Loading ...COVID Mask and Eye Protection Meta Analysis
A Meta Analysis of the vast majority e trials out there trying to draw some conclusions.
Distancing works.
Face Masks work. BUT, the type of mask is important.
Link to full Lancet article:
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9.pdf
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.
METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.
FINDINGS: Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.
INTERPRETATION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
The Lancet is a left wing journal more interested in using “science” to push left wing policies than to inform. Many in the science community have sold their professional souls for the pittance of contemporary acceptability. Their lack of integrity harms the world.
Thanks Dadoc1
my first impressions
1..This is from Lancet which is the discredited journal that recently posted an article which was retracted for outright FRAUD regarding HCQ
2….None of these studies cited are peer reviewed RCP studies “172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials ”
3…There are many many peer reviewed studies in this piece by Denis Rancourt which show masks do not offer protection from airborn viruses. Here is a summary https://goldtadise.com/?p=470683
They offer Zero RCT studies and I offer Dozens…so there is no scientific proof on their study and lots of it presented here. Game set match
For the full report ( it’s lengthy) you need to click on https://goldtadise.com/?p=470728 and scroll down to PK’s comment where he had to cut and paste it ( since the original article was censored)
My Impression is they are now trying to tell “Public Officials” we need N95 masks for everyone ( If you haven’t tried one of these be sure to do so…YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BREATH WITHOUT A STRUGGLE …THEY SERIOUSLY RESTRICT AIR FLOW…NO ONE COULD WEAR THESE IN PUBLIC…NO ONE !) I tried to use one while treating my first post lockdown case and ialmost passed out
AND THEY NOW WANT TO MANDATE GOGGLES
ALL THIS WITH NO RCT STUDIES TO PROVE ANY EFFECTIVENESS…JUST A HYPOTHESIS
BULLSHIT !
SHEESH IT IS SO OBVIOUS !
PS…Would you not like to know how they can do a Ramdomised Control Trial to prove social distancing has any effect ?
They would have to have a Group that absolutely stays 6 feet apart form any human being for 2 weeks and a group who does not….and they would have to not know who is who…so how do they police the first group ?
They have NO proof..its all BS if you just think it through for a minute
The Lancet is one of the top medical journals.
With COVID what has happened is publication of some studies that are not properly peer reviewed.
Meta analyses are used to pool smaller underpowered studies to try and draw conclusions.
As for N95 masks. I wear N95 mask AND a regular mask over it to protect my precious N95 from soiling when seeing ALL patients.
On our COVID ward I get to wear a PAPR unit which is far more comfortable.
In my hospital we forced all staff to wear facemasks at all times and put all patients on droplet precautions. Droplet precautions means masks, eye shields, gloves and gowns for every patient contact. Each set of gowns, gloves changed in between patients.
This significantly reduced staff to staff and patient COVID infections. That is my real world experience.
Would / Could you wear an N95 or higher mask in public ?
Dr. Immanuel shared her experience that neither she nor any of her staff contracted the virus and they wear only a surgical mask
and take Prophylactic HCQ ?
Are you taking Prophylactic HCQ ..are any of your staff ?
tia
No prophylactic HCQ. Without good evidence based data that would be foolhardy.
Long term use of HCQ has consequences. Short to medium term use is generally safe as long as you have a normal EKG.
Quercetin is a natural substance that acts similarly to HCQ in mechanism and would recommend that instead as easily obtainable and does not require yearly eye exams to ensure no retinopathy.
Not my area of expertise, but of anecdotal amusement perhaps I know someone who was hospitalized this century in a CCU at large hospital known for its excellence in cardiology among other disciplines, with multiple abnormalities including a significant cardiac arrhythmia that led to other temporary cardiac abnormalities. On hydroxychloroquine when he came in, as I recently confirmed out of curiosity, this person was given it throughout his hospitalization and discharged on it. It is not that the cardiologists were careless, I suspect. It was that they knew what they were doing, knew what it did with what kind of arrhythmia and what kind of underlying condition etc etc.
The state in which the hospitalization occurred I think may have abruptly taken a particularly hard line against hydroxychloroquine in recent months.
I would be EXTREMELY careful about being dismissive about the Lancet. It is absolutely an establishment journal — easily one of the top establishment journals — but it is not as though it responds instantly to edicts from above. It is certainly not extremist except to the extent that you want to consider the medical establishment to be extremist. It is entirely possible that pressure will be put on researchers and authors, on reviewers, on editors — including unconsciously or semiconsciously by themselves by their training and biases — but if something extreme happens, as it may, someone is likely if not resign or blow a whistle at least to write criticism between the lines.
The way things are often done, for better or worse (worse in my opinion) is for the criticism to be between the lines, subtle. There may be letters to the editor that might seem boring to the outside but to the readership will seem harsh. It may come as whispering behind the back; and not soon enough. It is not an efficient method and I do not support it, but again it is not to be dismissed out of hand as a meaningless source.
As far as the study, ideally one looks at the details of the study. I am usually too busy for this sort of thing. Also it is an area of expertise for me, so I can easily be fooled. I therefore try at least to glance at it if not read it and then seek out opposing analyses if I am especially interested. Just dismissing it because of its establishment source is no better than dismissing it because it might have come from an unusual source hostile to established medicine.
Are you aware the published a study which said HCQ did not have any merit in treating Covid.
Then it was retracted because fraud was discovered.
Maybe their reputation has taken a hit .
At any rate they could find not one study done on masks which was the scientific gold standard RCT study
Just a collection of unproven non peer reviewed studies as compared to Denis Rancorts work.
Bottom line Choose which one you believe to be correct and act accordingly
see no reason to force n95 or any mask wear or goggles on citizens based on these unproven studies…but thats my take.
Everyone gets to decide…right ?
Nobody forces anybody …right ?
On the Lancet: Here’s what you can try to get your hands on, but probably a wild goose chase, based on a false internet rumor. Don’t spread it except maybe (if at all) with the proviso that it is probably a false rumor. Don’t source me as saying it is true. I’d bet it is false.
However I have read the assertion that in the French language press — I think a French newspaper or magazine, possibly Swiss — editors of the 2 major English language medical journals, the Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, in an interview or at a conference were both quoted as saying in so many words that they were pulling out their hair because they were getting so much stuff on Covid-19 that was overly biased in favor of what the drug companies wanted, and also getting unbelievable pressure to publish it, so much so that they were pretty miserable.
I was skeptical when I read it. My French is alas now so rudimentary I did not bother to try looking. Someone with good French and an interest might search. Probably a wild goose chase. I’d bet it is a false rumor, but I suspect others have seen the rumor.
No Rumor Karl…
Dadoc ..you are busted
Lady Caroline a very sharp research associate pointed this out ..Thanks Caroline !
……………………
I know you posted the article from lancet in good faith so I am kidding BUT
Lancet is Busted and the Bullshit is so thick you can cut it with a knife
Luckily they didn’t even think to hide this…I guess they figured no one reads their shit anyhow
PEOPLE SHOULD JUST TAKE THE HEADLINE AT FACE VALUE
here is the cut and paste of the Synopsis you posted ..BUT you left out a critical part
Look at the Bottom Line ( emphasis by bold type added by me)
Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more
and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks,
respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual
factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic
appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
Funding World Health Organization.
Copyright © 2020 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article published
under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO
endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice
should be preserved along with the article’s original URL.