Honestly, the only reason the CDC and “experts” can get away with this chicanery is because so few people are brave enough to actually LOOK at the evidence they cite rather than just looking at the list of studies and ASSUMING the evidence backs the recommendations.
The CDC recently changed their tune regarding face masks in reducing the spread of Covid-19. Their statement is that:
- Cloth face coverings MAY help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others.
The “ emerging evidence” they cite to justify this statement is below. I [author name redacted] have provided a few key points from each review/study/report.
This study was on surgical grade masks only, five different types, NOT cloth face coverings, and not bandanas, neck gaiters, scarves, or other sundry varieties of stuff used as face coverings.
This study included 9, yes only 9, patients with influenza and their use of N-95 and surgical masks that WHEN WORN CORRECTLY theoretically reduced the spread of influenza. NOT CLOTH FACE COVERINGS. Again, this was SURGICAL MASKS, not cloth face coverings.
This study also ONLY tested surgical grade masks, NOT cloth face coverings, and the results show that surgical masks “could” help prevent spread. SURGICAL MASKS! NOT CLOTH FACE COVERINGS.
This study did include a homemade face covering but gave very specific instructions as far as numbers of paper filter layers, four, and an additional layer of cloth. NOT ANY OLD CLOTH OR SCARF. Their results suggest that surgical grade masks and very thick homemade masks “could” block virus aerosols.
This study is not peer reviewed and concludes that the homemade mask would need 2-3 layers and then “may” block droplets similar to medical masks. MAY.
This study looked at various materials in single layers (cotton, flannel, silk, etc.) showing some only had a 5% filtration value and those values only increased substantially when multiple layers of mixed fabrics were utilized. They also noted that gaps in the mask can result in over 60% decrease in filtration efficiency. So, once again, multiple layers and decreased efficiency to almost nill when worn incorrectly.
This test was done on 21 healthy individuals to see the blockage of microorganisms in coughs (no mention on the size of these microorganisms). The authors conclusion was that homemade masks made from t-shirts (no mention in how many layers) were 3x LESS effective than surgical masks and should only be used as a LAST resort if surgical masks were not available.
This study is cited but doesn’t EVER say that the ONE “index case” on a flight from Wuhan to Canada was wearing a mask. The study mainly focused on the hypothesis that the virus is more droplet transmitted than airborne because very little transmission of Covid (maybe NONE?) occurred on the flight.
This research review only mentions one study regarding masks and those were, ONCE AGAIN, surgical masks…not any old cloth face covering. And the authors of the review caution against making any conclusive statements since research was still so new and ongoing. In one study they make mention that though some viral particles were found in collected air samples further from an infected patient, there was no determination that those viral loads were enough to infect.
This study is not about masks and not a study at all but a review of other data regarding the spread of the virus through asymptomatic individuals. The conclusion is that POSSIBLY 30% of the spread of Covid is by asymptomatic individuals. There is no mention of distance needed, masks utilized, etc. and the authors state, “As noted earlier, the data and studies reviewed here are imperfect in many ways.”
Again, a review, not a study. Following are key points from this review, note that none of the data reviewed was in regards to masks, type of masks, and their effectiveness in preventing the spread of COVID.
The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in presymptomatic or asymptomatic persons does not prove that they can transmit the virus to others. One study they reviewed was only of 6 patients and there was still limited evidence that the amount of infectious virus present was enough to cause spread.
This literature summation was conducted to support changes in CDC recommendations to reduce the risk for asymptomatic transmission and was NOT a systematic review.
And the good news of this review data is that “the case-fatality rate for COVID-19 may be lower than currently estimated ratios if asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections are included”
This paper is not about masks at all but rather states what most people already realize, that the virus was widespread before the first documented case.
Once again, NOT A STUDY ABOUT MASKS, another study from China that found that out of seven clusters where pre- or asymptomatic spread was “likely”, about 10 of those patients accounted for 6.4% of infections. WOW! WHAT A HUGE PERCENTAGE based on such a TINY TINY study.
Once again, not a study about the effectiveness of cloth masks. This is a study of one retirement home and a cluster of patients there who had viral loads “suggestive” but not proven of being able to spread even if pre-symptomatic.
