Differing views on facemask use between expats and locals

[geovalin]

After Cambodia reported its first case of COVID-19 community transmission on November 28 at Aeon 1 Mall in Phnom Penh, facemasks have become a part of the dress code in Phnom Penh as once-busy street corners and shops have emptied. But according to locals and foreigners interviewed in the capital, expats appear more resistant to wearing masks consistently or hunkering down indoors to prevent the spread of the virus.

 

Anti-mask activists are in good company outside of Asia and Southeast Asia, where anti-mask rallies have been held, notably in the West, since mask requirements became the norm. A rally in Vancouver, Canada recently drew 400 anti-mask protesters denouncing virus prevention measures, according to Global News. While no anti-mask rallies are planned for Phnom Penh, some of the anti-mask sentiment appears to exist.

 

On Monday, Pietro Tartaglia, a foreign teacher based in Phnom Penh was walking in Tuol Tompoung with a mask dangling from his arm which was gifted to him by a local shop owner. He said if he’s walking around town he typically won’t wear a mask, although he does make sure to maintain a respectable distance from others. He wears a mask at his school, where it’s required, but normally, he prefers to live mask-free as it affects his breathing.

 

read  more https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50791027/differing-views-on-facemask-use/

[Ireland32]

I Despise Farangs at Malls the minute they go in mask on and immediately taken off and put in pocket , just shows their manly egos of Ignorance 

[jesimps]

Anything which restricts my breathing must mean it's reducing the oxygen I'm getting. The covid virus is airborn so it's in the oxygen. I figure that the less oxygen I'm getting, the less the chance of me getting the virus. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to put up with the small amount of discomfort to minimize my chances of becoming ill. Many years ago when I was in the British army, I used to run around with a heavy pack on carrying a weighty rifle wearing a respirator and it didn't do me any harm. What's a thin bit of cloth compared to that. 

[tomazbodner]

7 hours ago, geovalin said:

but normally, he prefers to live mask-free as it affects his breathing.

A ventilator in hospital will affect his breathing far more... and his wallet even more.

[Lacessit]

The science says wearing a mask reduces the risk of transmission in both directions, more so with an infected person.

Thanks to Trump, science was shunted aside or belittled. Current scoreline in the USA,  296,745 deaths, 6,294,178 active cases. 2-3 times more than any other nation.

If that doesn't convince people wearing a mask helps, nothing will.

 

[samsensam]

 

another topic about face masks? really? hasn't this subject been done to death here already? yawn.

[Traubert]

7 minutes ago, samsensam said:

 

another topic about face masks? really? hasn't this subject been done to death here already? yawn.

You dont have to read it.

[RobU]

3 hours ago, Ireland32 said:

I Despise Farangs at Malls the minute they go in mask on and immediately taken off and put in pocket , just shows their manly egos of Ignorance 

Same thing happens in the UK. It isn't all Farangs it is a particular personality type. The ones who go to Thailand to be  superior and act like rich lords over Thai people and treat Thai people like servants, they don't obey the rules in the UK either. The reason you wear a mask is to protect other people from you, these antisocial idiots think it's OK because everybody else is wearing a mask they are safe. I don't understand why the police don't arrest them and deport them for breaking regulations designed to benefit society

[Anant72]

Poor darling! It affects his breathing: see if intubation will help. What an ass...and there are thousands like this nitwit.

[Stargeezr]

You really can not tell anti maskers anything.  They are way smarter, right up until

they are in a hospital, gasping for air. It is the same all over the world. You can not

fix, stupid. 

Geezer

[Thingamabob]

20 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The science says wearing a mask reduces the risk of transmission in both directions, more so with an infected person.

Thanks to Trump, science was shunted aside or belittled. Current scoreline in the USA,  296,745 deaths, 6,294,178 active cases. 2-3 times more than any other nation.

If that doesn't convince people wearing a mask helps, nothing will.

 

330 million plus live in the USA. Proportionally their covid numbers are not much different to many other countries.

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

330 million plus live in the USA. Proportionally their covid numbers are not much different to many other countries.

America has 48, 331 cases of coronavirus per million population. That's right up there with the worst affected, such as Switzerland and the Czech Republic, which have a fraction of the land area of the USA. Perhaps you have never heard of confounding variables.

If that's your rationalisation for not wearing a mask, it's a p###poor one.

