Review of scientific reports of harms caused by face masks, up to February 2021 [Research Gate, 22 February 2021]

Title:

Review of scientific reports of harms caused by face masks, up to February 2021

Author:

Denis G Rancourt, PhD

Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca)

Memebr scientist, PANDA (pandata.org)

Published:

Working report (not submitted for journal publication), published at Research Gate, 22 February 2021

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349518677_Review_of_scientific_reports_of_harms_caused_by_face_masks_up_to_February_2021

Abstract:

A review of scientific publications, up to February 2021, about measured and potential harms of face masks imposed on workers, children, and the general population.

Note:

The article is organized into the following sections:

* Summary

* Introduction: Goverment's onus to evaluate safety

* Context: Risk-benefit-harm analysis

* Healthcare workers (HCWs)

* Physiological impacts of face masks in healthy adults

* Psychological harm in the general population

* Infants and school children

* Microbial pathogen infections from masks

* Endnotes / References

More than 1.5 billion masks believed to have entered oceans in 2020 [Thedenverchannel.com, 24 December 2020]

Title:

More than 1.5 billion masks believed to have entered oceans in 2020

Author:

Amanda Brandeis

Published:

Thedenverchannel.com, 24 December 2020

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/more-than-1-5-billion-masks-believed-to-have-entered-oceans-in-2020

From the article:

 SAN DIEGO, Calif. — For months, we’ve seen face masks in places they shouldn’t be: storm drains, streets, beaches and parks.  

 

Now, we’re learning just how many could be flooding our oceans.  

 

“Once plastic enters the marine environment, it’s very difficult to move," said Dr. Teale Phelps Bondaroff, director of research for OceansAsia.

Florida Atlantic University - Face shields, masks with valves ineffective against COVID-19 spread: study

Title:
Face shields, masks with valves ineffective against COVID-19 spread: study

Source:
Florida Atlantic University

Published:
Phys.org, 1 September 2020
https://phys.org/news/2020-09-shields-masks-valves-ineffective-covid-.html

From the article:
To increase public awareness about the effectiveness of face shields alone as well as face masks with exhalation valves, researchers from Florida Atlantic University's College of Engineering and Computer Science used qualitative visualizations to test how face shields and masks with valves perform in impeding the spread of aerosol-sized droplets. Widespread public use of these alternatives to regular masks could potentially have an adverse effect on mitigation efforts.

United States of America (USA) - Colleges Are Making Masks Mandatory. But They’re Not an Option for Everyone.

Title:
Colleges Are Making Masks Mandatory. But They’re Not an Option for Everyone.
 
Author:
Megan Zahneis
 
Published:
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 9 July 2020
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Are-Making-Masks/249153
 
From the article:
Many campuses that plan to return to in-campus instruction this fall will do so with mandatory mask-wearing policies. Those spotted without a mask might be stopped by a campus "public-health ambassador" and asked to don one, or cited for a conduct-code violation. Students might be asked to sign pledges confirming to abide by safety protocol or called out by a professor for going maskless in the classroom.

A Scholarly Article (Lancet, 1 June 2020) described as "poor quality research" - Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-To-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A: SCHOLARLY ARTICLE

Title:
Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-To-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:
Derek K Chu, Elie A Akl, Stephanie Duda, Karla Solo, Sally Yaacoub, Holger J Schünemann & COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors

Published:
Lancet, 1 June 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/

Abstract:
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.

Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.

Findings: Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Interpretation: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.


B: ASSESSING DISTANCE MEASURES REPORTED IN ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE

Title:
COVID-19 Evidence is lacking for 2 meter distancing

Authors:
Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson

Published:
CEBM, 19 June 2020
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-evidence-is-lacking-for-2-meter-distancing/

From the article:
In assessing the distance measures reported in Figure 2 of this review we analysed the SARs and COVID-19 studies and found we could not replicate the results reported in the review for 13 out of the 15 papers. 

We reported some of these issues in the Telegraph.  There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule. Poor quality research is being used to justify a policy with enormous consequences for us all (Access here).

Healthy people should wear masks only if caring for coronavirus patients, WHO says [New York Post, 28 May 2020]

Title:
Healthy people should wear masks only if caring for coronavirus patients, WHO says

Author:
Louis Casiano

Published:
New York Post, 28 May 2020
https://nypost.com/2020/05/28/healthy-people-should-wear-masks-only-if-caring-for-coronavirus-patients-who-says/

From the article:
"The World Health Organization is recommending healthy people, including those who don’t exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, only wear masks when taking care of someone infected with the contagion, a sharp contrast from the advice given by American public health officials who recommend everyone wear a mask in public."

Articles by World Health Organization (WHO) on the wearing of face masks:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

The Blaze, 28 May 2020 - Fauci changes tune, now says second COVID-19 wave may never happen — and mask-wearing is symbolic

Title:
Fauci changes tune, now says second COVID-19 wave may never happen — and mask-wearing is symbolic

Author:
Sarah Taylor

Published:
The Blaze, 28 May 2020
https://www.theblaze.com/news/fauci-second-covid-may-never-happen

From the article:
In a Wednesday interview with CNN's "Newsroom," Fauci — member of the White House's coronavirus task force — said that a second COVID-19 wave is not necessarily inevitable.  

"We often talk about the the possibility of a second wave, or of an outbreak when you're reopening," Fauci explained. "We don't have to accept that as an inevitability."  

Sky News, 21 May 2020 - Coronavirus: Homemade masks and scarves can limit spread of COVID-19, study says, but there are downsides

Title:
Coronavirus: Homemade masks and scarves can limit spread of COVID-19, study says, but there are downsides

Author:
Connor Sephton

Published:
Sky News, 21 May 2020
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-homemade-masks-and-scarves-can-limit-spread-of-covid-19-study-says-but-there-are-downsides-11991766

From the article:
"New research put seven types of face masks to the test to see which ones were most effective in limiting the spread of COVID-19."