for risk reduction<\/a>, Neilson, 2016<\/td>\u201cAs recently as 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences declared that, in the community setting, \u201cface masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards.\u201d A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
43) Facemask versus No Facemask in Preventing Viral Respiratory Infections During Hajj: A Cluster Randomised Open Label Trial<\/a>, Alfelali, 2019<\/td>\u201cFacemask use does not prevent clinical or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections among Hajj pilgrims.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
44) Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis<\/a>, Vainshelboim<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
45) The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence<\/a>, Bin-Reza<\/a>, 2011<\/td>\u201cNone of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask\/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
46) Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence<\/a>., Swiss Policy Research, 2021<\/td>\u201cMost studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
47) Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study<\/a>, Tunevall<\/a>, 1991<\/td>\u201cThese results indicate that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
48) Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment<\/a>, Guerra, 2021<\/td>\u201cMask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
49) Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral<\/a>, Manley, 2021<\/td>\u201cA CDC-funded review<\/a> on masking in May 2020 came to the conclusion: \u201cAlthough mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza\u2026 None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group.\u201d If masks can\u2019t stop the regular flu, how can they stop SAR-CoV-2?\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
50) A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers<\/a>, MacIntyre<\/a>, 2015<\/td>\u201cFirst 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\u2026the 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%.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
51) Horowitz: Data from India continues to blow up the \u2018Delta\u2019 fear narrative<\/a>, Blazemedia, 2021<\/td>\u201cRather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India \u2014 the source of the \u201cDelta\u201d variant \u2014 continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism\u2026Masks failed to stop the spread there.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
52) An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in a secondary care hospital in Finland, May 2021<\/a>, Hetem\u00e4ki<\/a>, 2021<\/td>Reporting on a nosocomial hospital outbreak<\/a> in Finland, Hetem\u00e4li et al. observed that \u201cboth symptomatic and asymptomatic infections were found among vaccinated health care workers, and secondary transmission occurred from those with symptomatic infections despite use of personal protective equipment.\u201d <\/td><\/tr>
53) Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021<\/a>, Shitrit, 2021<\/td>In a hospital outbreak<\/a> investigation in Israel, Shitrit et al. observed \u201chigh transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals.\u201d They added that \u201cthis suggests some waning of immunity, albeit still providing protection for individuals without comorbidities.\u201d Again, despite use of personal protective equipment.<\/td><\/tr>
54) 47 studies confirm ineffectiveness of masks for COVID and 32 more confirm their negative health effects,<\/a> Lifesite news staff, 2021<\/td>\u201cNo studies were needed to justify this practice since most understood viruses were far too small to be stopped by the wearing of most masks, other than sophisticated ones designed for that task and which were too costly and complicated for the general public to properly wear and keep changing or cleaning. It was also understood that long mask wearing was unhealthy for wearers for common sense and basic science reasons.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
55) Are EUA Face Masks Effective in Slowing the Spread of a Viral Infection?,<\/a> Dopp, 2021<\/td>The vast evidence shows that masks are ineffective. <\/td><\/tr>
56) CDC Study finds overwhelming majority of people getting coronavirus wore masks<\/a>, Boyd\/Federalist, 2021<\/td>\u201cA Centers for Disease Control report<\/a> released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
57) Most Mask Studies Are Garbage<\/a>, Eugyppius, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe other kind of study, the proper kind, would be a randomised controlled trial. You compare the rates of infection in a masked cohort against rates of infection in an unmasked cohort. Here things have gone much, much worse for mask brigade. They spent months trying to prevent the publication of the Danish randomised controlled trial<\/a>, which found that masks do zero. When that paper finally squeaked into print, they spent more months trying desperately to poke holes in it. You could feel their boundless relief when the Bangladesh study<\/a> finally appeared to save them in early September. Every last Twitter blue-check could now proclaim that Science Shows Masks Work. Such was their hunger for any scrap of evidence to prop up their prior convictions, that none of them noticed the sad nature of the Science in question. The study found a mere 10% reduction in seroprevalence among the masked cohort, an effect so small that it fell within the confidence interval. Even the study authors couldn\u2019t exclude the possibility that masks in fact do zero.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
