COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (9 Viewers)

[Doug B]

I’m very skeptical about cloth masks...which is supported by medical literature.

I still don't think the Nature study you posted supports broad skepticism about any and all cloth masks of any type. And of course fit matters -- we've all seen surgical** masks out in the field that buckle at both sides and leave sizeable gaps between the cheeks and ears.

** Actually, when I see laypersons wear those common blue masks out in public, I'm not sure those are the same things as medical-supply surgical masks.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm not an antimask person. If you want to wear your mask, knock yourself out. I posted the article primary to make you think and question what you think you know and how you treat others based on their perceived ignorance. I understand that is futile and the mass majority of people believe what they believe and the best science in the world won't change that.

I need more than that Nature publication to convince me. I'm not really buying the methodology and conclusions drawn based on that. It's something, but not really much more than that imo.

 

[DaveXA]

What would it take though? That's the point.

A thorough, in-depth analysis from the CDC would be a good place to start, imo.

 

[Saint_Ward]

What would it take though? That's the point.

Have 10-20 people with covid... mild, moderate cases, since anyone too severe isn't going to want to participate in a study.

Have them wear various masks and see how much viral load (if they can measure that) ends up on the outside of their masks and collected in a similar device.

I'd also like to see more commonly used masks as options. Also, have them all cleaned and as much lint removed as possible, to minimize the particulate bias.

 

[DaveXA]

Just a question...why would the CDC care at this point? The COVID rates are plummeting. Why would they buy the criticism at this point? There is nothing to gain and everything to lose. Their mask guidance is good enough...it's rarely needed for vaccinated people in most situations. They should probably be used by non-vaccinated individuals....but largely won't be. Surgical masks and N95 masks are quality controlled...of course there is a better chance that they are more effective than the mass majority of cloth masks.

Because it's in the public's interest to solve this, not only for covid, but other similar diseases. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't want that.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

I agree. I fear that this has become to politicized even for the CDC to bother. Their guidance is good enough...and I doubt that recommending surgical masks would have an effect size that would be worth it. At some point people are just going to say that the CDC can't make up their minds. They are adapting to best scientific research, but the general population doesn't understand that is an incredibly fluid situation. Pretty much all of the early recommendations weren't based on great medical literature...there weren't enough studies to make decisions...so you make decisions based on what you think you understand and do your best. It's pretty much an impossible situation.

Remember early on and everyone was freaking out over disinfecting their groceries and wiping everything down. Turns out there was no scientific basis for that. The transmission rate from surface fomites is practically nil. Yet we were told that we should be wiping everything down and for gods sake never touch your face!!!

 

[DaveXA]

Remember early on and everyone was freaking out over disinfecting their groceries and wiping everything down. Turns out there was no scientific basis for that. The transmission rate from surface fomites is practically nil. Yet we were told that we should be wiping everything down and for gods sake never touch your face!!!

You do realize that was when little was known about the virus and when cruise ships were getting outbreaks left and right. There was a lot of debate on whether the virus could be transmitted through surface contact as easily as through air. It's a novel virus and it took time to figure out how it was spreading so easily.

But, I'll give you one thing, the sarcastic tone of your posts have been consistent ever since we started the covid discussions. Meh.

 

[Saint_Ward]

The cloth masks have no quality control...I don't think that it's feasible to all of the possibilities. There's a reason why the Nature article studied the masks that it studied...the reason is because the lack of guidance on other types of masks, the significant variety, and the general lack of quality control on mass produced cloth masks.

I'm not trying to account for all of the possibilities. But let's be honest. A paper towel mask is sort of a stupid test variable. The cloth ones, whatever. But I would like to see at least one 'broad cloth' and a 'gaiter' style.

But that's not my major point. The particulate count is misleading. I stated why twice. Once, using their words, and somewhat brief for me, and the other time more thoughtfully. Care to comment on that?

 

[Saint_Ward]

Remember early on and everyone was freaking out over disinfecting their groceries and wiping everything down. Turns out there was no scientific basis for that. The transmission rate from surface fomites is practically nil. Yet we were told that we should be wiping everything down and for gods sake never touch your face!!!

You'd be wrong. The scientific basis was how most common colds get spread, so they were using medical knowledge of known viruses and assumed transmission paths.

