Mask wearer: you are protecting others, but get little protection for yourself.
But that is good!
I just read a report on a Danish study examining the efficacy wearing a face Masks ( See a review and summary in the Spectator, 19 Nov 2020: “Landmark Danish Study finds No Significant Effect For Face Mask Wearers) The authors - Carl Henefhan and Tom Jefferson) ask the question: Do face masks work? Their conclusion: No! They don’t protect the wearer.
The actual research and data found in the study (Danmask 19 trial) was conducted in the Spring of 2020, with over 6000 participants. It was a randomized, controlled trial. One group of volunteers, wore identical masks which were supplied to each person and followed rules about use and changing the mask regularly. The results (as reported by Henefhan and Jefferson) indicate that after a month of wearing the masks 1.8% of those wearing masks had been infected, while 2.1 % of those not wearing masks (the control) had contracted the disease over the study period. The authors concluded that there was no significant difference between the infection rate of those who wore a mask and those who did not. Clearly wearing a mask DOES NOT PROTECT THE WEARER FROM INFECTION.
This study is a good example of the old adage that there is “no certainty in science”. That is until someone actually tests a hypothesis and provides hard facts. It in this case, many of us were not surprised at the results, given the known inefficiency of masks and as well the very small size of the particles involved and the relatively coarse weave of the fabrics used for most face masks.
Given the facts of how small the particles that we seek to filter out are so small and the fabric weaves are so coarse, think of this analogy. A man walks onto a soccer (football) pitch with his golf bag. He sets up directly in front of a field goal with the obvious intending to use the netting (@ five inch openings) of the soccer goal as a back stop for his practice golf drives. He takes a golf tee from his bag, tees up a golf ball (@ 1.7 inches) and take a huge sweeping swing. The golfer watches as the well hit small white sphere passes cleanly through the netting, rises upward, continues climbing in height, clearing a high fence of an adjoining neighborhood. As it fails off III begins to describe a slight draw to the left. The golfer still in his post swing pose begins to twist his body right as if to control its flight, but It missed a large tree and sadly crashes though the window of a near by home. Whereupon the golfer,quickly jams his driver in his bag and slinks off.
As a near-by observer you could have predicted the sad outcome. Since it was clear/from the beginning that the netting could not contain the golf ball. But some scientists want to actually prove the obvious. They are “following the science” as some politicians are beginning to utter constantly these days, even though nary a one ever saw the inside of an introductory college chem lab.
Yep. We pretty much knew this would happen. Aware of the actual size of the aerosols and the openings in typical fabric masks, the reality is even more stark than this golf ball analogy. Masks do not protect the wearer. But they are most likely useful in trapping a good portion of the larger droplets generated when we breathe and speak (again this is still scientifically unproven). This capture by masks close to the source, no doubt helps limit the amount of aerosols in the air and in particular especially those originating with folks unknowingly infected with the Covid 19 infection. Remember, that there are many asymptomatic people out there.
Perhaps why our government and official agencies, as well as those in Johnny come lately scientist politicians in authority seem to ignore the fact that masks provide little protection against the virus for the wearer is rooted in the sad fact that most of us find it difficult to
No comments:
Post a Comment