[Oldie]

Here in Pattaya I see the same. More and more Farangs and very many of them without masks. Yesterday a Farang wanted to enter the Central Mall without a mask but the guy there didn't allow him to enter. Then he got angry and complained. Perhaps some need a mental adjustment when they spend their two weeks in quarantine... 

[HappyinNE]

9 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

330 million plus live in the USA. Proportionally their covid numbers are not much different to many other countries.

Finally, it has been published.

The Danish study on the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19 was just published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study has been around since June, but no medical journals were willing to publish it. Now we can understand why.

Before I share the results, it’s worth noting that this is the most comprehensive study on masks and COVID-19 that exists. This was a tightly run trial that was incredibly well-balanced. It is the best scientific study available on this subject.

There were 4,862 participants selected for the trial who were very carefully balanced among a wide range of characteristics that we can see below.

Characteristics of Participants Completing the Study

 

Source: Henning Bundgaard, DMSc, et al.

The participants in the face mask group were all given high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%. Worth noting is that this quality of mask is even better than the N95 masks that some use today, and it is many times better than the cloth masks that we are told to wear “for our own safety.”

The members of the control group did not wear masks.

What were the results?

§  1.8% of those who wore masks got infected with COVID-19.

§  2.1% of those who did not wear masks got infected with COVID-19.

Almost exactly the same.

I’d be willing to bet if the face masks the study used were cloth masks, the face mask group’s infection rate would have been much higher. Scientific research shows that particles from an airborne virus get trapped in a cloth mask, which is porous and prolongs the wearer’s exposure to the virus.

But here is the conclusion of the Danish study in the authors’ words:

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect…

I’ll put this a simpler way: Masks don’t protect the wearer from COVID-19.

And now we know definitively that is the “science.”

 

Maybe people should look at actual science not what politicians claim is science.  Sorry the characteristics  did not copy.  I have them if interested.

[CorpusChristie]

5 minutes ago, HappyinNE said:

Finally, it has been published.

The Danish study on the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19 was just published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study has been around since June, but no medical journals were willing to publish it. Now we can understand why.

Before I share the results, it’s worth noting that this is the most comprehensive study on masks and COVID-19 that exists. This was a tightly run trial that was incredibly well-balanced. It is the best scientific study available on this subject.

There were 4,862 participants selected for the trial who were very carefully balanced among a wide range of characteristics that we can see below.

Characteristics of Participants Completing the Study

 

 

 

Source: Henning Bundgaard, DMSc, et al.

The participants in the face mask group were all given high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%. Worth noting is that this quality of mask is even better than the N95 masks that some use today, and it is many times better than the cloth masks that we are told to wear “for our own safety.”

The members of the control group did not wear masks.

What were the results?

§  1.8% of those who wore masks got infected with COVID-19.

§  2.1% of those who did not wear masks got infected with COVID-19.

Almost exactly the same.

I’d be willing to bet if the face masks the study used were cloth masks, the face mask group’s infection rate would have been much higher. Scientific research shows that particles from an airborne virus get trapped in a cloth mask, which is porous and prolongs the wearer’s exposure to the virus.

But here is the conclusion of the Danish study in the authors’ words:

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect…

I’ll put this a simpler way: Masks don’t protect the wearer from COVID-19.

And now we know definitively that is the “science.”

 

Maybe people should look at actual science not what politicians claim is science.  Sorry the characteristics  did not copy.  I have them if interested.

 

   I thought that the reason for wearing masks was to stop the wearer from spreading the virus, moreso that the wearer contracting the virus

[asiacurious]

On 12/10/2020 at 5:36 AM, samsensam said:

 

another topic about face masks? really? hasn't this subject been done to death here already? yawn.

 

Don't know if topics about face masks have been done to death on these pages, but not wearing face masks has definitely been done to death in the United States....

 

The data below is from Yesterday.  Today the US passed 300,000 deaths.  

 

[Kinnock]

Not wearing a mask is just arrogance.  My Googling is better than your Googling, so I believe the mask is not needed.  Just wear an <deleted> mask.

