I am not an expert in these matters, but there are other highly qualified folks out there who are pointing out significant issues with this study:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-02-masks-covid-dont.html

Also there are numerous studies indicating that masks are effective:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1634654801820

Again - I'm not saying this study is wrong, but it seems premature to draw any conclusions from it. In fact, on the Cochrane website we can see this:

Lisa Bero, Cochrane Public Health and Health Systems Senior Editor and an author on an Editorial published to accompany this review said, “The results of this review should be interpreted cautiously, and the uncertain findings should not be taken as evidence that these measures are not effective.

Here outcome means whether you lived or died. — frank

It doesn't. The studies involved are summarised for you in tables 1, 2, and 3. None of them measured the outcome of the course of the ARI, they only measured contraction.

This forum has practically no audience. It's just a few posters. There are more moderators on this forum than posters on any given day. — frank

Hey now.

there are other highly qualified folks out there who are pointing out significant issues with this study: — EricH

I don't doubt it, especially given the vitriol with which the advice was promoted. there's going to be every incentive out there to find every flaw possible. Odd that no such flaw-finding zeal was applied to the studies showing even the vaguest links between mask-wearing and disease reduction, or the extremely flawed studies on myocarditis, or the sketchy trials for the original vaccine, or the barely existent trials showing any benefits to the interminable 'boosters'...

One can always find flaws. No trials are perfect. As I said earlier here...

What the Cochrane review shows is not that masks are useless, nor that governments were wrong to mandate their use. It shows that those who disagreed with the government's policy were normal, rational people who simply had legitimate and well grounded differences of opinion about the best way forward. — Isaac

Also, the government in America mandated masks for children against the advice of the WHO. Since when did it become OK to mandate an un-trialled intervention, on children, on the basis of "no evidence that it's not effective"?

There's currently no evidence that slapping children repeatedly round the face is not effective. Should we mandate that too?

Not sure where you got that info about WHO, here's what I'm seeing:

"Some countries and regions may have specific policies or recommendations in place. As always, follow the guidance provided by your country or local health department or ministry.
WHO and UNICEF recommend the following:

1. Children aged 5 years and under do not need to wear a mask because in this age group, they may not be able to properly wear a mask without help or supervision.

2. In areas where SARS-CoV-2 is spreading, children ages 6-11 years are recommended to wear a well-fitted mask"

etc, etc

It doesn't. The studies involved are summarised for you in tables 1, 2, and 3. None of them measured the outcome of the course of the ARI, they only measured contraction. — Isaac

Isaac. Read the sentence:

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks

The outcome mentioned there is not whether they contracted it. We already know they did by laboratory confirmation. "Outcome" in this case means the same thing it always does in research about healthcare.

Also, the government in America mandated masks for children against the advice of the WHO. Since when did it become OK to mandate an un-trialled intervention, on children, on the basis of "no evidence that it's not effective"? — Isaac

The vast majority of healthcare decisions are not research based. There just isn't enough research to do that.

Occasionally we all find out that a hard rule, based on good logic, isn't actually the best course. I've seen that a couple of times. It's weird.

Children of this age should not wear masks for a long duration or without supervision.  — https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/q-a-children-and-masks-related-to-covid-19

It's in the very article you cited. The US mandate went against this advice.

The outcome mentioned there is not whether they contracted it. We already know they did by laboratory confirmation. "Outcome" in this case means the same thing it always does in research about healthcare. — frank

Which of the studies tested for these outcomes?

Some countries and regions may have specific policies or recommendations in place. As always, follow the guidance provided by your country or local health department or ministry. — EricH

This was the main problem and the worst thing to do because it created two extreme scenarios: Countries with ministries which were obsessed with pandemic and we were in the risk of being treated as a criminal just for not wearing a mask or countries where the state gave zero attention or interest (like Brazil) and many citizens died in the streets.
Conclusion: The world was not ready for such complex scenario and most of the countries were just improvising.

For vulnerable people like the elderly and chronically ill, it makes sense to keep wearing them. — frank

in a social setting, even 1 person protected means a chain reaction of infections has been forestalled — Agent Smith

Neither of these suggestions make sense.

Sars cov 2 is so contagious your best efforts will not keep the virus away . It's not a question of if you can avoid the virus, it's only a question of when you get it.

