The argument below, in a scientific article, prompted me to write this blog. Here, scientists argue for the lack of scientific substantiation, as follows:
None of the measures has a scientific basis, so making face masks mandatory does not need to be substantiated.
Freely translated from Oxford COVID-19 study
Quoted verbatim: "We note that there have also been no clinical trials of coughing into your elbow, social distancing and quarantine, yet these measures have been widely adopted and are considered as effective." And so we can also consider face masks effective, they have just as little substantiation.
Just in advance
When I walked around the supermarket with a face mask for a while, I recognized the light-stuffed and just not dizzy feeling from the last time I snorkeled, with such a -then just new- "full-face mask". It was a simple mask, just to try.
That turned out not to be for me: the air reservoir behind the mask and in the wide snorkel pipe was too big for my lung capacity. I breathed in the air I had just exhaled the whole time, before I also took in some fresh air. I had to breathe very deeply to last a little longer, but I still came up short. Not fun if you want to float in the water for a long time to watch the fish.
I experience the same with face masks. A face mask forms an air reservoir for your face. After you have exhaled, it remains filled with CO2-rich breath. You first breathe in that air again. How bad is that? For me it is, I can't breathe that deeply because of a limited lung capacity. If you can breathe deeply (sigh deeply) you may not even notice it.
In studies on this, I see that they often measure while people are making efforts. Presumably on the assumption that the oxygen shortage should occur precisely then. That's not right. Healthy people then start breathing deeper during exercise and then that breathing reservoir is relatively little, you breathe it away. Heavy breaths cancel out the recirculation effect. They should test it on elderly people who sit behind the geraniums all day.
The WHO says: "People should NOT wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably."
They also think: if you only breathe a little, such a face mask can't hurt... In the meantime, these masks have been banned in several places due to fatal accidents. There are safe masks that have a separate mouth-nose snorkeling channel. That reduces the reservoir. For me, only a traditional snorkel pipe that is not too wide works.
The first stimulus
Anyway, on Facebook a Sjouke KingmaIt is about people who are "under the delusion that a face mask is unhealthy". Sjouke has previously struck me as a fervent advocate of the narrative of WHO/RIVM/Government/Mainstream media. In the demonstration of this, there are generally frequent references to 'sources' such as WHO/RIVM/Government/Mainstream media. I try to break through that anyway, against my better judgment.
My first reply
"That wearing a face mask is unhealthy, friend and foe are in complete agreement about that, including the proponents of face masks. At least: in science, not on Facebook of course. It hinders the oxygen supply, which is just not good.
In addition, there are things like self-contamination and skin irritation. Proponents of face masks think the psychological effect (?) and the possible prevention of a single case of infection outweigh them. This is a minimal contagion effect, everyone agrees on that too, except for the mayors.
A minimal contagion effect for a virus whose severity varies between "half as severe as the flu" and "twice as severe as the flu" according to the latest science.
Opponents of face masks calculate that the collective use of face masks is at the expense of public health. 17 million times mild oxygen deficiency also leads to accidents. Seen as a whole, it causes much more health damage to the population than the minimum protection of exceptional cases provides in terms of health. Better methods are available for this protection.
There is no 'delusion' about face masks, but there is an unscientific judgment. Or it should be the delusion that the real, most factual and best-substantiated story comes to you through the mainstream media."
In response, I received a number of links that were supposed to show that science did agree on the safety and effectiveness of face masks. I've watched it all. I'm not going to make a habit of that, by the way.
The "substantiation"...
Claim: Face masks are not unhealthy and do not cause oxygen deficiency
https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/200619-99-488141/
"DPA fact-checking" is first of all journalists, that is not science, let alone nu.nl, the second link. Nu.nl has already sold a lot of nonsense. We can see in the newspaper every day how journalists "check their facts". DPA is owned by newspaper and magazine publishers and broadcasters, they write that on their website. I am no longer under the 'delusion' that I can get reliable information from there. I've seen too many stupidities and skidding in journalism for that. By the way, the article is also six months old, which is currently considered 'possibly outdated'.
I didn't mention 'CO2 poisoning' at all, that's of a different order. 'Oxygen deficiency' sounds very heavy. For example, oxygen deficiency can cause brain damage. When breathing in slightly oxygen-poor air for a long time, it really doesn't go that far, but you can't conclude that it's healthy.
Claim: Face masks help against virus transmission
This third (reported as unsafe) link is a blog that still assumes droplet infections, just like nu.nl and dpa. As a result, people still thought that face masks could stop the virus. It is now clear that the virus is largely spread as a gas, not as droplets. And then I put it carefully. The blog is based on two links, Article A and Article B.
Article A: Initial viral load and the outcomes of SARS
In the first -indeed scientifically published- article the word masks does not appear, it is only about viral load. Face masks reduce the viral load somewhat. It is also evident that the vast majority of exhaled virus cannot be stopped by a face mask. After all, that is why we can also breathe through it. Of course, a face mask helps very well against the spitt-out virus, for example when people speak with consumption. However, those droplets quickly fall to the ground and are hardly inhaled, if at all. Infection is not significantly reduced as a result.
