Jump to content

Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.186.122.187 (talk) at 02:55, 30 April 2021 (→‎The Lancet study should be removed, it is a proven fraud). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

|topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic codeArea of conflictDecision linked to
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=aa}}politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or bothWikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=crypto}}blockchain and cryptocurrenciesWikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=kurd}}Kurds and KurdistanWikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=mj}}Michael JacksonWikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=pw}}professional wrestlingWikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=rusukr}}the Russo-Ukrainian WarWikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=sasg}}South Asian social groupsWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=syria}}the Syrian Civil War and ISILWikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=uku}}measurement units in the United KingdomWikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic|topic=uyghur}}Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocideWikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 October 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yiyi Dai (article contribs).

Cons and risks

The pros section "Rationale for wearing masks" is not balanced with "cons and risks" rationales section. Some items publicly disupted:

  • direct health risks: reinfection with various bacterial, fungal and viral diseases (when used compulsorily by the general public, it must be assumed that they will not change their mask for clean one every hour). One doctor likened such a mask to a Petri dish, where the conditions are ideal for growing germs.
  • social and practical difficulties: difficulty of verbal and nonverbal communication and recognition, special impact on some groups (mentally disabled, autistic, deaf, babies, people with breathing difficulties), reduction of traffic safety due to fogging of glasses of drivers and pedestrians, increased fatigue, risk of fainting or collapse, decreased mental performance due to change in the composition and temperature of the inhaled air.
  • false sense of security (disproportionate reliance on the protective function of the mask, when people underestimate other measures, such as social distance and disinfection). If the mask is perceived as a symbol of loyalty or a magical protection, rationality may disappear.
  • disproportionate or unbalanced regulation, which reduces confidence in authority and arouses resistance (the obligation to wear masks even when one is alone in nature, alone in a vehicle, alone in a room, in an uninhabited public space, and in other places and situations where the negative effects may outweigh or eliminate the positive effect of the masks.

Authorities are trying to reduce the negative impacts with various exceptions, which, however, tend to be controversial and inaccurately targeted. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could add this data, but you would still need to have it sourced from a reliable source per Wikipedia rules. 2603:7080:C43F:9694:9C3D:CEB8:990F:D97F (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet sorting

The section "Comparison by countries and territories" should be sorted geographically, not alphabetically. Alphabetical sorting is the last desperate option for cases where no meaningful sorting can be used.--ŠJů (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policies about face masks

Hello everyone, I think that the article does not especify that most people that protest against wearing masks do it because in several countries, it is compulsory to wear it open public spaces, such as, wearing it being alone in the street, and with noone around you (beyond a physical distance of 2 metres). That might be an unreasonable an disproporcionated meausure. The other reason perceived by protesters could be that many consider it a meausure to collect money from taxes and fines.

--83.39.210.117 (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The word during refers to a duration in time. It seems awkward and ungrammatical to use it to modify a physical object (i.e. face masks) that exists outside of a given time frame. That was why I changed the title to Use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is consistent with the wording of the lead section: face masks ... have been employed as a public and personal health control measure ... Their use is primarily intended as a source control ... The use of face masks [has] been recommended by health professionals ... countries that recommend or mandate the use of masks.

The sub-sections of the article dealing with recommendations, rationale for wearing, (studies of) efficacy, correct handling, shortages, society, geographic comparisons, etc., all relate back to the general idea of use of masks for a given purpose. Where does the article significantly cover things pertaining to face masks that don't involve their use? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's awkward or ungrammatical. We have articles like Technology during World War II, Sweden during World War II (and similarly for many of the country-specific articles listed on the relevant WWII template), Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, Islam during the Qing dynasty, Australian rules football during the World Wars, etc.; those all seem fine even though the article subjects outlast the time period delineated in the title. I would rather not make the article title any longer than it already is. Einsof (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet study should be removed, it is a proven fraud

The paragraph "Efficacy studies for COVID-19" has a reference to a study that has been proven to be a complete fraud:

"A WHO-funded systematic review by Chu et al. (27 June 2020) published in The Lancet found that the usage of face mask could result in a large risk reduction of infection with epidemic-causative betacoronaviruses"

The WHO -funded Lancet study (Chu et al) is a fraud. The Lancet editorial board is aware of it, and are doing it over. All the references to the article should be removed. The errors in it have been shown for example in this article:

http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/

Also, the reference to the German city Jena should be removed - the model "study" that said Jena benefited from masks also told that multiple neighbouring cities and areas (Main-Kinzig-Kreis-area and cities Eisenach - Suhl - Weimar) actually suffered from face masks (this information can be read in the original pre peer review version, or in the "additional information" section of the final model / "study")

The most current, systematic meta-analyses of RCT's have showed that masks currently used do not work:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/pdf/CDSR/CD006207/CD006207_standard.pdf

Even the arguments about "but why then surgeons use them" have been squashed, a meta-analysis found that surgeon mask use has increased infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539019/

