did you actually read what you posted? i'll update this as I

Posted on: August 14, 2021 at 01:00:30 CT

go along. these are all direct quotes from the paper you linked

problem #1.

Cochrane (7) and the World Health Organization (8) both point out that, for population health measures, we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials, due to logistical and ethical reasons, and should therefore instead seek a wider evidence base

problem #2
That review concluded that “there was insufficient
evidence to provide a recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures.

problem #3. they quote this study so i'll link it https://www.cochrane.org/news/featured-review-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses

the results of this study which apply to Medical masks so a step up from cloth masks

Medical or surgical masks

Seven 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.

ahhhh! But N95 mask are good right? same study

N95/P2 respirators

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people) or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well reported; discomfort was mentioned.

key message from this study
Key messages

We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.

continuing...

the 2nd study your link cited you can only view the abstract for free and not the actual study but this is the conclusion of their abstract:

The lack of research on facemasks and respirators is reflected in varied and sometimes conflicting policies and guidelines. Further research should focus on examining the efficacy of facemasks against specific infectious threats such as influenza and tuberculosis, assessing the efficacy of cloth masks, investigating common practices such as reuse of masks, assessing compliance, filling in policy gaps, and obtaining cost effectiveness data using clinical efficacy estimates.

the next study your paper linked and this one is great.

here's a link to the actual study https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/uncover_003-03_summary_-_facemasks_community_anon.pdf

here's their conclusion:

Based on the evidence from three recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses [including
our re-analysis focusing on community trials] wearing face masks in the community was not
significantly associated with a reduction in episodes of influenza-like illness

their conclusion:

Conclusion
This review found mixed and low quality epidemiological evidence on the use of face masks to
prevent community transmission of respiratory illness, with much of the epidemiological
evidence generated in very different contexts from the UK. Based on the epidemiological
evidence, the effectiveness of face masks has not been demonstrated;

on to the next study they cited....

here's a link to the study:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1

wade through it and here is their conclusion:

"The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19"

ok on to the next study:
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-12-26

they tested SURGICAL face masks, not cloth. so data is irrelevant to our bet.

on to the next:

here's a link to that study:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00142?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org

Results:
Sixty (8%) contacts in the 259 households had RT-PCR–confirmed influenza virus infection in the 7 days after intervention. Hand hygiene with or without facemasks seemed to reduce influenza transmission, but the differences compared with the control group were not significant.

Discussion
We report the largest study to date of the efficacy of facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza virus transmission in households. Overall, the interventions did not lead to statistically significant reductions in household transmission

also I can't find what type of mask they used of course it's not relevant as it was no significant efficacy anyway.

ok on to the next....

link to the study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20088690/
Face mask use alone showed a similar reduction in ILI compared with the control group, but adjusted estimates were not statistically significant. Neither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI cumulatively

(ILI is an influenza-like illness in case you were wondering)

also it's another study on medical masks not cloth masks.

on to the next...

link to the study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/

results which might be the most damaging to your claim yet as this is about cloth masks:
Results: The 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%.

Conclusions: This study is the first 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. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

I think I'll just stop with that one. b/c I'm getting tired of destroying you for the evening.

cheers







Edited by blake1771 at 01:43:55 on 08/14/21