DDP News – Vol. XXXVI, No. 1
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks for the public have been advocated or required in various places in the world, but the demands to force everybody, even children, to comply in the U.S. have become frenzied as this is being written in early July.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) floated the thought that the epidemic might be over, as all-cause mortality had peaked and returned to normal. But then surges of “cases” were reported in Florida and the border states of California, Arizona, and Texas—along with a surge in testing. A “case” is a person with a positive test, even if apparently well. Governors were criticized for re-opening too soon, and began forcing still-surviving businesses such as gyms to close. And various jurisdictions began to impose mask requirements.
The narrative about non-medical masks is that they protect others even if they do nothing to help the wearer. Thus, failure to comply is portrayed as a selfish, anti-social act. There being no reliable information about the sources of infection, every person is a potential threat. Contact tracers are to be deployed by hundreds of thousands to interview persons who test positive, to find and isolate persons who might have been near them. It would instead seem logical to ask sick people where they might have been exposed, as when investigating an outbreak of food poisoning. Asking about attending a Black Lives Matter protest is off-limits, at least in New York. And what about border crossing?
It just happens that surges in border states have occurred in border counties, coinciding with a COVID surge in Mexico. The three Rio Grande Valley counties—Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron—had a 29% hospitalization-to-case ratio in early July, when the rate for the U.S. was 5.8%. This suggests that seriously sick patients may be crossing the border in search of treatment (tinyurl.com/y88cvxz3).The number of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border surged 40% in June (tinyurl.com/yaj6dt3x).
Texas emergency chief Nim Kidd’s suggestion: more mask wearing, even inside the home (https://tinyurl.com/y8mlxah2).
Where is the evidence to support the mask wearing demanded with such certitude and passion by medical authorities, who at the same time insist on “evidence-based medicine” for treatments? What exactly changed the official advice? In February, the CDC website advised against masks outside the medical setting. On May 29, the World Health Organization (WHO) was against masking for the public, and the CDC was for it (https://tinyurl.com/y9etk8am).
On Jun 8, WHO changed its stance to favor public masking (https://tinyurl.com/ybxpdbco). Surgeon General Jerome Adams recanted his initial opposition to public masking.
Actual evidence for efficacy is scanty. For an excellent compendium of information by Marilyn Singleton, M.D., J.D., see https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/.
For an average American living outside New York City, the chance of being an extra fatality from COVID-19 was about 1 in 5,000, somewhat higher than the chance of dying in an auto accident in a year. For those under 50 with no serious health conditions, the risk was about 1 in 50,000, similar to the risk of dying in a fire (https://tinyurl.com/ybmfalgy).
How much can mask-wearing reduce that risk? There are no randomized controlled trials. A WHO-funded meta-analysis looked at observational studies in severe respiratory distress syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19; the last included only seven studies, one with 15 and one with 20 subjects. The adjusted odds ratio of becoming infected after exposure to an infected person was 0.15 for wearing a mask vs. no mask, a result considered to be of “low certainty.”
Looking at raw numbers, 163/3686 (4.4%) got infected when wearing a mask and 546/6484 (8.4%) when not wearing a mask (Lancet 6/27/20, tinyurl.com/y8bglwtb). Thus, the average probability of not getting infected was 91.6%. If a person is not infected, there is 0% probability of transmission and 100% probability of no transmission. If the person is asymptomatic, the possibility of transmission is disputed (https://tinyurl.com/yaofalez).
Masks may help, but any benefit must be balanced against harm. Masks are a breeding ground for bacteria and fungi, writes virologist Hendrik Streek, and could even increase the risk of coronavirus infection (https://tinyurl.com/y7vuxudy).
Viruses trapped in the mask can eventually spill over if the mask is not properly sanitized (Dr. Ted Noel recommends every 4 hours), delivering a larger dose than the wearer might have gotten from the air (https://tinyurl.com/ybap4af5).
N95 respirators have been found to harbor influenza virus. Increased infection rates in mask wearers may result from a weakening of immune function by hypoxemia. Masks increase the work of breathing and can diminish proper gas exchange (tinyurl.com/y7arx9de).
One cannot blow out a burning flame through an N95 or surgical mask, according to the makers of the RS1 Respirator Mask (samgo1.com), whereas one can easily do so through their mask, which uses a filter that purportedly does not resist airflow but captures bacteria and virus particles using an electrostatic process. N95 masks, they claim, trap some respired air, increasing inhaled carbon dioxide to 2–3% (normal, 0.04%) and reducing oxygen intake by 5–20%. This could account for the symptoms experienced by many mask wearers. N95 masks, compared with surgical masks, do not reduce the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza (https://tinyurl.com/ybboza42). A meta-analysis of ten randomized, controlled trials reporting estimates of face-mask effectiveness in lowering rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza within the community, published between 2008 and 2016, showed no benefit. Moreover, the authors cautioned that using face masks improperly might “increase the risk for (viral) transmission” (tinyurl.com/yb3ge4zu).
A controlled study showed that properly fitted surgical face masks might reduce human non-COVID-19, cold-causing coronavirus emission into exhaled aerosols and large respiratory droplets, but samples collected from comparably ill patients randomly allocated to the group not wearing masks showed that “the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus,” and viral “shedders” transmitted small amounts of virus (ibid.).
If COVID transmission occurs via aerosols traveling long distances, neither masks nor “social distancing” will be effective. The need is for better ventilation and for a way to disinfect the air, which is also effective against other pathogens such as tuberculosis. Far UV-C (about 220 nm) light, which does not penetrate far enough to affect human skin or eyes, shows great potential (https://tinyurl.com/yd7u393f).
MASKING OTHER ISSUES
While COVID-19 “case” counts dominate the news, where is the coverage on public and private debt, loss of tax revenue, rampant fraud in aid programs, corruption and malfeasance in the FBI and other government agencies, and other urgent issues?