[RobU]

Those who defend the idea of not wearing masks forget that the rule says 'wear a mask'  they are not experts in public health one single study is not a fact it has to be replicated by.other scientific studies you often find widely differing results when such studies are replicated. I am suspicious of political motives but until PROVEN right I obey the rules and even then I would probably still conform. Much better to wear masks just in case. All statistical studies have outliers (i.e. people  who would have been well protected by use of masks) If it prevents just 1 cross infection then it's a good thing. Not wearing masks is selfish and anti social.

[RobU]

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   I thought that the reason for wearing masks was to stop the wearer from spreading the virus, moreso that the wearer contracting the virus

Correct. Normal speaking can project droplets containing infection for yards and the deeper and more masculine your voice the further they project. I suspect that all these Farangs not wearing masks are male with huge domineering egos. Even normal breathing projects droplets for a few feet. Essentially you are breathing in other people's saliva. Masks stop those droplets and hence stop you from infecting others.

[ukrules]

On 12/10/2020 at 5:11 PM, Ireland32 said:

I Despise Farangs at Malls the minute they go in mask on and immediately taken off and put in pocket , just shows their manly egos of Ignorance 

 

I saw a couple of mid to late 50's Thais walking around like they owned the place in the Bluport mall with no masks on just this week.

 

I said nothing because I don't give a f........ what they do

[asiacurious]

3 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

Finally, it has been published.

The Danish study on the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19 was just published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

 

That is such a worthless study, and your selective presentation of information from the study is misleading.  Perhaps you simply didn't notice all of the caveats and problems with the study?

 

For those who want to see for themselves, here's the link: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817  (Always nice to provide a link, no?)

 

To begin.....

 

You wrote some things that are either misleading or simply not true....

 

3 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

The study has been around since June, but no medical journals were willing to publish it. Now we can understand why.

 

The study was broken into 2 separate study periods, the 2nd of which did not conclude until June 2, 2020.  Authors of studies do need time to pull together data, analyze it, write their findings, and submit them for publication.  There's also normally a several months long peer review process that takes place, although with studies about Covid-19 they tend to be rushed (as I believe was the case here).

 

 

3 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

Before I share the results, it’s worth noting that this is the most comprehensive study on masks and COVID-19 that exists. This was a tightly run trial that was incredibly well-balanced. It is the best scientific study available on this subject.

 

There have been many studies on masks and this study was far from comprehensive.  It only looked at whether masks protect the wearer, and not if sick people who wear masks protect others from getting sick.

 

And as you'll see further below, this was very much NOT a tightly run trial.  It was, in fact, quite lose and sloppy.

 

3 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

There were 4,862 participants selected for the trial who were very carefully balanced among a wide range of characteristics that we can see below.

 

I don't know how you got this basic fact wrong.  The facts is that 6024 participants were selected, 19% dropped out, and 4862 people completed it.

 

Next you wrote....

 

3 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

The participants in the face mask group were all given high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%. Worth noting is that this quality of mask is even better than the N95 masks that some use today, and it is many times better than the cloth masks that we are told to wear “for our own safety.”

 

Very, very wrong.  From the study we can see the exact type they wore (emphasis added).....

 

Quote

They received 50 three-layer, disposable, surgical face masks with ear loops (TYPE II EN 14683 [Abena]; filtration rate, 98%; made in China).

 

Here's a photo of the mask the participants wore.  I've highlighted the items that match the bold above.....

 

 

Ouch!  £40 for 50 masks!?  These masks are for sale all over Thailand in boxes of 50 masks for 50 baht!!!  If you want, you can download the datasheet on this mask here: https://www.incodirect.co.uk/file/1000020454-face-mask-type-ii.pdf

 

This mask has been known to offer more limited effectiveness preventing the wearer from getting sick compared to an N95 type of mask, but it still offers more protection than no mask at all.  (I won't get into a discussion about the evidence coming out that indicates how much of the virus you ingest may determine how sick a person gets.)

 

 

I could stop there but... really, I can't.  I haven't even gotten to the study!

 

By now it should be clear to others that your hyping of this flawed study was done with incorrect and misleading information.  But I think it's important to actually look at what the study to see how valid it's results really were. 

 

You implied that this study compared two groups of participants, one group that wore masks and one group that didn't.  You failed to mention - importantly - that the group wearing masks were not required to wear masks.  It was only recommended that they wear them.  From the study (emphasis added):

 

Quote

Intervention:

Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use.

 

 

 

There is a BIG difference between a group that actually wears a mask (and wears it correctly) and a group that receives a recommendation that they wear the mask at all times.