Article B: list of 70 studies
This is a list of 70 references to research and studies. Fortunately, I am already familiar with some of them. Those from before July generally still assume droplet infections and therefore attribute excessive effect to face masks.
The distinction between gas (aerosols) and droplets is not yet made. Group infections are hardly looked at, only one-to-one situations.
In studies, the permeability when exhaling is measured, not the filtering of contaminated air when inhaling. That will change in later articles. Most later articles put the effect of droplets and therefore of face masks into perspective. I'm not going to read all 70 of them but searching for "oxygen" in the titles gives 0 results and it was actually about oxygen levels.
Claim: Face masks and coverings work?
From third link is a bad face mask promo from July (also drop-based by the way).
This argumentation prompted me to write this blog. They argue for the lack of substantiation.
None of the measures has a scientific basis, so making face masks mandatory does not need to be substantiated.
Freely translated from Oxford COVID-19 study
Quoted verbatim: "We note that there have also been no clinical trials of coughing into your elbow, social distancing and quarantine, yet these measures have been widely adopted and are considered as effective." And so are face masks.
Wasn't it all about being "considered as effective"? By whom? Why? Nice science! Don't those people hear themselves talking? How on earth can this be taken seriously?
I base myself on advancing scientific insight, especially if several studies come to results that are in agreement. For example, "Studies found that wearing respiratory protective devices may induce a real burden of respiratory effects." Let me translate something:
"Studies found that wearing respiratory protective devices may induce a real burden of respiratory effects."
"Wearing face masks has a significant impact on breathing, such as:Sciencedirect Published on 1 December 2020.
- increased breathing resistance [obstruction of free breathing]
- inhaling the used CO2 breath that lingers behind the mask over and over again
- a lower oxygen concentration".
There is also a lot to criticize about this. As befits scientists, they are keeping the necessary guards because available study material is only now really being built up. What those previous fact-checking journalists based themselves on, you can ask yourself. However, we are talking about research scientists who do research for their own research. That is really something different from journalists who go to the RIVM site to see if something is true...
Support from Bob Marlies
Fortunately, other virus knights regularly jump onto the battlefield. Guido Versteeg, Bob Marlies, Martin Krijgsman, Stefan Noordhoek, I'm probably forgetting a few, with always good, thoughtful contributions, with their own signature. Bob gave some interesting references from scientific research that advises against face masks or puts them into perspective. See below.
Studies that have not been done by a university that has an interest in a vaccine... well who should you believe now?
My idea: leave everyone in their value with this. Those few idiots including me are really not going to make a difference. 80-90% wear those things and people are fine with that for the rest of their lives. Not me. I thought I lived in a free country. Have you ever heard of the constitution and human rights?
It turns out that there is no scientific basis by which the use of masks (of any kind) in public can be justified in almost the entire population of Germany (minus children up to the age of 6 about 80 million people), and recent research shows the same.
Mund-Nasen protection in the openness: No cuffs for a miracle together. Krankenhaushygiene up2date 2020; 15 : 279-295.
On the contrary, a mask requirement for many millions of people in public spaces may even pose a risk of infection,
Breathing cushions the mask. If there is excessive moisture, the masks will become airtight. Therefore, air is inhaled and exhaled unfiltered along the edges, losing the protective effect for both the wearer and the environment.
Face Masks: benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis. European Journal of Medical Research 2020; 25:32.
The lack of non-verbal communication when wearing a mask can make people feel insecure, discouraged, or even psychologically restless. This can be especially true for people who suffer from mental illness or hearing impairment.
If masks are not changed regularly (or washed properly if they are made of fabric), pathogens can build up in the mask. If used incorrectly, the risk of spreading the pathogen – including SARS-CoV-2 – can be significantly increased.
This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results warn against the use of cloth masks.
A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. British Medical Journal Open; 5: E006577
This is an important finding to advise on occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks, and poor filtration can lead to a increased risk of infection.
Face masks are recommended for diseases transmitted via droplets and respiratory aerosol respirators, but measures and terminology vary. The concepts of droplet and air transmission that have become entrenched in clinical practice have recently proven to be more complex than previously thought.
Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. State of the Art Review. British Medical Journal 2015; 350: h694.
...
The use of reusable cloth masks is widespread worldwide, particularly in Asia, which is a key region for emerging infections, but there is no clinical research to substantiate their use and most policies do not provide guidance for them.
...
The lack of research on face masks and respirators is reflected in varied and sometimes conflicting policies and guidelines.
De aanbeveling om chirurgische maskers te dragen als aanvulling op andere volksgezondheidsmaatregelen, verminderde het SARS-CoV-2-infectiepercentage onder dragers niet met meer dan 50% in een gemeenschap met een bescheiden infectiepercentage, een zekere mate van sociale distantie en ondanks ongewoon algemeen maskergebruik.
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers – A Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 november 2020
