clinical trials that are peer reviewed that prove masks work?

Here's a Cambridge Uni comparisson of mask types

www.repository.cam.ac.uk...

The Lancet study and meta-analysis of 216 trials

link

originally posted by: bastion
...
The Lancet study and meta-analysis of 216 trials

Never forget. The NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) did the same thing, as did the organization known as VA (Veteran Affairs):

The NEJM and their lying marketing activities are alluded to by Dr. Raoult in the video I shared in my previous comment in this thread.

Don't you get it? According to the verified experts of this forum, peer review doesn't work. LOL.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
That there NO Clinical trials that are peer reviewed that prove that masks are effective in spreading specifically the
Coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

How would a mask help the spread of a disease like Covid-19?

Masks do prevent the spread of disease, both spreading and getting. This is because they act as a barrier. There are scientific studies around the use of PPE. It's why people in operating theatres wear masks, aprons and gloves - to prevent contamination. I am sure all the Covid Naysayers would object to their surgeon just getting stuck in without a mask on!

a reply to: Brassmonkey

When I'm cutting concrete painting, waterproofing, the correct masks work.

Some BS bit of cloth, 1.5 meters stay away from me c**t and washing your hands every #in 30 seconds to contain a patented chemical weapon known as the Mexican beer #in virus is a control measure.

You've been #in duped mate.

Do your homework.

Some of the best peer-reviewed material comes at the standard "Bid/Ask" method 😎

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
That there NO Clinical trials that are peer reviewed that prove that masks are effective in spreading specifically the
Coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

How would a mask help the spread of a disease like Covid-19?

Masks do prevent the spread of disease, both spreading and getting. This is because they act as a barrier. There are scientific studies around the use of PPE. It's why people in operating theatres wear masks, aprons and gloves - to prevent contamination. I am sure all the Covid Naysayers would object to their surgeon just getting stuck in without a mask on!

By people properly trained to wear such PPE, with a proper disposal chain for items that are biologically hazardous, while they are not doing exaggerated movements like loading groceries in a car. Or bags of mulch.

And when you see hospital staff treating patients with COVID-19, they have a hell of a lot more PPE on than one little surgical mask.

originally posted by: neutronflux
And when you see hospital staff treating patients with COVID-19, they have a hell of a lot more PPE on than one little surgical mask.

This is a good #ing point, medical staff dresses up like they're getting ready to spray out the # tanks at the waste treatment facility, but the rest of us are told all we need is face diapers one could exhale cig smoke out of with no issues or forced breath.

Someone's mouth is smelling suspiciously like a puddle of diarrhea here. But hey, if Two Girls, One Cup was a thing for folks, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when people actually gobble it.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Someone's mouth is smelling suspiciously like a puddle of diarrhea here. But hey, if Two Girls, One Cup was a thing for folks, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when people actually gobble it.

What if it's just the ruse before ...

a reply to: and14263

On the subject of 'double masks'. The theory is good. You are adding extra layers of filtering fabric, so increasing the level of protection/filtration, but it may be cumbersome.

Surgical masks are not designed to wear as double.

If you cannot wear one mask properly, wearing two masks is not going to do squat.

If the second over mask is not bigger the the under mask, it’s not going to add protection.

Wearing two surgical masks is as faulty as thinking wearing two condoms is better than one.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: and14263

On the subject of 'double masks'. The theory is good. You are adding extra layers of filtering fabric, so increasing the level of protection/filtration, but it may be cumbersome.

Surgical masks are not designed to wear as double.

If you cannot wear one mask properly, wearing two masks is not going to do squat.

If the second over mask is not bigger the the under mask, it’s not going to add protection.

Wearing two surgical masks is as faulty as thinking wearing two condoms is better than one.

Condoms rub against each other and break.

Masks are made from spunbond and meltblown polyproylene. A simple 3 layer mask is spunbond meltblown spunbond in that order, the more layers the more protection, that is a proven fact and tested using EN149. Shortened names for layering systems are SMS, SMMS, SMSM etc etc

I know what you're saying, and of course, just wearing one mask on top of the other isn't an exact science. But the probability that increasing the number of layers increases filtration performance is high. However, yes, it relies on airflow, how the fabric is laying, fitment.... all sorts of things. But the theory is sound and I am willing to bet that a double mask stops more particles EXITING the mouth than a single mask.