 

Consider also, the fact that this study was done in Denmark when the government was promoting Herd Immunity, which depends on enough healthy people getting sick and recovering to stop the virus from having anyone left who can spread the virus to older and high risk individuals who at the time were told wo self-isolate.

 

The study even discusses the fact that the authorities did not recommend masks....

 

Quote

Participants and Study Period

During the study period (3 April to 2 June 2020), Danish authorities did not recommend use of masks in the community and mask use was uncommon (<5%) outside hospitals....

 

 

 

You failed to mention one of the most important parts of the study which is vital to assessing how good or bad the study is (emphasis added):

 

Quote

Limitation:

Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

 

 

Those are some pretty major limitations.  Let's look at those two things I put in bold above.  From the study....

 

Quote

 

Adherence

Based on the lowest adherence reported in the mask group during follow-up, 46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended, and 7% not as recommended.

 

 

 

 

More than half of the participants who were recommended to wear the mask outside at all times, did not do so.

 

What about the self-reporting issue?  What questions were asked of participants regarding compliance?  How frequently were they asked?  Could there be errors in their self-reporting?  Two members of the faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine at King’s College London wrote in correspondence with the editors about this concern (and others).  They wrote....

 

Quote

In addition, adherence to mask-wearing was not only poor but poorly assessed. Only 46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, as measured through a single question (“are you using the mask according to our recommendation?”) on a weekly survey. The subjective nature of such an approach lends itself to self-reporting bias due to differences between individuals in perceiving how well they followed recommendations (4). This could have been mitigated through further questioning on the survey to more objectively estimate compliance, such as enquiring about the duration and frequency of use (5).

 

You can read their full correspondence, along with their footnoted references to other studies discussing the issues, at the link I provided at the start of my reply.

 

The issues of Adherence and Self-Reporting by participants is an insurmountable problem for this study and make the results wholly unreliable as it relates to the effectiveness of masks protecting the mask wearer.

 

Let's finally turn to that last and very significant Limitation of the study (emphasis added)....

 

Quote

Limitation:

Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty fundamental probelm with this study.  Again, this is what you wrote at the start of your post:

 

3 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

Finally, it has been published.

The Danish study on the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19 was just published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

The implication of that opening is that masks are not effective at protecting us.  It completely ignores the fact that masks worn by others protect us.  Time and time and time again, it's been said (and demonstrated) that people need to wear masks because they can get some benefit for themselves, and give a lot of benefit to others!

 

There's a reason masks are worn by surgical staff during surgery, and it isn't to keep the patients germs from getting the doctors and nurses sick!

 

Mask wearing is mask wearing, and it isn't until the end of your post that you (inadvertently?) acknowledge that this study is really limited to masks protecting the wearer rather than, as you wrote at the start, "the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19...."

 

3 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

I’ll put this a simpler way: Masks don’t protect the wearer from COVID-19.

And now we know definitively that is the “science.”

 

To clarify, I added the emphasis.  To further clarify, only basic surgical masks were tested, masks which were certainly not "worth noting" were a "quality of mask" that is "even better than the N95 masks that some use today...."

 

Let me conclude with the following, which some of you may have seen before.....

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by asiacurious

[zzzzz]

11 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

Finally, it has been published.

The Danish study on the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19 was just published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study has been around since June, but no medical journals were willing to publish it. Now we can understand why.

Before I share the results, it’s worth noting that this is the most comprehensive study on masks and COVID-19 that exists. This was a tightly run trial that was incredibly well-balanced. It is the best scientific study available on this subject.

There were 4,862 participants selected for the trial who were very carefully balanced among a wide range of characteristics that we can see below.

Characteristics of Participants Completing the Study

 

 

 

Source: Henning Bundgaard, DMSc, et al.

The participants in the face mask group were all given high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%. Worth noting is that this quality of mask is even better than the N95 masks that some use today, and it is many times better than the cloth masks that we are told to wear “for our own safety.”

The members of the control group did not wear masks.

What were the results?

§  1.8% of those who wore masks got infected with COVID-19.

§  2.1% of those who did not wear masks got infected with COVID-19.

Almost exactly the same.

I’d be willing to bet if the face masks the study used were cloth masks, the face mask group’s infection rate would have been much higher. Scientific research shows that particles from an airborne virus get trapped in a cloth mask, which is porous and prolongs the wearer’s exposure to the virus.