58) Using face masks in the community: first update<\/a>, ECDC, 2021<\/td>\u201cNo high-quality evidence in favor of face masks and recommended their use only based on the \u2018precautionary principle<\/a>.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
59) Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?<\/a>, Cochrane, 2020<\/td>\u201cSeven studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
60) Mouth-nose protection in public: No evidence of effectiveness<\/a>, Thieme\/ Kappstein, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe use of masks in public spaces is questionable simply because of the lack of scientific data. If one also considers the necessary precautions, masks must even be considered a risk of infection in public spaces according to the rules known from hospitals\u2026 If masks are worn by the population, the risk of infection is potentially increased, regardless of whether they are medical masks or whether they are so-called community masks designed in any way. If one considers the precautionary measures that the RKI as well as the international health authorities have pronounced, all authorities would even have to inform the population that masks should not be worn in public spaces at all. Because no matter whether it is a duty for all citizens or voluntarily borne by the citizens who want it for whatever reason, it remains a fact that masks can do more harm than good in public.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
61) US mask guidance for kids is the strictest across the world<\/a>,  Skelding<\/a>, 2021<\/td>\u201cKids need to see faces,\u201d Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, told The Post. Youngsters watch people\u2019s mouths to learn to speak, read and understand emotions, he said.\u201cWe have this idea that this disease is so bad that we must adopt any means necessary to stop it from spreading,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s not that masks in schools have no costs. They actually do have substantial costs.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
62) Masking young children in school harms language acquisition<\/a>, Walsh, 2021<\/td>\u201cThis is important because children and\/or students do not have the speech or language ability that adults have \u2014 they are not equally able and the ability to see the face and especially the mouth is critical to language acquisition which children and\/or students are engaged in at all times. Furthermore, the ability to see the mouth is not only essential to communication but also essential to brain development.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
63) The Case Against Masks for Children<\/a>, Makary, 2021<\/td>\u201cIt\u2019s abusive to force kids who struggle with them to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults\u2026 Do masks reduce Covid transmission in children? Believe it or not, we could find only a single retrospective study on the question, and its results were inconclusive. Yet two weeks ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sternly decreed that 56 million U.S. children and adolescents, vaccinated or not, should cover their faces regardless of the prevalence of infection in their community. Authorities in many places took the cue to impose mandates in schools and elsewhere, on the theory that masks can\u2019t do any harm. That isn\u2019t true. Some children are fine wearing a mask, but others struggle. Those who have myopia can have difficulty seeing because the mask fogs their glasses. (This has long been a problem for medical students in the operating room.) Masks can cause severe acne and other skin problems. The discomfort of a mask distracts some children from learning. By increasing airway resistance during exhalation, masks can lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the blood. And masks can be vectors for pathogens<\/a> if they become moist or are used for too long.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
64) Face Covering Mandates<\/a>, Peavey, 2021<\/td>\u201cFace Covering Mandates And Why They AREN\u2019T Effective.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
65) Do masks work?<\/a> A Review of the evidence<\/a>, Anderson, 2021<\/td>\u201cIn truth, the CDC\u2019s, U.K.\u2019s, and WHO\u2019s earlier guidance was much more consistent with the best medical research on masks\u2019 effectiveness in preventing the spread of viruses. That research suggests that Americans\u2019 many months of mask-wearing has likely provided little to no health benefit and might even have been counterproductive in preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
66) Most face masks won\u2019t stop COVID-19 indoors, study warns<\/a>, Anderer, 2021<\/td>\u201cNew research reveals that cloth masks filter just 10% of exhaled aerosols, with many people not wearing coverings that fit their face properly.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
