If face masks really stop Covid, then why are so many of us still catching it?
Stifling. Itchy. Dehumanising. Oppressive. Profoundly un-British. Just some of the terms used to describe the experience of mask-wearing.
Despite the discomfort, we put up with it for the health of our nation and, so we’re told, to do what we can to bring this nightmare to an end, as soon as possible.
And last week, London Mayor Sadiq Khan argued that we should extend the annoyance to outdoors – on our high streets – to protect our fellow Christmas shoppers.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is urging us to wear face masks around the Christmas table.
But is all this face-mask-wearing helping? Surveys show that three-quarters of Britons are wearing masks in mandatory areas – public transport, offices, pubs and restaurants when not sitting at a table, and most indoor spaces.
Yet the infection is still spreading at a rate that requires 38 million Britons to be banned from mixing indoors with anyone outside of their household.
Last week, cases increased in every area of England bar Yorkshire and the Humber, and in some areas the infection rate leapt up to twice what it was in April.
So are they useless, after all? If Mr Khan’s logic is to be believed, perhaps the problem is that we aren’t wearing them outdoors – surrounded by crowds of people. But studies show that just one in 100 cases is transmitted outside.
Nations that did implement mandatory mask-wearing outdoors, such as Spain and Italy, haven’t been spared devastating further waves.
Indoors, the theory is that masks trap the viral particles that are expelled from an infected person’s mouth or nose when they cough, splutter, sneeze or talk. Over the past six months, some studies seem to have shown they are effective in doing so. In June, The Lancet compiled data from 172 studies from 16 countries and concluded that two-metre social-distancing and wearing a face mask reduced the risk of contracting Covid.
An American study, published in August, found that rates were four times lower in countries where mask-wearing was considered a norm or was enforced by the government.
In the UK, most of the data has concluded that masks are, on a population level, effective when an infected individual wears them.
Professor Paul Digard, a virologist at the University of Edinburgh involved in the trial, explains: ‘A major source of transmission is through liquid droplets – like coughs and sneezes – which send the virus flying through the air.
‘Covid particles are too tiny to be stopped by a mask but they often travel in larger water droplets. These droplets are large enough to be trapped in a mask.’
But droplets are not the only way the virus spreads. In July, the WHO published new guidance regarding viral spread via smaller, lightweight particles that travel through the air – like smoke or dust – and linger long after the infected person has left the area.
‘Masks can do little to stop airborne transmission,’ says Prof Digard. ‘Covid particles that aren’t contained in water droplets are too small to be stopped by them.’ However, he adds that only a minority of infections are spread by airborne infections as viral particles don’t linger for too long in the air. But there remains little proof of effectiveness in real life settings.
Most of the research completed in the spring and summer involved laboratory studies using artificial breathing machines to simulate human coughs and observe how effective masks are limiting the travel of water droplets.
One real-life trial, involving 6,000 participants wearing surgical masks at all times while out in public, proved inconclusive. Professor Jimmy Whitworth, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, adds: ‘Even real-world studies are hampered by the fact you don’t know whether participants are actually wearing the mask properly – if at all.’
There is little available research regarding whether we are wearing masks correctly, but experts say it’s an aspect of the debate that is often overlooked. Prof Whitworth says: ‘The studies show it’s effective but it has to be worn properly – with the mouth and nose covered.’
As for whether they stop the virus getting in, protecting the wearer, the evidence is even more flimsy.
Studies do not account for unknown variables – for example how often people are wearing them. ‘Masks are unlikely to stop you catching the virus but they’re much more likely to trap infected water droplets coming out of your mouth,’ says Prof Digard.
Masks are a less powerful tool than the other key mitigation measure – social distancing. Yet, according to a national poll in October, 42 per cent of Britons had at some point broken the two-metre rule, compared to only a tenth who hadn’t worn a face mask in a shop.
Prof Whitworth says: ‘The two most important risk factors for catching Covid are lack of ventilation and crowding. The more air you are sharing with others, the more likely you are to catch it.’
Yet masks, we’re led to believe, will mitigate the harm of crowds.
Official advice is to wear face masks when social distancing is not possible. Data suggests that this is in fact correct and scientists say if it wasn’t for masks, cases may be even higher.
Public Health England figures show the majority of outbreaks between August and October were in schools and workplaces – environments where mask-wearing is low. Only children over 12 must wear a mask. They are allowed to take them off at their desks, while many workplaces do not enforce mask-wearing. Meanwhile pubs and restaurants, where mask-wearing is required and only small groups can gather, accounted for roughly five per cent of all outbreaks.
Another hotspot is inside each other’s homes, where people rarely wear masks.
The truth is, we don’t know for sure how much of an effect masks are having. ‘But common sense tells us it is worth doing,’ says Prof Whitworth.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9070599/If-face-masks-really-stop-Covid-catching-it.html
*********************************New COVID-19 Vaccines, Same Sluggish FDA
In October, large portions of the United States began experiencing rapid increases in new COVID-19 cases. Many European countries have experienced a similar surge in cases, even after being devastated by severe COVID-19 outbreaks earlier this year.