(The same result has been found in every review on the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioooi (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your source criticizing the Lancet article by Cho is a blog by an unreliable source. Cho specifically discusses bias and limitations in his article. The article on surgeons and facemasks is about wound site infections and specifically concludes "The use of facemasks by scrubbed staff during implant surgery should be mandatory to prevent infection". And the worst the Cochrane review says about masks in its conclusion is that "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks" because of poor quality studies. So no, I don't think removing the information from this article is appropriate. MartinezMD (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the blog is an unreliable source, message the Lancet editorial board about if they are redoing the whole Lancet article. Because they are, because there is such wide-spread data errors in the study. I myself have found a long list a major errors in the study when I went through it & and its source studies. The referenced "source" studies # 34, 44, 45, 49, 64, 66, 70, 72 were completely misrepresented / had major data errors in the Lancet review, and multiple others had smaller errors. The Lancet study is nothing but a fraud based on bad observational studies, omitting every single quality RCT in history. Ioooi (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your source that they're redoing the article? You haven't included that. MartinezMD (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I myself found a large portion of the mistakes, and contacted the Lancet editorial board to correct them. They told that they are redoing it in their email.Ioooi (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:NOR apply here. MartinezMD (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the claims about the Chu et al. (2020) study's representation of the results of the Scales et al. (2003) study as set forth by http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/#. According to Chu et al. (2020), Scales et al. (2003) favors the use of face masks. The truth is, in fact, the opposite. There's absolutely no doubt that the Chu et al. (2020) study is flawed to at least some degree, and it should be removed immediately as a source. WP:V and WP:NOR certainly don't apply. If a source is wrong, it should be removed. There's no requirement that some external trustworthy source explicitly call out that Chu et al. (2020) is flawed before it can be removed from here. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Get a reliable source, WP:MEDRS. WP:V and WP:NOR were in regards to Ioooi saying he was emailing Lancet. MartinezMD (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "reliable source"? If someone publishes an article in The Lancet stating that 394839 * 394829 = 38, and a Wikipedia article cites it, then, according to policy, it can't be deleted until someone "reliable" states that the result is wrong? It couldn't be more obvious: Table 2 in Scales et al. (2003) [1] clearly states "No. healthcare workers with exposure: Entry into room: 31", "No. (%) exposed healthcare workers with SARS: Entry into room: 6 (19)", "No. healthcare workers with exposure: Always wore at least: Any mask (N-95 or surgical mask): 13", "No. (%) exposed healthcare workers with SARS: Always wore at least: Any mask (N-95 or surgical mask): 3 (23)". Figure 4 in Chu et al. (2020) [2], however, states "Events, face mask (n/N): 3/16", "Events, no face mask (n/N): 4/15" for the Scales et al. (2003) study. These are clearly not the same figures. It shouldn't be necessary to have a reliable source confirm that 13 is not 16 and that 3 + 4 is not 6 etc. Or to have a reliable source confirm that we're indeed reading what we're reading. So it must be something else that you're after. What is it? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scales report is difficult to terse out. 6 people had recognized patient exposure but 7 got SARS. So he may be factoring in the 7th person, I don't know. And yes, when a reliable source publishes something, it'll take a reliable source to refute it. Don't like it? Take up an rfc. MartinezMD (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@5.186.122.187: What do you mean, "reliable source"? This is defined clearly in WP:MEDRS. Specifically, this is a secondary source (a review of primary studies), meaning it is given greater weight specifically because it avoids your hypothetical example of one author publishing a bogus result. In this case, it's a review of "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". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's very easy to terse out. And yes, he's including the 7th person that the original study did not include because it was NOT a documented case of SARS, merely a suspected one. Very conveniently, the 7th person was one of the non-mask wearers. Alas, I did the math and even with that 7th person included, the result would have still been in favor of not wearing a mask. Probably why they had to change the denominator from 13 to 16 as well - because THEN the numbers will favor wearing a mask. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I certainly don't like that results that even someone from grad school can conclude are wrong get used on Wikipedia. Before COVID, deduction - which in this case would amount to a = 13 and b = 16 => a ≠ b - was considered a most reliable source of knowledge. Now, apparently, it has to yield for Chu et al. Sad in my opinion, because it will only hurt Wikipedia's credibility. But fine, you'll get your rfc. Here it is [3]. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It avoids nothing if it's the secondary source that is flawed. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to remove the Chu et al. study - and I understand that you don't - may I suggest that it be included in the article that the Chu et al. study misrepresents the Scales et al. study? Then our readers can decide for themselves if they trust the original data more than the flawed copy that Chu et al. presents. Or is that impossible because Chu et al. - being a meta-analysis - is more credible than Scales et al., and we hence must understand that Chu et al. knows better the correct data for the Scales et al. study than Scales et al. themselves do? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Chu et al is flawed, Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting generally high quality sources such as the Lancet. It's our job to accurately reflect what these sources say, not to perform citizen science to critique them ourselves. So we either need to wait for the Lancet to retract or publish a revision to the study, or for another high-quality source (see requirements in WP:MEDRS) to come to a different conclusion. If you find such a study, link it here so it can be evaluated. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do all the other studies reviewed have an error? Because I don't see how a potential single error invalidates the review, especially when Scales's own conclusion is "Use of gowns, gloves, and masks as barriers appears to reduce the risk for SARS transmission in most but not all situations." Chu might have made a mistake on the denominator of a single study, but how does this invalidate the entire review? MartinezMD (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I respectfully dissent. A policy that, in principle, allows an article stating that 13 = 16 simply because that's what credible The Lancet says, is not compatible with an encyclopedia. Which means that either Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, or you are misrepresenting the policy. I cannot refer you to any credible study concluding that facemasks with a high certainty do not work, nor can I refer you to any credible study concluding that with a high certainty they do work, because I've found no such study, and I doubt one even exists. (2) I have no idea. But the blog post has been correct so far. Looking at Table 3 in the Heinzerling et al. (2020) study [4], we see that 0/3 health care workers who wore facemasks during non aerosol-generating procedures tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (after having developed symptoms, since the table states "COVID-19" and not "SARS-CoV-2"; the correctness of this interpretation is confirmed elsewhere in the article). In Figure 4 in Chu et al. (2020) [5], these numbers have become 0/31. Does this mean that the conclusion of Chu et al. is wrong? Maybe. Or maybe not. But it does mean that Chu et al. should not be relied upon and should not be used as a source. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if we are too stupid to compare two tables and conclude that the numbers differ, aren't we too stupid as well to even paraphrase the article here on Wikipedia? I mean, in order to paraphrase something, you need to understand what it means, right? But we're not clever enough to do that; it's all pure citizen science. And no, the "no original research" argument is not valid here. That policy applies to the content of the article. It does not apply to the process of deciding what sources not to use. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A section on RCT-studies that tell masks do not work should be added