There are still people who believe wrongly that if they mask, if they test religiously, they can prevent their loved ones from getting COVID. That's not true. It's setting them up for disappointment. One day, someone will infect their loved one. It might even be them. The test will be falsely negative. The mask will fail, which is what masks do. — Vinay Prasad - Associate Professor Epidemiology and Health Policy

There are various factors at play.
You don't want to wait a couple of years for studies to come out when there's an outbreak. Besides, masking up isn't exactly detrimental.
Often enough you'd see someone only covering their mouth (including on broadcasts/TV). Don't know what studies tried to account for masking up wrong, but people ought to know better.

Fortunately, it hasn't been as dangerous as the 2003 outbreak, which had a 10% fatality rate, and we're fortunate that such a deadly mutation hasn't emerged in this round. — Oct 19, 2022

By the way, there are influentials that some contrarians/fools/whoever will listen to.

How a Kennedy built an anti-vaccine juggernaut amid COVID-19
^{— Michelle R Smith · AP News · Dec 15, 2021}

Children of this age should not wear masks for a long duration or without supervision. — https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/q-a-children-and-masks-related-to-covid-19

This only applies to children under 5. If we're using WHO as a guide (which you appear to be doing) then you're fine with masks being required for children above 5. So we're only talking about children between 2 & 5 here as CDC said children under 5 did not have to wear masks..

I did not do an extensive web search so maybe I missed something, but I'm not aware of the CDC or US government mandating masks for children between 2 & 5. Recommended yes, mandated no.

But beyond that. given the numerous crises going on in the world, the issue of whether mask wearing was the best strategy for preventing COVID transmission (or minimizing the effects) is wa-a-ay low on my list of things to obsess about.

I'll give you the last word here (if you want tit)

I disagree with whoever this Vinay Prasad. Plus we need to be careful about interpretation. Masks don't fail 100% of the time. Even if the failure rate is 99%, 1 out of every 100 will be protected. Now consider the fact that the chain reaction that could've been initiated by this one person has been avoided and you'll get an idea of how useful masks are. The objective of masks is not to save the wearer from infection, but to stop the geometric progression of transmission.

Something odd about the US... — Feb 7, 2023

Median price of hepatitis C drug Harvoni (Statista)

Cost of Insulin by Country (World Population Review); insulin was developed by a Canadian and a Scotsman a century ago, not new or anything, some will die in a month or something without insulin

Xarelto Prices (PharmacyChecker)

Per capita prescribed medicine spending (OECD)

Prices in the United States are higher than those in all comparison countries — ASPE

What's the deal with those prices anyway? I guess they affect health care. Apparently, there are other things where the US stands out moneywise.

'm not aware of the CDC or US government mandating masks for children between 2 & 5. Recommended yes, mandated no. — EricH

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/02/world/with-cases-rising-mayor-eric-adams-is-keeping-new-york-citys-preschool-mask-mandate.html

given the numerous crises going on in the world, the issue of whether mask wearing was the best strategy for preventing COVID transmission (or minimizing the effects) is wa-a-ay low on my list of things to obsess about. — EricH

High enough to chime in when you thought you could exculpate your government, but as soon as it comes to actually holding power to account it suddenly becomes boring and low priority. And you wonder how they get to walk all over you...

Now consider the fact that the chain reaction that could've been initiated by this one person has been avoided — Agent Smith

It hasn't. It will happen at some point in time over the near future. That's the point. Everyone (who's within that cohort) will get Covid. So any effort to stop them getting Covid now is pointless because they will get Covid at some point. What you can do, if you have loved ones who are vulnerable, is get them vaccinated. Vaccination reduces the severity of the symptoms they will suffer when (not if) they get Covid. Beyond that, I suggest you direct any remaining vitriol to your atrocious healthcare provision so that when people get Covid they are better cared for than the third-rate slum that modern healthcare has been degraded to.

Well, if that's what you think & believe, I can't stop you. :up:

masking up isn't exactly detrimental. — jorndoe

There are a large number of child psychologists and paediatricians worried about the effects of masks on children's development. For example...

https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/mandatory-masking-of-school-children-is-a-bad-idea/

https://theconversation.com/clear-masks-for-caregivers-mean-young-children-can-keep-learning-from-adults-faces-139432

https://www.cugmhp.org/five-on-friday-posts/why-a-mask-is-not-just-a-mask/

And since when did we start major mandatory interventions on the grounds that they "probably" don't do any harm?

Besides which you're simply attempting your usual switch. The issue here is the extreme vitriol with which anyone opposing mask-wearing was treated. People were screamed at, called 'murderers', physically assaulted, banned from public platforms, sacked from their jobs... all for disagreeing with a policy which had little evidential support, some risk of harm and now transpires may have been pointless.