NOT ABOUT MASKS, again from China, and only a study of ONE individual and the PRESUMED ASYMPTOMATIC transmission to their five family members living WITHIN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD. Not about community spread at all.
NOT ABOUT MASKS, This study isn’t even about asymptomatic spread as there was only ONE patient out of the nine they studied who had no symptoms.
And this report is a repeat of the same ONE German businessman who was sick with a fever and chills for two days and back to work on the third day. This simply details that he presumably spread the virus to a Chinese co worker who he had a business meeting with. One might ask who spread to who at this point seeing as this was in January. ONCE AGAIN, NOT ABOUT MASKS.
So, after my [author name redacted] review of all of these reports/reviews/studies that the CDC is using as the “emerging evidence” in its statement recommending universal cloth face coverings in public this is what I [author] have found:
- Cloth face coverings of a single layer and of any old material are NOT examined even ONCE for effectiveness in these studies/reviews/reports.
- It is mentioned in one study that gaps in face coverings decrease their efficiency by up to 60%…hmmm, I wonder what constantly taking them off and on does? Logically, taking the face covering off, then putting it back on without cleaning both it and your hands would increase the risk of spreading the virus.
- Most studies and reviews have an obvious caveat that the “evidence” is not conclusive
- Of the 8 studies about masks, the majority only reported the relative effectiveness of SURGICAL/MEDICAL grade masks, not cloth coverings and definitely not a single layer of cloth of any kind.
- Any mention of the relative effectiveness of a cloth face covering is when it is made of multiple layers (4 being the most effective in one study)
- The rest of the studies are incredibly limited, 21 patients being the largest control group, regarding asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread and the authors admit that there is not enough conclusive evidence to say that viral loads in these patients are enough to cause widespread community transmission
Something else to consider…
There is ZERO mention of studies which show that the outside of both cloth and surgical masks rapidly become contaminated with virus if the wearer is coughing.
One more thing to consider…
Why is the CDC statement regarding masks only using the term “face covering” rather than PPE? This could be due to the legal implications regarding PPE and the rules of OSHA in regards to employers and governments requiring the use of PPE. There are MANY contraindications to wearing masks for certain individuals in all situations, and for all individuals in certain situations. These contraindications could be based on genetic, medical, psychological conditions, the activities being performed while wearing a mask, the temperature and ventilation of the environment, etc. OSHA knows damn well the legal implications of requiring PPE without
- a proper medical review of the employee,
- proper fit of the mask,
- proper use of the mask, and
- all of the conditions in the individual and the environment in which a mask IS NOT ONLY NOT RECOMMENDED BUT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL AND EVEN DEVASTATING TO THE HEALTH OF THE INDIVIDUAL WEARING IT.
Yes, folks, that is why they are not calling it PPE….they are trying to avoid the legal QUAGMIRE of forcing masks on every single individual with zero consideration for any medical, psychological, conditional, or environmental contraindication to wearing them.
And….for a few unintended consequences of forced mask wearing in Jackson, Wyoming….there was a report of a woman stealing almost $2,000 worth of merchandise from a store on July 18th. Guess what, there is no description of her face because she was wearing a mask. Combine government mandated mask with a wig and/or hat…PERFECT disguise for a thief! And we’re de-funding police???? Why not! They couldn’t do much without an accurate description of the thieves so why do we need them?
I [the author, redacted] also had an anonymous individual verbally accost me one foot away from my unmasked face a week ago at a grocery store (guess he wasn’t too worried about me getting him sick!). If his verbal attack was comprised of hate speech I would have no way of giving a description of him to authorities or pointing him out in a “line up”. He was covered completely on the front and back of his head with a buff, sunglasses, and a baseball hat.
Remember folks, good intentions do not always make good solutions.
Also, according to another page on the CDC website, the flu has an overall mortality rate of nearly 4 times what the best estimates of overall mortality for COVID-19 is.
Maybe it’s time to stop allowing the media, the “experts”, and governments to control us through FEAR.
Or maybe it’s time to ask if they know there’s something worse coming and they want to have people conditioned to fighting back when they cry “WOLF!”