The best scientific evidence we have on masks are rigorous meta-analyses on RCT's

And they pretty clearly state that masks do not work

Currently a random wikipedia reader could be left with the understanding that the scientific community supports mask use, when it actually does not

I think there should be some kind of section added for the best quality evidence on masks, otherwise this article is nothing but propaganda

The largest meta-analysis on masks, with over 3000 studies analyzed / gone through:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/epdf/standard 20 November 2020

"What are the results of the review?" "Medical or surgical masks . . . Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort."

"Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks . .. wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18."

WHO meta-analysis on RCT's

https://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/

"OVERALL RESULT OF EVIDENCE ON FACE MASKS 1. Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

"Quality of evidence There is a moderate overall quality of evidence that face masks do not have a substantial effect on transmission of influenza."


A very widely distributed meta-analysis on masks that was supposed to be pro-masks, actually was erroneous, and had RR>1 for masks after corrections: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v2.full.pdf (Larson 2010 had the biggest data error in the meta-analysis, the numbers switched around, number of "no reported symptoms" switched to "reported symptoms")

And no, the masks don't even work for the patients in the operating theatre:

"Are facemasks a priority for all staff in theatre to prevent surgical site infections during shortages of supply? A systematic review and meta-analysis" 2020 Marson 07.10.2020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539019/

RR=0,76 for "no masks" = masks made patients' infections worse Ioooi (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Ioooi, this page is just propaganda for mask advocates. 66.213.13.51 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link back to the COVID-19 misinformation article section false claims the masks cause low blood oxygen levels

Chapter "5.2 Public use of face masks" links to this article here, it also mentions there are false claims spread that the usage of masks causes adverse health-related issues such as low blood oxygen levels,[258] high blood carbon dioxide levels,[259] and a weakened immune system[260] , so shouldn't we put a link back and also mention this in this article here? Cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chemicals

See https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/face-mask-warning-as-scientists-find-dangerous-chemical-exposure-in-some-coverings/ar-BB1fdjvL?ocid=msedgntp . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 (talk)

Hi, it's unclear what you'd suggest adding to this page from that article, but in any case the Daily Express is considered generally unreliable (See WP:RSP). POLITANVM talk 14:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics showing that masks have reduced case numbers

How come there is no mention in this article of a country where COVID masks were implemented and then cases dropped permanently, with no later case surges? 66.213.13.51 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you want? "Reduced case numbers", or "no later case surges"? Because those are two very different things. What you want is probably this, from the Efficacy Studies section: the CDC stated that the benefit of universal masking, including reductions in infections and mortality, has been demonstrated in community-level analyses by a set of studies involving the Massachusetts hospital system, the German city Jena, the American state Arizona, a panel of 15 American states and Washington, D.C., Canada nationally, and the United States nationally.[6] Bakkster Man (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking specifically for no later COVID-19 case surges. 66.213.13.51 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're looking for the wrong thing, I'm afraid. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If masks worked, it wouldn't be "the wrong thing." The Arizona anaylsis showed masks don't work. The United States study ended before the November surge LOL. 66.213.13.51 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masks do work. Whether or not other behaviors can increase the risk more than masks can mitigate is an entirely different discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1020620424"