Joe Biden swears by them...Trump, not so much. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) was recently criticized for saying there was 'science on both sides' of the mask debate. While the CDC recommends wearing masks and studies show their positive impact, there have not been many large scale trials demonstrating their efficacy. But we now have the results from one such trial from Denmark involving 3,000 participants. The 'Danmask-19 trial' was a randomized controlled study--making it the highest quality scientific evidence. And the results...
..."no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19." Details can be found in the Spectator.
But as Forbes reports, the publication of the study in the peer-reviewed Annals of Internal Medicine has generated heated debate. Health experts, including the lead researcher behind the study, disagree with the results. The study has numerous limitations, but Dr. Christine Laine, editor-in-chief of the above journal, argues that the study did a good job of answering a very specific question: whether or not face masks protect wearers from Covid-19 in areas with low infection rates and high levels of social distancing. "It did not answer the question about whether widespread masking mitigates SARS-CoV-2 infection."
Bottom line: In areas where infection rates are low and social distancing is practiced wearing masks may not be that important. So, wear them in crowded places but okay not to in big open spaces. Seems intuitive.
No comments:
Post a Comment