Although I have very limited scientific knowledge even I can see that the evidence for community mask use is very limited and of poor quality.
however, until knowledge gaps are filled, is it advisable to proceed with precautionary principal and mandate their use just in case they do work?
Its the opposite. Any proper evaluation doesn't just look at one effect - it also looks at potential negative outcomes and expected negative impacts.
This comprehensively fails to do that - its a policy with no good evidence of a benefit and not even any research at all as to negative effects or unintended consequences (ie unknown potential harms).
In the normal world you'd never get that policy through any ethics committee.
I agree with the other members, the gov study is limited in scope, and of very poor quality.
There are many many studies examining the mask question, showing ineffetiveness and negative consiquences, here is a TLAV episode examining the question, a selection of references from the literature are quoted towards the bottom of the page under the video.
https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/great-mask-deception/
Having now read the document, its a complete joke. It basically disproves itself as everywhere it looks for supporting data it seems to find none.
The evidence specific to coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19) is still limited and does not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn for specific
settings and type of face coverings.
Finally, more research is needed to improve knowledge on how face coverings are used by
subgroups of the population across settings and how this might impact on their effectiveness.
However, the role of face coverings in
mitigating airborne transmission is still unclear.
The evidence for their effectiveness was inconclusive, although this could
have been because it was derived from different settings (pandemic versus non-pandemic
contexts) and based on different types of studies
Despite the high levels of interest in this topic, the evidence on the effectiveness of face
coverings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is still limited, largely due to the low level of
evidence provided by the studies available (which are largely observational, and not always
peer-reviewed) and by the differences between studies in terms of methods and
settings. Factors such as types of face coverings, mask fit, and compliance with face covering
policies may also impact on their effectiveness, especially in the context of airborne
transmission.
This review rated low for quality, mainly due to the lack of risk of bias assessment. An update of
this review (search date up to 12 March 2021) which included 46 new primary studies was also
considered although fluid dynamic modelling studies were not included (21). The update was
rated critically low for quality, mainly due to the lack of risk of bias assessment and discussion
of possible biases.
COVID-19 is still limited and does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn by settings or type of
face covering.For non-medical masks, the review by Chou and others concluded that there was too little
evidence to draw conclusions as only one study (case-control) had been identified (33) critically low for quality (mainly due to the lack of risk of bias assessment and discussion) but
were deemed of interest for this overview of the evidence as their search dates were more
recent
If this is the best they can do after 2 years there really is nothing to see here at all. Its unbelievable from a scientific point of view that damaging policy is being made based on this.
What we're seeing instead of science driving policy is policy driving science.
We've seen it several times, the government and certain people WANT something so try to craft the science around it.
JCVI and non vaccinating kids was another. Science said no, government wanted yes.
They first decide WHAT they want then scrabble around for data supporting that. It should of course be the other way around.
I think that whatever the challenges the following answers most of the questions,
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020
I think that whatever the challenges the following answers most of the questions,
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020
why would you say this, this is only meant for ignorant legal-business people, coppers or judges, politicians and other riff raff, it answers nothing about the good or bad of masks.
But zero actual science. Its the classic political ass-covering law.
Now if it was N95/FFP2 masks (worn correctly) they might have some point but as they dont the current law would be just as effective for respiratory infection disease control if it made people wear masks on their elbows.
Its got nothing to do with public health, its got everything to do with making it look like the politicians are "doing something". Pure political theater for media consumption..
When it comes to public health "common sense" is nearly always wrong. Which is why we have medical science. Which has been almost totally ignored since December 30'th, 2019.
I used to be in the "FFP2 might possibly make a small but measurable effect" camp.
Having seen data from Germany and other places where they're mandatory i now don't follow that thinking any more.
Whatever theoretical differences there might be, they're swamped by real world confounding factors and accomplish nothing.
Common sense would dictate a policy that no sound theoretical mechanism for effect backed up by no useful real world data showing an effect would not be implemented.
The BEST scientific evidence summary by the main advisory group rates *all* the data of low, very low or critically low quality.
The main preprint they claimed proved an effect when raw data was released actually showed the complete opposite.
Real world data from regions and countries with different policies also shows no difference.
So basically the common sense approach is to not mask as there's nothing to suggest they can or in fact do anything beneficial.
The opposite view is just as valid. While there could be a benefit of mask wearing, there is no point in not implementing a precaution that has no substantial downside.
I know that people will jump up and say the bad effects of mask wearing are devastating, but that's just nonsense without foundation in the vast majority of cases.
The real puzzle about the mask debate, is why the "so called sceptics" care so damned much.
It has become a political symbol much as it was with Trump and his followers. A badge of compliance or non-compliance!
@splattt yes, but as Sir Desmond Swayne point out when he asks "what is the poiny?" they tell him, it's about the message. And Sir Desmond replies, I don't like the message.
