Why the hell do people think masks don't protect the wearer?

[MrsKypp]

Of course masks protect the wearer, in varying degrees depending on the type and how they are worn.

Examples
FFP2 and FFP3 give a high level of protection
Cloth / material, lower level of protection

I can't believe it when people say they don't protect the wearer. How weird to think that!

FFP3 are only effective if they are fit tested. This test has to be carried out by a trained fit tester using chemicals that can be immediately detected if the mask is not fitting correctly.
A number of our staff tried several makes of FFP3s but failed the fit test on all of them. They are not allowed to assist in certain procedures as a result.

It is pointless buying an FFP3 mask without having a fit test.

@HalfPastThree

There was quite a large randomized controlled trial in Denmark on community masking, and it showed no significant protection for the wearer. So I think it's reasonable to think wearing a mask won't protect you.

It's probably a good idea to assume it won't, because if you think you're protected and you're not, you'll end up taking risks.

This study doesn’t show that masks don’t protect the wearer. It was inconclusive.

From the paper:

“The most important limitation is the that the findings are inconclusive.”

“Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.”

Limitations were:

“Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

Because of the small sample size, the confidence interval of the results was huge and, based on this data, the effect of mask wearing could range from a 46% decrease in infection to a 23% increase in infection. That is very inconclusive.

All we can conclude is that, in places where infection rates are generally low, and other protective measures are in place, this specific mask recommendation made during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with background rates of 2% PCR acquisition, failed to show that mask wearing reduces risk by 50%. It may have reduced risk by 46%. It may have increased risk by 23%. Or somewhere in between. We don’t know, because of the way the study was designed and the results they got.

So, while interesting, this paper doesn't add a great deal to the body of evidence around mask-wearing, and has been widely misinterpreted as evidence that 'masks don't work'.

I am not say8ng fully protected but think more so then if someone sneazed and al i had was a disposable face mask. Were not talking about medical grade PPE at all.

@Angrymum22

FFP3 are only effective if they are fit tested. This test has to be carried out by a trained fit tester using chemicals that can be immediately detected if the mask is not fitting correctly. A number of our staff tried several makes of FFP3s but failed the fit test on all of them. They are not allowed to assist in certain procedures as a result.

It is pointless buying an FFP3 mask without having a fit test.

If you are eg working on the front line or e.g as a dentist I'd agree.

Otherwise, access to fit testing is perhaps impossible to get.

So what do you suggest an ordinary person (with pre-existing conditions) wears now then?

Why is an FFP3 pointless? Are you saying we might as well wear a piece of cloth?

@june2007

I am not say8ng fully protected but think more so then if someone sneazed and al i had was a disposable face mask. Were not talking about medical grade PPE at all.

I do see what you mean - it's much better than nothing, absolultely.

It'd be great if there was more protection around for everyone, especially people like shopworkers, teachers etc

FFP2/3 are becoming compulsory in my region in Germany, possibly nationally.

Our numbers are fairly low (160-170 incidence for weeks now), but they want it under 50. Mask compliance is good but they want to try and reduce transmission even more, so they've said we ought to try the 'protects everyone' masks.

@EileenGC

FFP2/3 are becoming compulsory in my region in Germany, possibly nationally.

Our numbers are fairly low (160-170 incidence for weeks now), but they want it under 50. Mask compliance is good but they want to try and reduce transmission even more, so they've said we ought to try the 'protects everyone' masks.

Wow, that is brilliant.

I so wish Merkel was the British PM.

You are so lucky over there.

Merkel and the Germans are great at setting restrictions. Not so great at relaxing them, it's now been 3 straight months of lockdown 😅 They're considering lifting it at the end of February if the FFP2 and 3s work. I'll take anything if it means I can go to primark or H&M again!

Because the government pushed this at the start of the pandemic.
Having previously pushed "masks are ineffective".

The usual muddled and inconsistent messaging from Saint Boris and his merry men. No wonder people are confused.

