2 infected hair stylists exposed 139 clients, no one got infected that they could trace.
10 Likes
@Chris Anecdotal. Here’s a real, annotated and reviewed study.
Count me as not sure.
1 Like
That’s hardly an academic article on the topic, just because they have references. Look at the dates on those references–it’s almost all super old research, and none of it specific to COVID transmission. I’ll take my research and recommendations relevant and up-to-date, please. The overall gist is that it’s not entirely clear the extent of protection, but evidence suggests they offer some protection and potentially enough to be significant, and that is sufficient to warrant recommending using them given this crisis.
Research:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.12745
Recommendations published in top medical journals (vs “oral health group”):
8 Likes
Also those were just from a cursory glance at page one of results from a Google Scholar search (which you don’t need any academic credentials to use). I suggest using that if you want to examine the evidence base, vs anecdotal information.
3 Likes
@cardamom First, I don’t think the definitions of “aerosols” and “small droplet”, nor 0.1-4.0 microns have changed in the last 3 or 4 years.
And it is very insulting to cast aspersions on a Dental journal as not a valid source.
To cast doubt on a well regarded and well researched paper as a lay person shows your bias, and is hardly scientific. Refute the points in the paper if you can, don’t dismiss it out of hand because it’s four years old. That’s how science works.
1 Like
My refutation is that that paper is outdated (almost all of the references it cites are over 20 years old, not just 3-4, and they certainly do not directly address any evidence of masks applying to coronavirus–the paper itself can be newer, but given it’s a review, it is only as good as the evidence it cites, which as a scientist myself, I’m well aware of), and I cited many others that are original research that more recent or reviews of recent research as my rebuttal. That is how science works. Maybe read a few?
5 Likes
The consensus seems to still be out. While masks may offer some benefits, they certainly aren’t a replacement for other precautionary measures. Here, masks are recommended where physical distancing is not possible, but they are not mandated. Two large Canadian cities are mandating them in indoor environments, though, so there’s a possibility that will come to my city.
1 Like
The best analogy that I’ve heard so far is that each precaution, individually, is like 1 single slice of swiss cheese. Each piece of cheese alone has at least one hole in it, but as you pile on more slices, one on top the other (more precautions taken simultaneously), there are less holes until, eventually there are zero holes in the stack of swiss cheese (little to no covid transmission threat). All precautions taken together will result in the least amount of transmission while none or only one precaution provides the greatest transmission rates.
9 Likes
Sorry Doc, but that particular journal is not a peer-reviewed journal. Secondly, the journal itself has removed the article, calling it no longer relevant:
6 Likes
You are mistaken. The references are dated mostly 2014-2016, with one 1993. And the closest to Covid up until recently was SARS and MERS, upon which Covid recommendations were being made.
And @Boerenkool, I’m not surprised that a journal such as Oral Health would remove such a controversial article in today’s climate. But it’s author and references are no less esteemed.
By all means, wear a mask if it makes you feel more secure. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the mask is impenetrable armour.
From the paper’s conclusion:
“The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection.”
Masks can lack protection at a personal level while still providing protection at a community level. I recommend reading some of the links @cardamom provided.
Who said that masks are an impenetrable armour? I haven’t seen that said anywhere in this thread.
The idea behind wearing masks is not that they will protect the individual wearer. The idea behind wearing masks is that they help to break the chains of transmission within communities when used in conjunction with other public health measures.
7 Likes
No one is doing that. If anti-mask folks paid attention to what any mask advocates are saying, instead of creating their own bizarro reality in which masks also suppress oxygen consumption etc, they’d hear us say OVER AND OVER that masks are worn to prevent spreading the virus not to protect people from contracting it. It’s exactly why the only way they work effectively on a community level is when everyone wears them. Most virus spreading occurs from people who do not yet know they are infected, so to protect the community, everyone needs to assume they are infected and act accordingly. It’s why it’s not just of concern to me whether I’m wearing my mask, but it’s absolutely of concern whether everyone else is, and given how many people in the US anyway have demonstrated complete unwillingness to make this small sacrifice for community wellbeing (ironically often the same folks who claim they would sacrifice so much for this country, when it is theoretical), it is clear we need mask mandates and rules to enforce basic common sense and decency.
6 Likes
While I would not assume these numbers to be accurate (would depend tremendously on many other factors anyway), here’s a basic illustration of the concept in case it’s easier to grasp that way:
6 Likes
As far as I could find, the journal is not peer-reviewed and its author hasn’t published any peer-reviewed research in at least 20 years.
The equivalent of the CDC in my country only recommends and mandates wearing masks in public transport. I follow that advice, so actually I don’t wear a mask that often. The thing is, I expect them to base their recommendations on actual science instead of non-peer-reviewed articles by non-researchers.
4 Likes
Same here. Masks are recommended in indoor environments or in environments where physical distancing is not possible. Importantly, they are not recommending that masks replace other public health measures like physical distancing, hand hygiene, increased cleaning, limiting social interactions, and staying home when sick… Those things are still heavily emphasized far more than masks; masks are just another layer of protection that can help keep the virus under control.
Some people get annoyed at the changing recommendations over the past few months and claim the experts obviously don’t know what they’re talking about. But the experts are following the science as it evolves, and they are making recommendations based on the currently-available research, not on speculation, opinion, or emotion.
9 Likes
This concept is foreign to a certain segment of the world it seems…that crazy thing called “the Scientific Method.”
1 Like
The Scientific Method certainly isn’t a foreign concept to Doc, who evaluated research for his patients for years. I am just overjoyed at the subtle name calling going on in this thread when someone has an opposing view.
3 Likes
I’m with you. I found it almost as fascinating…or maybe more…than the articles themselves 
EDIT: OK, now I am definitely retracting my misunderstood response. I am staying clear out of this argument. This is a place for peace, enlightenment and education.
2 Likes
@Chris, i equally don’t appreciate your deciding to assume who i was talking about. My statement was a general truism and if you took it as a slight against someone specifically then that’s on you. I think you know me well enough now to know i hold no punches. If i have something to say to you, doc or anyone else I’ll call you out by name. I’m surprised you don’t know that about me by now.
I don’t even read his posts as he’s on ignore. Shame on you for furthering the divide with your assumptions.
Well thank you for correcting the record. I appreciate your explanation, but if you think I am fanning the flames of furthering a divide on this site, I don’t even know what to say.