berchman Loc: South Central PA

I won't quote the entire article since it's unlikely to be read, but I will give the link after my partial excerpt.

The authors of a study based on an enormous randomized research project in Bangladesh say their results offer the best evidence yet that widespread wearing of surgical masks can limit the spread of the c****av***s in communities.

The preprint paper, which tracked more than 340,000 adults across 600 villages in rural Bangladesh, is by far the largest randomized study on the effectiveness of masks at limiting the spread of c****av***s infections.

Its authors say this provides conclusive, real-world evidence for what laboratory work and other research already strongly suggest: mask-wearing can have a significant impact on limiting the spread of symptomatic c****-**, the disease caused by the v***s.

“I think this should basically end any scientific debate about whether masks can be effective in combating c***d at the population level,” Jason Abaluck, an economist at Yale who helped lead the study, said in an interview, calling it “a nail in the coffin” of the arguments against masks.

The researchers estimate that among a group of Bangladeshi adults in the study that were encouraged to wear masks, mask-wearing increased by 28.8 percent after the intervention. When tracked, this group saw a 9.3 percent reduction in symptomatic c****-** seroprevalence, meaning the v***s was confirmed by bloodwork, as well as a further 11.9 percent reduction in c****-** symptoms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/01/masks-study-c***d-bangladesh/

BadPhoto Loc: Maryland

The scientific debate is not the issue. It's the anti-vax anti-mask C***D deniers that are the problem, augmented by the failure of the CDC to present a consistent and clear statement about why masks should be worn, what masks should be worn, and when masks should be worn.

btbg

Can't read the article, it is blocked unless you have a subscription. Also, if you really want to prove masks work, then you need a copy of the study, not a story from the Washington Post. If you have the study I will happily look at it. Same with the Washington post story if you post the story.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

“You asked for it, you’ve got it . . .”

https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.

All 94 pages of it . . . .

Maybe now that further evidence IS available, some persons may become more amenable to considering mask use.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

You are correct, the scientific debate is not the issue—even though some deniers/no-vaxers are still trying to “spin” the outcomes of several previous reports.
(Such as this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748920301139 ).
As well as other reports indicating some degree of mask usage is effective.

Or there are reports of studies (such as the cloth-mask study inVietnam, 1975–which was not scientifically rigorous, doubly blind or enforced (i.e. there was no direct observation—just verbal reports)).

However, mask-deniers and anti-v**xer’s will likely not believe data and facts. AGAIN.

btbg

Sorry, when I clicked on your link all I got was page not found.

btbg

I can't look at the link BadPhoto posted. Maybe it does show that masks work. The article you linked to however, does not show that masks work.

From your link for health care workers "Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective." So, my first and obvious question is why would they work for the general public when they don't work for health care professionals.

Second, also from the link you posted "The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for C****-**, where t***smission may be pre-symptomatic."

In other words masks might work to slow t***smission, or maybe not. After all, the study only suggests that they might work. And, so far this is the best I've seen in support of mask use.

There is something occurring, at least locally that may actually support mask usage. People are going to the doctor with symptoms and testing negative for c***d. Then, they are going back to work or wh**ever else. Then, for our five days later they are testing again and this time they are testing positive. The end result is the number of cases in the area have skyrocketed. Perhaps in those conditions masks might help. The thing is the people who are sick, but tested negative for c***d are not masking, so it is kind of a mute point.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Was going to mention the Bangladesh study, but see that's what this thread was based upon...ooops.

I guess a current Bangladesh study might be just as good as a decades old Vietnamese study when C***d didn't exist.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

This link works:
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/c****av***s/yale-study-of-bangladesh-shows-the-effectiveness-of-masks

Click on the pdf.

BadPhoto Loc: Maryland

Very good. Thanks for that.

btbg

Thank you. I will read it when I get a chance.

btbg

It's a very interesting study. However, it does not necessarily show that mask wearing reduces infection. They had a large increase in mask wearing in their study villages, but they also had an increase in social distancing. According to the report 5 percent more social distancing as well as fewer people entering the marketplace together.

That means that the decrease in infection rate could have come from masks, social distancing, or a combination of the two.

It is the best study I have seen to suggest that masks work. It's just two bad that they included social distancing in their protocols since that makes it impossible to tell which behavioral change actually had the largest impact.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

And, I think our government, along with the CDC AND Dr. F***i, HAVE been saying all along that we should wear masks and observe social distancing.... not one or the other.

BadPhoto Loc: Maryland

They started out by recommending that masks were not necessary. Then they changed their message, which impacted their credibility.

The problem with the CDC and F***i is that their messages have been politicized for a number of reasons, but all of which add to the impact on their credibility.

It appears that the original CDC advice against masks was not motivated by concerns for the public health, but for concerns that advising for mask use would lead to a shortage of masks for health care workers. The federal administration did not immediately increase importation, manufacture, and distribution of masks. They should have, and they should have started providing masks to the public at once. And proper masks, not ineffective cloth masks. But they didn't.

Now they are still playing politics. They have revised distancing rules to 3 feet in some cases, they keep waffling on schools and children, and their advice seems to be swayed more by political pressure to ignore the v***s than the realities of the p******c.

And I don't buy the argument that this was all new. First, they had procedures for handling such a p******c, they just ignored them. Second, they had information from response to previous v***l infections. Asians were wearing masks immediately. Americans? Nope.

I don't care about the politics; from a health standpoint they should have been behind masks, social distancing, limited capacity in enclosed spaces, ventilation, and v******tion. They should have been behind mandates for all of this wherever possible.

In particular, until studies showed different, they should have been pressing the notion that v******tion did not preclude a requirement to wear masks and follow the other mitigation measures. That was a completely botched mixed message. People still think that if they are v******ted, they don't need to wear masks.

They have failed at nearly every turn. I hope they investigate this response and learn something for the next generations' infection crisis.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

I prefer to breathe wit ease throw enough money at it and you will get your desired result