But here is the conclusion of the Danish study in the authors’ words:

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect…

I’ll put this a simpler way: Masks don’t protect the wearer from COVID-19.

And now we know definitively that is the “science.”

 

Maybe people should look at actual science not what politicians claim is science.  Sorry the characteristics  did not copy.  I have them if interested.

 

added the link you omitted.  https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/

 

[asiacurious]

4 hours ago, zzzzz said:

 

added the link you omitted.  https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/18/major-study-finds-masks-dont-reduce-covid-19-infection-rates/

 

 

Ahhh... The Federalist Society.  That explains a lot right there!

[JimmyJ]

12 hours ago, asiacurious said:

 

That is such a worthless study, and your selective presentation of information from the study is misleading.  Perhaps you simply didn't notice all of the caveats and problems with the study?

 

For those who want to see for themselves, here's the link: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817  (Always nice to provide a link, no?)

 

To begin.....

 

You wrote some things that are either misleading or simply not true....

 

 

The study was broken into 2 separate study periods, the 2nd of which did not conclude until June 2, 2020.  Authors of studies do need time to pull together data, analyze it, write their findings, and submit them for publication.  There's also normally a several months long peer review process that takes place, although with studies about Covid-19 they tend to be rushed (as I believe was the case here).

 

 

 

There have been many studies on masks and this study was far from comprehensive.  It only looked at whether masks protect the wearer, and not if sick people who wear masks protect others from getting sick.

 

And as you'll see further below, this was very much NOT a tightly run trial.  It was, in fact, quite lose and sloppy.

 

 

I don't know how you got this basic fact wrong.  The facts is that 6024 participants were selected, 19% dropped out, and 4862 people completed it.

 

Next you wrote....

 

 

Very, very wrong.  From the study we can see the exact type they wore (emphasis added).....

 

 

Here's a photo of the mask the participants wore.  I've highlighted the items that match the bold above.....

 

 

Ouch!  £40 for 50 masks!?  These masks are for sale all over Thailand in boxes of 50 masks for 50 baht!!!  If you want, you can download the datasheet on this mask here: https://www.incodirect.co.uk/file/1000020454-face-mask-type-ii.pdf

 

This mask has been known to offer more limited effectiveness preventing the wearer from getting sick compared to an N95 type of mask, but it still offers more protection than no mask at all.  (I won't get into a discussion about the evidence coming out that indicates how much of the virus you ingest may determine how sick a person gets.)

 

 

I could stop there but... really, I can't.  I haven't even gotten to the study!

 

By now it should be clear to others that your hyping of this flawed study was done with incorrect and misleading information.  But I think it's important to actually look at what the study to see how valid it's results really were. 

 

You implied that this study compared two groups of participants, one group that wore masks and one group that didn't.  You failed to mention - importantly - that the group wearing masks were not required to wear masks.  It was only recommended that they wear them.  From the study (emphasis added):

 

 

 

There is a BIG difference between a group that actually wears a mask (and wears it correctly) and a group that receives a recommendation that they wear the mask at all times.

 

Consider also, the fact that this study was done in Denmark when the government was promoting Herd Immunity, which depends on enough healthy people getting sick and recovering to stop the virus from having anyone left who can spread the virus to older and high risk individuals who at the time were told wo self-isolate.

 

The study even discusses the fact that the authorities did not recommend masks....

 

 

 

You failed to mention one of the most important parts of the study which is vital to assessing how good or bad the study is (emphasis added):

 

 

Those are some pretty major limitations.  Let's look at those two things I put in bold above.  From the study....

 

 

 

 

More than half of the participants who were recommended to wear the mask outside at all times, did not do so.

 

What about the self-reporting issue?  What questions were asked of participants regarding compliance?  How frequently were they asked?  Could there be errors in their self-reporting?  Two members of the faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine at King’s College London wrote in correspondence with the editors about this concern (and others).  They wrote....

 

 

You can read their full correspondence, along with their footnoted references to other studies discussing the issues, at the link I provided at the start of my reply.

 

The issues of Adherence and Self-Reporting by participants is an insurmountable problem for this study and make the results wholly unreliable as it relates to the effectiveness of masks protecting the mask wearer.

