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
Letterlijk geciteerd: "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." En dus kunnen we mondkapjes ook als effectief beschouwen, die hebben net zo weinig onderbouwing.
Just in advance
Toen ik een eventjes in de supermarkt rondliep met een mondkapje, herkende ik het lichtbenauwde en nog net niet duizelige gevoel van de laatste keer dat ik snorkelde, met zo'n -toen net nieuw- "full-face mask". Het was een simpel masker, gewoon om eens te proberen.
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.
De WHO zegt dan weer: "People should NOT wear masks when exercising, as masks may reduce the ability to breathe comfortably."
They also think: as long as you breathe a little, a face mask like that won't do any harm... These masks have now been banned in several places due to fatal accidents. There are safe masks that have a separate mouth-nose snorkel 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 Kingmahet over mensen die "in de waan zijn dat een mondkapje ongezond is". Sjouke is mij eerder opgevallen als fervent voorvechter van het narratief van WHO/RIVM/Overheid/Mainstream media. Bij de bewijsvoering daarvan wordt over het algemeen veelvuldig verwezen naar 'bronnen' zoals WHO/RIVM/Overheid/Mainstream media. Ik probeer dat dan toch te doorbreken, tegen beter weten in.
My first reply
"Dat het dragen van een mondkapje ongezond is, daarover is vriend en vijand het volkomen eens, ook de voorstanders van mondkapjes. Althans: in de wetenschap, niet op Facebook natuurlijk. Het belemmert de zuurstoftoevoer, dat is gewoon niet goed.
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.
Een miniem besmettingseffect voor een virus waarvan de ernst volgens de laatste stand van de wetenschap varieert tussen "half zo zwaar als de griep" en "twee keer zo zwaar als de griep".
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.
Er bestaat geen 'waan' over mondkapjes, wel een onwetenschappelijk oordeel. Of het zou de waan moeten zijn dat het echte, meest feitelijke en best onderbouwde verhaal via de mainstream media tot je komt."
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.
De "onderbouwing"...
Claim: Face masks are not unhealthy and do not cause oxygen deficiency
https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/200619-99-488141/
"dpa-factchecking" zijn ten eerste journalisten, dat is geen wetenschap, laat staan nu.nl, de tweede link. Nu.nl heeft al een hoop onzin verkocht. We kunnen dagelijks in de krant zien hoe journalisten hun "facts checken". dpa is eigendom van kranten- en tijdschriftenuitgeverijen en omroepen, dat schrijven ze op hun website. Ik verkeer niet meer in de 'waan' dat ik daar betrouwbare informatie vandaan kan halen. Daarvoor heb ik al teveel stommiteiten en slippendragerij gezien in de journalistiek. Het artikel is trouwens ook alweer zes maanden oud, dat geldt op dit moment als 'mogelijk verouderd'.
I didn't mention 'CO2 poisoning' at all, that's a different matter. 'Oxygen deficiency' sounds very difficult. For example, oxygen deficiency can cause brain damage. When you breathe in slightly oxygen-poor air for a long time, this really doesn't go very well, but you cannot conclude from that that it is 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.
Bij onderzoeken wordt de doorlaatbaarheid bij uitademen gemeten, niet de filtering van besmette lucht bij inademen. Dat draait in latere artikelen bij. De meeste latere artikelen relativeren het effect van druppels en dus van mondkapjes. Ik ga ze niet alle 70 lezen maar zoeken naar "oxygen" in de titels geeft 0 resultaten en het ging eigenlijk toch om zuurstofniveau's.
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
Letterlijk geciteerd: "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." En dus mondkapjes ook maar.
Het ging toch juist om dat "considered as effective"? Door wie? Waarom? Lekkere wetenschap hoor! Horen die mensen zichzelf niet praten? Hoe is dit in hemelsnaam serieus te nemen?
Ik baseer me op het voortschrijdend wetenschappelijk inzicht, vooral als meerdere studies tot resultaten komen die overeenstemmen. Bijvoorbeeld: "Studies found that wearing respiratory protective devices may induce a real burden of respiratory effects." Ik vertaal even wat:
"Studies found that wearing respiratory protective devices may induce a real burden of respiratory effects."
"Het dragen van mondneusmaskers heeft significante invloed op de ademhaling, zoals: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
- een lagere zuurstofconcentratie".
There are also many things to be said about this. As befits scientists, they are taking the necessary steps because available study material is only now really being built up. You may also wonder what those previous fact-check journalists based their findings on. However, we are talking about research scientists who do research for their own research. That is really different from journalists who go to the RIVM site to check whether 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.
Research that has not been done by a university that has an interest in a vaccine... well, who should you believe?
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
