Fauci is making the news again. He says the plain english wording of a study (published by no less than Oxford University) showing the ineffectiveness of masking is being misinterpreted and the medical establishment now want the study wording to be revised to reflect the accepted narrative, so let’s see what the plain wording of the study actually says:
“Medical/surgical maskscompared to no masks
“We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs [randomised controlledtrials - added]) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate- certainty evidence. 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 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence).
“WN95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
“We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcaresettings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence). One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non- inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients…
“There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this e!ect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated.”
Key words: “harms were rarely reported.” In other words, they were so focused on proving that masks were absolutely critical that they couldn’t afford to document 1) the harm wearing masks may have caused, and 2) how many were infected DESPITE wearing masks.
That is about as plain as it can get, with almost zero room for “misinterpretation.”
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/fauci-defends-masking-covid-cases-184801071.html
No comments:
Post a Comment