 

Let's finally turn to that last and very significant Limitation of the study (emphasis added)....

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty fundamental probelm with this study.  Again, this is what you wrote at the start of your post:

 

 

The implication of that opening is that masks are not effective at protecting us.  It completely ignores the fact that masks worn by others protect us.  Time and time and time again, it's been said (and demonstrated) that people need to wear masks because they can get some benefit for themselves, and give a lot of benefit to others!

 

There's a reason masks are worn by surgical staff during surgery, and it isn't to keep the patients germs from getting the doctors and nurses sick!

 

Mask wearing is mask wearing, and it isn't until the end of your post that you (inadvertently?) acknowledge that this study is really limited to masks protecting the wearer rather than, as you wrote at the start, "the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19...."

 

 

To clarify, I added the emphasis.  To further clarify, only basic surgical masks were tested, masks which were certainly not "worth noting" were a "quality of mask" that is "even better than the N95 masks that some use today...."

 

Let me conclude with the following, which some of you may have seen before.....

 

 

 

 

Great job, thank you.

 

It's clear that the person submitting the article only saw what he wanted to see and/or has little understanding of how science works.

 

You can't fix stupid, but hopefully you can fix some of those on the fence who read you post.

Edited December 12, 2020 by JimmyJ

[Pilotman]

well, its up to all of us mask wearers to call out those people not wearing masks when we see them.  I tried this in Big C just 4 days ago and nearly got into a fight with another idiot farang not wearing, but having it stuck under his chin.  But I will keep calling them out, usually in a loud enough voice to embarrass them (and myself I guess, but I don't care about that). 

[RobU]

15 hours ago, asiacurious said:

 

That is such a worthless study, and your selective presentation of information from the study is misleading.  Perhaps you simply didn't notice all of the caveats and problems with the study?

 

For those who want to see for themselves, here's the link: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817  (Always nice to provide a link, no?)

 

To begin.....

 

You wrote some things that are either misleading or simply not true....

 

 

The study was broken into 2 separate study periods, the 2nd of which did not conclude until June 2, 2020.  Authors of studies do need time to pull together data, analyze it, write their findings, and submit them for publication.  There's also normally a several months long peer review process that takes place, although with studies about Covid-19 they tend to be rushed (as I believe was the case here).

 

 

 

There have been many studies on masks and this study was far from comprehensive.  It only looked at whether masks protect the wearer, and not if sick people who wear masks protect others from getting sick.

 

And as you'll see further below, this was very much NOT a tightly run trial.  It was, in fact, quite lose and sloppy.

 

 

I don't know how you got this basic fact wrong.  The facts is that 6024 participants were selected, 19% dropped out, and 4862 people completed it.

 

Next you wrote....

 

 

Very, very wrong.  From the study we can see the exact type they wore (emphasis added).....

 

 

Here's a photo of the mask the participants wore.  I've highlighted the items that match the bold above.....

 

 

Ouch!  £40 for 50 masks!?  These masks are for sale all over Thailand in boxes of 50 masks for 50 baht!!!  If you want, you can download the datasheet on this mask here: https://www.incodirect.co.uk/file/1000020454-face-mask-type-ii.pdf

 

This mask has been known to offer more limited effectiveness preventing the wearer from getting sick compared to an N95 type of mask, but it still offers more protection than no mask at all.  (I won't get into a discussion about the evidence coming out that indicates how much of the virus you ingest may determine how sick a person gets.)

 

 

I could stop there but... really, I can't.  I haven't even gotten to the study!

 

By now it should be clear to others that your hyping of this flawed study was done with incorrect and misleading information.  But I think it's important to actually look at what the study to see how valid it's results really were. 

 

You implied that this study compared two groups of participants, one group that wore masks and one group that didn't.  You failed to mention - importantly - that the group wearing masks were not required to wear masks.  It was only recommended that they wear them.  From the study (emphasis added):

 

 

 

There is a BIG difference between a group that actually wears a mask (and wears it correctly) and a group that receives a recommendation that they wear the mask at all times.

 

Consider also, the fact that this study was done in Denmark when the government was promoting Herd Immunity, which depends on enough healthy people getting sick and recovering to stop the virus from having anyone left who can spread the virus to older and high risk individuals who at the time were told wo self-isolate.

 

The study even discusses the fact that the authorities did not recommend masks....