@EileenGC

Merkel and the Germans are great at setting restrictions. Not so great at relaxing them, it's now been 3 straight months of lockdown 😅 They're considering lifting it at the end of February if the FFP2 and 3s work. I'll take anything if it means I can go to primark or H&M again!

Germany protects lives while the UK protects (attempts to) protect the outdated mismanaged NHS*

I hate the phrase here saying 'Protect the NHS' it really feels as though people's lives don't matter.

For gods sake, this country is so wealthy yet our health service is total crap. Can you believe people have to stay in WARDS in 2021???? Mixed sex sometimes even!!!!!!! Germany has single rooms or double doesn't it? Same sex.

I think I need to move to germany asap

• I am not criticising the doctors, nurses, cleaners etc etc but you know, management etc

The Danmask study is worth at least as much as the Leverhulme one, which reads more like an opinion piece than a scientific paper.

'The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.'

Masks are basically a mix of placebo and a demonstration of willingness to acquiesce to government diktat.

@LarryTheLurker

The Danmask study is worth at least as much as the Leverhulme one, which reads more like an opinion piece than a scientific paper.

'The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.'

Masks are basically a mix of placebo and a demonstration of willingness to acquiesce to government diktat.

My reaction to that:

1. Not more than 50%, so in other words, it could reduce it by e.g. 45%

2. Surgical masks - they are amongst the masks offering the least protection (prob. better than material I suppose?) --> It should have tested FFP2/3 with visor.

Your final sentence is so idiotic I won't even bother replying to it.

@LarryTheLurker

The Danmask study is worth at least as much as the Leverhulme one, which reads more like an opinion piece than a scientific paper.

'The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.'

Masks are basically a mix of placebo and a demonstration of willingness to acquiesce to government diktat.

I’ve written a fuller post about the Danish mask study further up the thread, but in relation to your specific points.

1. The quality of the data was such that the study was inconclusive. This doesn’t mean it showed that masks don’t work. Or that they do. There wasn’t sufficient data, and the confidence intervals were huge.

1. The UK isn’t a country where infection rates are modest and general mask-wearing is uncommon so any data is limited in its relevance anyway.

1. I can’t fathom how you would possibly devise a study that had a placebo mask cohort - and one certainly hasn’t been done - so your statement is nonsense.

Austria is introducing compulsory FFP2 masks in shops and public transport from next Monday (as well as on ski lifts where they already have been compulsory since the lifts opened).

The government are saying that the cloth masks give some protection to others but not the wearer but he FFP2 masks will protect the wearer too.

@iailwfsaidc

Austria is introducing compulsory FFP2 masks in shops and public transport from next Monday (as well as on ski lifts where they already have been compulsory since the lifts opened).

The government are saying that the cloth masks give some protection to others but not the wearer but he FFP2 masks will protect the wearer too.

Right, I want to move to Germany or Austria now.

Those countries seem to actually want to prevent more suffering and deaths from SARS2.

MrsKypp

You're terribly rude.

Anyway. You asked why people think this. It's because initially this is what the research available did suggest about masks - you refined the question mid thread. I had reason to research it myself a couple of years ago and came across the same articles so it wasn't a surprise to hear it last spring. Clearly it's different now.

I sense your question was rhetorical though, so that's it from me.

Getting everyone to wear a ffp3 mask is great, unless they re-use them because let’s face it they are expensive. The virus has adsorbed onto the outside of your mask in high concentration you touch it to put it back on or fiddle with it, rub your face or eyes and infect yourself. It’s not all about clinical trials in ideal situations, sometimes a bit of common sense has to come into it too

Some people are spitty type of talkers when they talk like that cartoon - daffy duck. Some people have spit flying from their mouths when they talk. I suppose masks help to contain some of that. Also laughing generates fluids from the mouth.

It would be great if as much people as possible wore masks in more public places.