The point of all this is not about health policy. It's about how we dealt with rational dissent.

The topic of maskwearing was also quite hot in the Netherlands.

Somewhat amusingly (but not really) Dutch government officials went on record first stating on several occasions that maskwearing was completely nonsensical and ineffective, only to make a u-turn a few months later making them mandatory for everybody (after the WHO had already advised against it).

Later inquiries were made into the governmental record to see how these decisions came about. Something that was repeatedly brought up, was how it was believed that maskwearing could cause behavioural changes among the population.

In less euphemistic terms, those in charge believed maskwearing could cause people to become more fearful of the virus.

That's really interesting, we had the same in the UK with the behavioural scientists in SAGE being instructed pretty much to find ways of amping up the fear.

Perhaps they were concerned that Pfizer's profits might dangerously dip below that $20 billion threshold we all know is, for some reason, crucial to human well-being.

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that WHO relies on the member countries for information and funding. As such they have to defer to to each country to implement their recommendations as they see fit.

As a US citizen, what irks me is the vitriol that people hurl at the CDC for simply doing the best they could to keep everyone healthy and alive in a confusing rapidly evolving situation.

Anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, the two cut from the same cloth I'm afraid. Nevertheless, we do need to study the side-effects of wearing masks, but something tells me the benefits outweigh the harms.

You are not mistaken and I am aware of what is the role of WHO towards facing an epidemic. But I wasn't balming the WHO, or European Medicines Agency, FDA, etc...
Those are institutions where many professional scientists work and their resolutions or recommendations are important to follow.

My claims were against the ministeries, governments, prime ministers, or whatever depends on political parties. Probably, I am mistaken, but as much as I remember, I cannot recall a government doing a clever plan against Covid.
I guess Australia was one of the effecientest when they locked down all their frontiers, for example.

As a US citizen, what irks me is the vitriol that people hurl at the CDC for simply doing the best they could to keep everyone healthy and alive in a confusing rapidly evolving situation. — EricH

Why on earth would you think that? What is it about the history of government institutions that could possibly have given you the impression that they are ever just "doing the best they could to keep everyone healthy"?

Is it, perhaps, the major funding they receive from pharmaceutical and other industries?

https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362

Or is it the effect of that industry pressure on their policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/17/cdc-accused-opioid-guidelines-drug-industry-pressure

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/301432-the-cdc-is-being-being-influenced-by-corporate-and-political/


Or is it the revolving door employment opportunities the CDC offers?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/27/fda-biopharama-revolving-door-study/ (FDA primarily, but talks about wider government body practices).

The US is still in the grip of an opioid crisis which has killed around 100,000. Nearly half the population is obese, and life expectancy is going down.

I cannot make sense of your blind obsequience.

This is pretty much sums up the state our critical facilities have reached now.

We're discussing the peer-reviewed results from one of the most respected scientific establishments in the world.

But the view which prevails is based on "something tells me", and blind faith in a provably industry-biased government institution.

This is pretty much sums up the state our critical facilities have reached now.

We're discussing the peer-reviewed results from one of the most respected scientific establishments in the world.

But the view which prevails is based on "something tells me", and blind faith in a provably industry-biased government institution. — Isaac

Every great discovery starts as a hunch! :lol:

Wait a minute - you mean to tell me that government institutions are not perfect and that individual people can exploit these institutions for their own personal gain? I'm shocked, I had no idea, Thank you for enlightening me. I will have to re-think everything I ever thought.

I cannot recall a government doing a clever plan against Covid.
I guess Australia was one of the effecientest when they locked down all their frontiers, for example. — javi2541997

From a distance it seems that New Zealand did a pretty decent job of handling things. Of course it's much easier to isolate if you're an island nation hundreds of miles away from anyone else.

I don't know if there was/is any perfect plan. It's a highly complex situation with many moving parts - and any action you take will have some secondary effects. You mask up and that slows down transmission - but then that potentially affects childhood development. You lock down, but then everyone is out of work. You come up with a vaccine, but there will inevitably be some negative reactions. Etc, etc.

I don't know if there was/is any perfect plan. — EricH

Here's an idea for one.

If a situation is a...

complex situation with many moving parts - and any action you take will have some secondary effects — EricH

...perhaps don't make all other approaches illegal, sack people who disagree, ban the discussion of alternative directions, take away travel, work, family visting, and the outdoors from people who disagree, steal finances from dissenting campaign groups, and whip up an almost pathological hatred of anyone who doesn't follow your dictats...


Just an idea of how a grown-up version of government might act in the face of huge uncertainty.