 

 

 

You failed to mention one of the most important parts of the study which is vital to assessing how good or bad the study is (emphasis added):

 

 

Those are some pretty major limitations.  Let's look at those two things I put in bold above.  From the study....

 

 

 

 

More than half of the participants who were recommended to wear the mask outside at all times, did not do so.

 

What about the self-reporting issue?  What questions were asked of participants regarding compliance?  How frequently were they asked?  Could there be errors in their self-reporting?  Two members of the faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine at King’s College London wrote in correspondence with the editors about this concern (and others).  They wrote....

 

 

You can read their full correspondence, along with their footnoted references to other studies discussing the issues, at the link I provided at the start of my reply.

 

The issues of Adherence and Self-Reporting by participants is an insurmountable problem for this study and make the results wholly unreliable as it relates to the effectiveness of masks protecting the mask wearer.

 

Let's finally turn to that last and very significant Limitation of the study (emphasis added)....

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty fundamental probelm with this study.  Again, this is what you wrote at the start of your post:

 

 

The implication of that opening is that masks are not effective at protecting us.  It completely ignores the fact that masks worn by others protect us.  Time and time and time again, it's been said (and demonstrated) that people need to wear masks because they can get some benefit for themselves, and give a lot of benefit to others!

 

There's a reason masks are worn by surgical staff during surgery, and it isn't to keep the patients germs from getting the doctors and nurses sick!

 

Mask wearing is mask wearing, and it isn't until the end of your post that you (inadvertently?) acknowledge that this study is really limited to masks protecting the wearer rather than, as you wrote at the start, "the effectiveness of masks – or lack thereof – in protecting us from COVID-19...."

 

 

To clarify, I added the emphasis.  To further clarify, only basic surgical masks were tested, masks which were certainly not "worth noting" were a "quality of mask" that is "even better than the N95 masks that some use today...."

 

Let me conclude with the following, which some of you may have seen before.....

 

 

 

 

Excellent critique, incisive and accurate which shows how that so called study is being used as a basis for fake news

[RobU]

16 hours ago, ukrules said:

 

I saw a couple of mid to late 50's Thais walking around like they owned the place in the Bluport mall with no masks on just this week.

 

I said nothing because I don't give a f........ what they do

You should give f...... they are the ones who spread disease your mask doesn't protect you from them its purpose is to protect others from you

[ukrules]

1 hour ago, RobU said:

You should give f...... they are the ones who spread disease your mask doesn't protect you from them its purpose is to protect others from you

 

Lol, I can assure you the high quality N95 filtering mask does protect me, it's the same mask Doctors wear in hospitals when treating COVID patients.

 

But I know what you mean, you're talking about the cheap surgical masks. They're pure theater.

[RobU]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

 

Lol, I can assure you the high quality N95 filtering mask does protect me, it's the same mask Doctors wear in hospitals when treating COVID patients.

 

But I know what you mean, you're talking about the cheap surgical masks. They're pure theater.

 

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

 

Lol, I can assure you the high quality N95 filtering mask does protect me, it's the same mask Doctors wear in hospitals when treating COVID patients.

 

But I know what you mean, you're talking about the cheap surgical masks. They're pure theater.

To a point you are correct masks are designed to filter your breath and as a consequence they can also work in the opposite direction. However they do not stop droplets settling on the skin of your face not covered by the mask nor do they stop droplets from those not wearing masks settling in the surroundings including food and any surface where it can be picked up by handling. The droplets on the face can migrate to the mouth and nose because no matter how well you fit the mask air is sucked in and escapes around the sides as you breath that is why spectacles tend to fog when wearing a mask. The prime purpose of a surgical mask is to protect the patient from the mask wearer, air not filtered through the mask is redirected away from the patient from the sides. The only true protection for you is PPE which is like a gas mask with rubber seals and eye protection, which hospital personnel wear, it is not very comfortable.

[ukrules]

18 hours ago, RobU said:

The droplets on the face can migrate to the mouth and nose because no matter how well you fit the mask air is sucked in and escapes around the sides as you breath that is why spectacles tend to fog when wearing a mask.

 

This is the reason why I wear a tight fitting (airtight?) N95 respirator instead of a surgical mask - the fogging of the glasses, it doesn't happen at all with a properly fitted respirator, with the surgical masks it is a massive issue so I don't use them.