67) How face masks and lockdowns failed<\/a>\/the face mask folly in retrospect, Swiss Policy Research, 2021<\/td>\u201cMask mandates and lockdowns have had no discernible impact.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
68) CDC Releases School COVID Transmission Study But Buries One of the Most Damning Parts<\/a>, Davis, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional\u2026 With tens of millions of American kids headed back to school in the fall, their parents and political leaders owe it to them to have a clear-sighted, scientifically rigorous discussion about which anti-COVID measures actually work and which might put an extra burden on vulnerable young people without meaningfully or demonstrably slowing the spread of the virus\u2026that a masking requirement of students failed to show independent benefit is a finding of consequence and great interest.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
69) World Health Organization internal meeting, COVID-19 \u2013 virtual press conference \u2013 30 March 2020<\/a>, 2020<\/td>\u201cThis is a question on Austria. The Austrian Government has a desire to make everyone wear a mask who\u2019s going into the shops. I understood from our previous briefings with you that the general public should not wear masks because they are in short supply. What do you say about the new Austrian measures?\u2026 I\u2019m not specifically aware of that measure in Austria. I would assume that it\u2019s aimed at people who potentially have the disease not passing it to others. In general WHO recommends that the wearing of a mask by a member of the public is to prevent that individual giving the disease to somebody else. We don\u2019t generally recommend the wearing to masks in public by otherwise well individuals because it has not been up to now associated with any particular benefit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
70) Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review<\/a>, Cowling, 2010<\/td>\u201cReview highlights the limited evidence base supporting the efficacy or effectiveness of face masks to reduce influenza virus transmission.\u201d\u201cNone of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households<\/a> (H).\u201d <\/td><\/tr>
71) Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,<\/a> Smith, 2016<\/td>\u201cAlthough N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
72) Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis<\/a>, Offeddu, 2017<\/td>\u201cWe found evidence to support universal medical mask use in hospital settings as part of infection control measures to reduce the risk of CRI and ILI among HCWs. Overall, N95 respirators may convey greater protection, but universal use throughout a work shift is likely to be less acceptable due to greater discomfort\u2026Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended. The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization\u2026We found no clear benefit of either medical masks or N95 respirators against pH1N1\u2026Overall, the evidence to inform policies on mask use in HCWs is poor, with a small number of studies that is prone to reporting biases and lack of statistical power.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
73) N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel<\/a>, Radonovich, 2019<\/td>\u201cUse of N95 respirators, compared with medical masks, in the outpatient setting resulted in no significant difference in the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks againstinfluenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis74) Masks Don\u2019t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy<\/a>, Rancourt, 2020<\/td>The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with alower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be rec-ommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact withinfluenza patients or suspected patients. \u201cNo RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below). Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
75) More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!,<\/a> Firstenberg, 2020<\/td>\u201cMandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
76) Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of surgical facemasks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgery<\/a>?, Bahli, 2009<\/td>\u201cFrom the limited randomized trials it is still not clear that whether wearing surgical face masks harms or benefit the patients undergoing elective surgery.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
77) Peritonitis prevention in CAPD: to mask or not?,<\/a> Figueiredo<\/a>, 2000<\/td>\u201cThe current study suggests that routine use of face masks during CAPD bag exchanges may be unnecessary and could be discontinued.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
78) The operating room environment as affected by people and the surgical face mask<\/a>, Ritter, 1975<\/td>\u201cThe wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination and probably work only to redirect the projectile effect of talking and breathing. People are the major source of environmental contamination in the operating room.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
79) The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using \u201ctracer particles<\/a>, Ha\u2019eri<\/a>, 1980<\/td>\u201cParticle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escaped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