Fearing the arrival of a second wave, several states reenacted various lockdown measures to curb spreading disease. Many European nations followed suit.
But necessity is the mother of innovation. And pathbreaking medical innovation has arrived.
On November 9th, Pfizer announced it had developed a more than 90 percent effective COVID-19 vaccine. A week later, Moderna released clinical trial findings indicating its COVID-19 vaccine was 95 percent effective. Stanely Plotkin, the inventor of the rubella vaccine, found Moderna’s results to be “extremely encouraging” and “show that the platform really works… and considering the speed with which the platform was put into operation, it’s an excellent result.”
Federal regulators agreed. On December 11th, the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory board granted emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Richard Redfield gave similar approval shortly after, making a COVID-19 vaccine available to distribute.
Barring any unforeseen setbacks, Pfizer expects to produce 15 to 20 million vaccines by the end of the year, including 2.9 million doses in the next week. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is also expected to receive approval soon, with the hopes of distributing another 20 million doses by the end of December.
Pfizer’s and Moderna’s swift development of an effective COVID-19 vaccine has generated widespread and well-deserved praise. An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal argues the scientists who developed the vaccines deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for their discovery. An article in the Irish Examiner called the leadership of BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer to develop the vaccine, “heroes of our time.”
Even more remarkable, according to an article published in New York magazine’s Intelligencer, is that Moderna’s vaccine was developed on January 13th, only two days after the vaccine’s genomic sequence was made public. This was even before COVID-19 reached the United States.
However, until the FDA approved the vaccine, it was not legally available to anyone not participating in clinical trials. This means, as the article’s title indicates, “we had the vaccine the whole time.”
A nearly eleven-month gap between the vaccine’s discovery and FDA approval is frustrating. Unfortunately, the FDA’s sluggishness to approve life-saving medication is nothing new even during a public health crisis.
From 2014-2016, the Ebola virus caused nearly 11,000 deaths across western Africa. Fortunately, scientists across the globe worked together to develop a vaccine in less than a year. The Ebola vaccine, however, did not receive FDA approval until 2019—four years after it was created.
But would medical scientists be able to quickly develop a safe and effective vaccine without the FDA’s oversight? Evidence from previous influenza pandemics suggests they can.
From 1957-1958, the 1958 influenza (often referred to as the Asian Flu) spread through the United States, infecting 20 million individuals and causing 116,000 deaths. At this time, the FDA held significantly less regulatory authority and did not regulate vaccines.
Similar to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, medical scientists developed a vaccine for the 1958 influenza before the virus reached the United States. Without the FDA prolonging approval, cooperation between public health agencies and private vaccine developers were able to distribute 60 million doses of the vaccine during the first two months of the pandemic.
Consequently, hospitals were not overwhelmed and there was “no serious disruption of community life” during the 1957-1958 pandemic. As an article written at the time in the Journal of the American Medical Association noted, quick development, approval, and distribution of the vaccine “made it possible for a nation to organize in advance of an oncoming epidemic for the first time in history.”
The frustrating delay between the time when a COVID-19 vaccine was discovered and the day the FDA gave its approval should not overshadow the Pfizer and Moderna scientists’ remarkable achievement. Their pioneering discovery is truly phenomenal. However, acknowledging the harmfulness of the FDA’s delay in authorizing a COVID-19 vaccine can help implement better policy during future public health crises.
COVID-19 is deadly. But regulatory barriers can be, too.
https://www.fdareview.org/2020/12/15/new-covid-19-vaccines-same-sluggish-fda/
***********************************IN BRIEF
North Carolina regulator Michael Regan to lead EPA (NPR)
Native American Rep. Deb Haaland — who smeared Covington students — to lead Interior Department (AP)
Biden's tapping of third House Democrat further narrows Pelosi's majority (National Review)
Georgia conducting statewide "signature match review" of absentee ballots (Daily Wire)
Newly declassified texts reveal FBI spied on Fox News during Crossfire Hurricane (American Greatness)
Parting shots: Tulsi Gabbard introduces another pro-life bill that bars abortion for pain-capable babies (Disrn)
Nuclear weapons agency hit by massive hacking campaign (American Military News)
U.S. to blacklist dozens of Chinese companies (Fox Business)
Mexico passes law limiting power of the DEA (Daily Mail)
Kamala Harris is calling for "commonsense" gun control. She means confiscation. (Washington Examiner)
ATF decision could lead to biggest gun registration, turn-in effort in American history (Free Beacon)
Smith & Wesson sues New Jersey — for FIRST Amendment violations (Free Beacon)
Minneapolis city council members revise history, now claim they never advocated defunding police (Daily Mail)
California's population growth rate at record low (CNBC)
Rutgers prof claims "language matters," then compares "death cult" GOP to "fecal matter" (Campus Reform)
North Face accused of virtue signaling for refusing oil-and-gas firm's jacket order (Washington Times)
North Carolina governor establishes "Gender Expansive Parents' Day" (Disrn)
**********************************
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*************************************