Opponents of masks are happy: A new study denies that masks are effective against infection. But the authors of the study immediately backtracked.
Oxford – The authors of a new study on the effectiveness of masks during the corona pandemic limit it to draw clear conclusions. In a meta-study, however, they found no clear evidence of the effectiveness of masks against the transmission of respiratory viruses.
Corona mask study: These are the results of the authors
Regarding the wearing of medical masks, the authors found in population studies (excluding medical staff): “Compared to not wearing a mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people get a flu-like illness.” /COVID-like illness (nine studies; 276,917 people); and likely makes little or no difference in how many people have lab-test-confirmed flu/COVID (six studies; 13,919 people).”
Similarly, when it came to FFP2 masks, wearing them “makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (five studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people get a flu-like illness (five studies; 8407 people) or a respiratory illness (three studies; 7799 people).”
About the mask meta study
The authors around Tom Jefferson (University of Oxford), Liz Dooney and Eliana Ferroni did not set up their own study with new participants, but examined other studies on the topic of “reducing transmission of respiratory infections” – so it is a so-called meta-study . 78 studies from all over the world that had dealt with H1N1 and influenza before the corona pandemic, but later also with Covid-19, were considered. In addition to wearing masks, some of the studies also examined the influence of hand washing, surface disinfection or keeping your distance. However, the authors of the meta-study only considered the effects of wearing medical, non-medical and FFP2 masks.
Source: Cochran Library
Corona mask study is much discussed: Study authors limit the meaningfulness
The authors themselves write that confidence in their own results is moderate. Also, because a large number of the studies took place before 2016 and thus before the corona pandemic, only a small number of people wore masks at all. How often and how well the masks were worn was not checked – on the other hand, many would have spoken out against wearing masks (which was still unusual at the time). In addition, not all diseases or non-infections have been confirmed by laboratory tests. As a result, biases are possible, depending on how participants define their state of health. According to their study, instead of practical recommendations, many more research gaps have become apparent.
In Germany, the study is read in an abbreviated form and much discussed – especially by opponents of the corona measures. Publicist Boris Reitschuster, for example, writes on Twitter, addressing Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD): “Lauterbach is demanding his own resignation (…), now a meta-study is also dissecting the mask dictation.” Karl Lauterbach has not yet reacted – but is becoming self-critical in another respect: Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach (SPD) has now admitted that the “draconian measures against children” during the corona pandemic were a mistake.
The AfD parliamentary group in the Bundestag writes: “Study agrees with AfD parliamentary group: #masks have hardly any protective effect against #COVID19. So the #mask requirement only existed because politicians and the media were in love with masks – against their better judgment.” However, other studies have substantiated the effect of masks against corona infection. Virologists like Hendrik Streeck also often pointed out the benefits of masks. (cat)
#study #stir