80) Wearing of caps and masks not necessary during cardiac catheterization<\/a>, Laslett, 1989<\/td>\u201cProspectively evaluated the experience of 504 patients undergoing percutaneous left heart catheterization, seeking evidence of a relationship between whether caps and\/or masks were worn by the operators and the incidence of infection. No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used. Thus, we found no evidence that caps or masks need to be worn during percutaneous cardiac catheterization.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
81) Do anaesthetists need to wear surgical masks in the operating theatre? A literature review with evidence-based recommendations<\/a>, Skinner, 2001<\/td>\u201cA questionnaire-based survey, undertaken by Leyland\u2019 in 1993 to assess attitudes to the use of masks, showed that 20% of surgeons discarded surgical masks for endoscopic work. Less than 50% did not wear the mask as recommended by the Medical Research Council. Equal numbers of surgeons wore the mask in the belief they were protecting themselves and the patient, with 20% of these admitting that tradition was the only reason for wearing them.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
82) Mask mandates for children are not backed by data,<\/a> Faria, 2021<\/td>\u201cEven if you want to use the 2018-19 flu season to avoid overlap with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC paints a similar picture: It estimated <\/a>480 flu deaths among children during that period, with 46,000 hospitalizations. COVID-19, mercifully, is simply not as deadly for children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, preliminary data from 45 states show <\/a>that between 0.00%-0.03% of child COVID-19 cases resulted in death. When you combine these numbers with the CDC study <\/a>that found mask mandates for students \u2014 along with hybrid models, social distancing, and classroom barriers \u2014 did not have a statistically significant benefit in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in schools, the insistence that we force students to jump through these hoops for their own protection makes no sense.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
83) The Downsides of Masking Young Students Are Real,<\/a> Prasad, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe benefits of mask requirements in schools might seem self-evident\u2014they have to help contain the coronavirus, right?\u2014but that may not be so. In Spain, masks are used in kids ages 6 and older. The authors of one study there examined the risk of viral spread at all ages. If masks provided a large benefit, then the transmission rate among 5-year-olds would be far higher than the rate among 6-year-olds. The results don\u2019t show that<\/a>. Instead, they show that transmission rates, which were low among the youngest kids, steadily increased with age\u2014rather than dropping sharply for older children subject to the face-covering requirement. This suggests that masking kids in school does not provide a major benefit and might provide none at all. And yet many officials prefer to double down on masking mandates, as if the fundamental policy were sound and only the people have failed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
84) Masks In Schools: Scientific American Fumbles Report On Childhood COVID Transmission<\/a>, English\/ACSH, 2021<\/td>\u201cMasking is a low-risk, inexpensive intervention. If we want to recommend it as a precautionary measure, especially in situations where vaccination isn\u2019t an option, great. But that\u2019s not what the public has been told. \u201cFlorida governor Ron DeSantis and politicians in Texas say research does not support mask mandates,\u201d SciAm\u2019s sub-headline bellowed. \u201cMany studies show they are wrong.\u201dIf that\u2019s the case, demonstrate that the intervention works before you mandate its use in schools. If you can\u2019t, acknowledged what UC San Francisco hematologist-oncologist and Associate Professor of Epidemiology Vinay Prasad wrote over at the Atlantic<\/a>:\u201dNo scientific consensus exists about the wisdom of mandatory-masking rules for schoolchildren \u2026 In mid-March 2020, few could argue against erring on the side of caution. But nearly 18 months later, we owe it to children and their parents to answer the question properly: Do the benefits of masking kids in school outweigh the downsides? The honest answer in 2021 remains that we don\u2019t know for sure.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
85) Masks \u2018don\u2019t work,\u2019 are damaging health and are being used to control population: Doctors panel<\/a>, Haynes, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe only randomized control studies that have ever been done on masks show that they don\u2019t work,\u201d began Dr. Nepute. He referred to Dr. Anthony Fauci\u2019s \u201cnoble lie,\u201d in which Fauci \u201cchanged his tune,\u201d from his March 2020 comments<\/a>, where he downplayed the need and efficacy of mask wearing, before urging Americans to use masks later in the year. \u201cWell, he lied to us. So if he lied about that, what else has he lied to you about?\u201d questioned Nepute.Masks have become commonplace in almost every setting, whether indoors or outdoors, but Dr. Popper mentioned how there have been \u201cno studies\u201d which actually examine the \u201ceffect of wearing a mask during all your waking hours.\u201d\u201cThere\u2019s no science to back any of this and particularly no science to back the fact that wearing a mask twenty four-seven or every waking minute, is health promoting,\u201d added Popper.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