I am going to start wearing masks at home to protect my family more. Just in case I get exposed to the virus and become infectious/incubation phase before showing symptoms.

I'm nearly behaving like a robot in my actions trying to protect as many people as possible. I'm super paranoid about covid. An observation I have, I saw my employer in the kitchen, mouthing on into her phone. Loud talking but she was standing over a shared spaced like standing over the toaster, kettle, butter and other cutlery. You could easily see the potential for infectious fluids to land everywhere. She should have taken the call out from the shared space and maybe even tone it down on the voice but that probably won't happen on a grand scale.

If I worked in public health, I would bring in a new measure - a requirement for everybody to shut their mouths in public.

1. I can’t fathom how you would possibly devise a study that had a placebo mask cohort - and one certainly hasn’t been done - so your statement is nonsense.

Its not nonsense. You don't appear to understand the dual meaning of the word placebo:
*
something that is given to tryy to satisfyy* a personn* who has not been given the thing they really wantt*

From the Cambridge dictionary

In this case it's someone wanting safety from corona. The mask is a placebo.

Of course I understand, but the word was used in the context of scientific studies. In order to claim that something is a placebo, one needs to show evidence that the intervention is, in fact, a placebo. Just stating it because you’re a conspiracy theorist doesn’t cut it.

I thought it was more to do with limited protection for you if you wear a mask but more stop you passing it on to others. I believe it is also because of the way people put masks on and off.

If you are meant to wash your hands then place mask on, avoiding touching the part that covers your face and then without touching mask, wash hands, remove mask and wash hands again. I know very few people who do this, they wear a mask because they know they should but actually accept it will not offer them much protection because of this.

I see a lot of people putting masks on in cars etc in supermarket and whipping them off as soon as they get out. I also find it a bit bizarre that in my local supermarkets there are plenty of sanitisers on the way in but you can't sanitise on the way out.

@confuseddotcom090

Umm. Because the largest study of masks in a RCT way shows they don't.

Science.

Which study?

@MrsKypp

Of course masks protect the wearer, in varying degrees depending on the type and how they are worn.

Examples
FFP2 and FFP3 give a high level of protection
Cloth / material, lower level of protection

I can't believe it when people say they don't protect the wearer. How weird to think that!

It's more weird that people are convinced they do despite the lack of evidence. Sadly this means we are all forced to walk around with a placebo stuck on our faces...

@MerinoFroggie

Some people are spitty type of talkers when they talk like that cartoon - daffy duck. Some people have spit flying from their mouths when they talk. I suppose masks help to contain some of that. Also laughing generates fluids from the mouth.

It would be great if as much people as possible wore masks in more public places.

I am going to start wearing masks at home to protect my family more. Just in case I get exposed to the virus and become infectious/incubation phase before showing symptoms.

I'm nearly behaving like a robot in my actions trying to protect as many people as possible. I'm super paranoid about covid. An observation I have, I saw my employer in the kitchen, mouthing on into her phone. Loud talking but she was standing over a shared spaced like standing over the toaster, kettle, butter and other cutlery. You could easily see the potential for infectious fluids to land everywhere. She should have taken the call out from the shared space and maybe even tone it down on the voice but that probably won't happen on a grand scale.

If I worked in public health, I would bring in a new measure - a requirement for everybody to shut their mouths in public.

I'm going to tell you something really scary so if you don't think you can face it stop reading.

Viruses are really small. So small that virus-containing respiratory droplets comprising of smaller droplets and particles can remain suspended in the air over long distances (usually greater than 6 feet) and time (typically hours). If you are able to breath (which I hope you can) whilst wearing a mask then the mask won't provide much protection either for you or anyone else. If you look at someone wearing a mask outdoors on a very cold day you will see how their visible vapor filled breath escapes through the sides of the mask.

There is some evidence that wearing a mask may increase infection rates in wearers. The warm moist gap between the nose and mouth and the mask is perfect for viruses.