The reality is that it wasn't a big of a spreader than aerosol, but also, it's sort of hard to know for a fact that isn't a strong transmission mode, due to human action bias. i.e. everyone was sanitizing everything like mad, and washing their hands to the point of cracking their skin. (which is too much, and cracked skin is actually a worse infiltration path)

When and How to Wash Your Hands | Handwashing | CDC

Handwashing is one of the best ways to protect yourself and your family from getting sick. Learn when and how you should wash your hands to stay healthy.

www.cdc.gov

Show Me the Science - How to Wash Your Hands | Handwashing | CDC

Information about handwashing and hand hygiene

www.cdc.gov

There are 21 references in that second link.

Oh, and this, which talks about how long it takes to inactivate the virus on various materials is a big reason why people started cleaning their stuff.

Why does SARS-CoV-2 survive longer on plastic than on paper?

The Covid-19 coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is inactivated much faster on paper (3 h) than on plastic (7 d). By classifying materials according to virus stability on their surface, the following list is obtained (from long to short stability): ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[DaveXA]

You'd be wrong. The scientific basis was how most common colds get spread, so they were using medical knowledge of known viruses and assumed transmission paths.

The reality is that it wasn't a big of a spreader than aerosol, but also, it's sort of hard to know for a fact that isn't a strong transmission mode, due to human action bias. i.e. everyone was sanitizing everything like mad, and washing their hands to the point of cracking their skin.

And the upshot of all that is a lot of people didn't get sick from other things that spread via surface contact. There hasn't been much transmission of a host of other typical illnesses. So, it might have had minimal effect on Covid, but did help in other ways, so, it wasn't really a waste either.

 

[Doug B]

[The CDC's] mask guidance is good enough...it's rarely needed for vaccinated people in most situations.

No one is disputing this. Not a one of us.

What was the point of posting the Nature article? To (a) address those who think vaccinated people should still wear masks, or (b) to make the point that masking was misguided from the beginning of the pandemic?

 

[Saint_Ward]

I agree. I fear that this has become to politicized even for the CDC to bother. Their guidance is good enough...and I doubt that recommending surgical masks would have an effect size that would be worth it. At some point people are just going to say that the CDC can't make up their minds. They are adapting to best scientific research, but the general population doesn't understand that is an incredibly fluid situation. Pretty much all of the early recommendations weren't based on great medical literature...there weren't enough studies to make decisions...so you make decisions based on what you think you understand and do your best. It's pretty much an impossible situation.

There has been a lot of guidance on this. Granted, Fauci is from the NIH, but both the NIH and CDC are under HHS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/dr-...-covid-makes-common-sense-more-effective.html

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

They reference various studies.

And again, here is their current recommendations on masks.

Masks and Respirators

Wear a mask with the best fit, protection, and comfort for you.

www.cdc.gov

Throughout all of this, I know that not all cloth is equal, which is why I had a preference for masks that had a pocket to add a filter. Or I'd use the disposable 'surgical style' masks. After I got vaccinated, and I still had to wear a mask, I'd just wear whatever was comfortable.

 

[Doug B]

What would it take though? That's the point.

One study is never, ever enough to flip a consensus. In your field, you know this. Why are you hanging so much on the one Nature article?

But to answer ... what would it take? Replication, closing the holes in the first study, trying different angles (e.g. other materials), repeatable results that trend in the same direction over the various follow-on studies. And then achievement of a new consensus.

In short: it will take a new consensus.

 

[Saint_Ward]

And you know what's actually annoying me @sammymvpknight . I'm trying to talk that actual science of that study and you're not engaging me on that part of it.

 

[Doug B]

The mass majority of people believe what they believe and the best science in the world won't change that.

Perhaps. Speaking for myself, I'm open to accepting that a preponderance of new information can forge a new consensus. The ground work must be laid and the work must be done, but it happens in science with some frequency.

I just don't think that's happened yet in this case. I don't believe anything that can be called "the best science" has yet been presented on the broad issue of cloth mask efficacy. And the reputation of Nature, The Lancet, JAMA, NEJM, etc. ... those reputations don't establish truth. Once someone publishes in a journal like those, science can't collectively dust off its hands and say to itself "Yep -- we're done".

More typically, at that point the collective enterprise of science is just beginning to create new knowledge.