86) Aerosol penetration through surgical masks<\/a>, Chen, 1992<\/td>\u201cThe mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the sub-micrometer-sized aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
87) CDC: Schools With Mask Mandates Didn\u2019t See Statistically Significant Different Rates of COVID Transmission From Schools With Optional Policies<\/a>, Miltimore, 2021<\/td>\u201cThe CDC did not include its finding that \u201crequired mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional\u201d in the summary of its report.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
88) Horowitz: Data from India continues to blow up the \u2018Delta\u2019 fear narrative<\/a>, Howorwitz, 2021<\/td>\u201cRather than proving the need to sow more panic, fear, and control over people, the story from India \u2014 the source of the \u201cDelta\u201d variant \u2014 continues to refute every current premise of COVID fascism\u2026Unless we do that, we must return to the very effective lockdowns and masks. In reality, India\u2019s experience proves the opposite true; namely:1) Delta is largely an attenuated version, with a much lower fatality rate, that for most people is akin to a cold.2) Masks failed to stop the spread there.3) The country has come close to the herd immunity threshold with just 3% vaccinated.<\/td><\/tr>
89) Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam<\/a>, Chau, 2021<\/td>While not definitive in the LANCET publication, it can be inferred that the nurses were all masked up and had PPE etc. as was the case in Finland and Israel nosocomial outbreaks, indicating the failure of PPE and masks to constrain Delta spread. <\/td><\/tr>
90) Aerosol penetration through surgical masks<\/a>, Willeke, 1992<\/td>\u201cThe mask that has the highest collection efficiency is not necessarily the best mask from the perspective of the filter-quality factor, which considers not only the capture efficiency but also the air resistance. Although surgical mask media may be adequate to remove bacteria exhaled or expelled by health care workers, they may not be sufficient to remove the submicrometer-size aerosols containing pathogens to which these health care workers are potentially exposed.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
91) The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using \u201ctracer particles\u201d<\/a>, Wiley, 1980<\/td>\u201cParticle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all aexperiments. Since the microspheres were not identified on the exterior of these face masks, they must have escped around the mask edges and found their way into the wound. The wearing of the mask beneath the headgear curtails this route of contamination.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
92) An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful<\/a>, Meehan, 2020<\/td>\u201cDecades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2\u2026those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence, arguments, and risks of mask mandates.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
93) Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media<\/a>, AIER, 2020<\/td>\u201cOral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
94) Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis<\/a>, Long, 2020<\/td>\u201cThe use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
95) Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19<\/a>, WHO, 2020<\/td>\u201cHowever, the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
96) Farce mask: it\u2019s safe for only 20 minutes<\/a>, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2003<\/td>\u201cHealth authorities have warned that surgical masks may not be an effective protection against the virus.\u201dThose masks are only effective so long as they are dry,\u201d said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.\u201dAs soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets.\u201dProfessor Cossart said that could take as little as 15 or 20 minutes, after which the mask would need to be changed. But those warnings haven\u2019t stopped people snapping up the masks, with retailers reporting they are having trouble keeping up with demand.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
97) Study: Wearing A Used Mask Is Potentially Riskier Than No Mask At All<\/a>, Boyd, 2020

Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway<\/a><\/td>		\u201cAccording to researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University, a three-layer surgical mask is 65 percent efficient in filtering particles in the air. That effectiveness, however, falls to 25 percent once it is used.\u201cIt is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,\u201d said<\/a> author Jinxiang Xi.\u201cOur results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers,\u201d he continued.\u201d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MASKS-INEFFECTIVENESS  1) Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers, Bundgaard, 2021 \u201cInfection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n