Not to mention in surgery, people are CUT OPEN. Of course the patient can be contaminated much easier, when you slice into the first line of defense the body has - the skin. You know, the largest organ of the human body. So yeah, a mask to stop flying spittle into an open wound in a surgical theater makes sense. In the real world, sneezing or coughing can be done in the elbow.

a reply to: and14263

I know what you're saying, and of course, just wearing one mask on top of the other isn't an exact science.

They make and sale cloth masks with two layers of fabric. And I am sure you can purchase other types of masks with more than one layer.

When not recommend masks constructed with more than one layer of “filtration” that can be worn as designed vs the hoodoo mumbo jumbo crap shoot of saying double masking might work.

a reply to: and14263

EXITING the mouth than a single mask.

Not if your glasses are fogging for example, showing the mask is being bypassed at the seal. Not any different than wearing an N 95 mask with an exhalation valve.

If one mask cannot be worn properly. Two is not going to help.

a reply to: IAMTAT

ANNNNNND TAT wins the comment award for this thread

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: and14263

EXITING the mouth than a single mask.

Not if your glasses are fogging for example, showing the mask is being bypassed at the seal. Not any different than wearing an N 95 mask with an exhalation valve.

If one mask cannot be worn properly. Two is not going to help.

I've mentioned fitment and I've mentioned airflow... and I've certainly not assumed that my case is of high probability "if someone cannot wear one mask properly".... that's a non controllable variable, which of course, if someone cannot wear one mask right they cannot wear two. And that point wasn't even part of the original discussion.

I'm not sure it's worth carrying on this cycle of conversation, I've addressed all your points in the original post I made but you have not taken that in.

I personally couldn't care less. Wear a mask, don't wear a mask, wear two masks.... whatever. The fact remains, if fitment, airflow and application is considered then two layers are better than one, that's just a simple fact of how fabric filtration efficiency works.

(And I'm not talking about cloth masks, like you have also mentioned, I specifically named the precise polymers used to manufacture a filtering fabric).

I don't care what field your in or what high fallootin discipline your in. OK, I'll explain the peer review lie. Think on this, as I said ANY discipline,:- for those on ATS, I'm an idiot, so all other idiots on ATS are in my PEER group. GET THAT? So I say masks don't work.
Question can any of my PEERS on ATS review my statement? If any one does then it's peer reviewed. It's that simple.

originally posted by: crayzeed
I don't care what field your in or what high fallootin discipline your in. OK, I'll explain the peer review lie. Think on this, as I said ANY discipline,:- for those on ATS, I'm an idiot, so all other idiots on ATS are in my PEER group. GET THAT? So I say masks don't work.
Question can any of my PEERS on ATS review my statement? If any one does then it's peer reviewed. It's that simple.

After having reviewed your statement...I agree.

originally posted by: thegeneraldisarray
Not to mention in surgery, people are CUT OPEN. Of course the patient can be contaminated much easier, when you slice into the first line of defense the body has - the skin. You know, the largest organ of the human body. So yeah, a mask to stop flying spittle into an open wound in a surgical theater makes sense. In the real world, sneezing or coughing can be done in the elbow.

When I started looking into this last year I found several studies that showed a drop in post operative infections when masks were NOT worn in the operating room. The funny thing was that the studies did NOT call for removal of masks from operating rooms because of TRADITION and PERCEPTION.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Masks are mostly about you not spreading it..... since you can be asymptomatic, you could be sneezing or coughing just because... you know, dry throat or dust, whatever. And if you were asymptomatic but carrying, you could spread it with a sneeze.

The mask prevents the majority of the particles from being projected out towards people around you.

I think it's pretty easy to see and accept, that since you still suck air in from both sides, if there are any particles, you risk them being pulled in there. BUT... chances that there are free floating particles are less, because.... masks.

But don't worry about it. Took a long time over here as well till people "got it". Stop thinking of masks as protecting you, think of them as protecting people around you, from you.
And stop thinking that you are not sick because you aren't showing symptoms. They found this out back in Feb 2020 that you could be spreading for 10 days before you had symptoms yourself.