Review of anti-mask article #2

This is a response to components of an anti-mask article “Healthy People Wearing Masks, Should They or Shouldn’t They?” by Patricia Neuenschwander (a nurse practioner), edited by Jennifer Margulis, PhD (in English)

Start with points of agreeement.

1. They write: “I have no qualms with people at high risk staying home or wearing a mask in public to try to protect themselves from contracting this infection.”
   Response: Agreed. Would the same logic be applied to families of the vulnerable, who could contract COVID-19 and share with vulnerable. Does it apply to those who are financially vulnerable as uninsured and cannot afford the risk of the average $25, 000 cost of hospitalization.
2. “children with no underlying health issues remain at an extremely low risk of being seriously affected or dying from this infection.”
   Response: Unsure whether children transmit virus to adults, but researchers still advise caution. 1
   
3. They try to undermine the threat of a virus. They frame risk of COVID-19 strictly in terms of its risk of death.
   1. But COVID-19 affects most who are tested positive for it (at least .46% of USA so far after only a few months, and it keeps growing steadily 1 and gets more complete 1,2 )
   2. It definitely affects those hospitalized for it, with lengthy recovery times and average bills for uninsured of $25K.
   3. It affects the families.
   4. It affects livelihoods, because businesses cannot conduct business in same manner because of liability of infection.

Then their main point: “I do have qualms about healthy people wearing masks, asking them to partake in an intervention that has not shown to benefit anyone (using science and data) and can potentially cause harm”

4. To back this main point, they cite “An important study using science to evaluate cloth mask use to prevent infection was conducted in March 2011”
   1. Response: Irrelevant This study is on protection of the wearer, not preventing wearer from spreading virus to others.
   2. Response: Misleading. Cloth masks do afford slight protection. When you click on the link (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577) for that study, you find that the scientists who published it included an update that includes the following clarification “the physical barrier provided by a cloth mask may afford some protection, but likely much less than a surgical mask or a respirator. ” They also give pragmaticly “suggest that they have at least two and cycle them, so that each one can be washed and dried after daily use. Sanitizer spray or UV disinfection boxes can be used to clean them during breaks in a single day.”
5. She also cites a “review of scientific literature” by CIDRAP. The article she linked to is actually originally published by https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data (That is unusual that an English PhD would not link to original post, but rather to where its republished).
   1. Response: False That CIDRAP article is debunked here: https://www.fast.ai/2020/04/20/skeptics-masks/#what-about-the-article-masks-for-all-for-covid-19-not-based-on-sound-data
6. She cites 2020 South Korean study.
   1. Response: Irrelevant. This study’s premise is that cotton masks do not perfectly keep COVID19 virus from spreading. But it does slow it down, and prevent it from going as far to potentially infect other people. The first minute of this video illustrates.
7. She cites the World Health Organization, which our country has pointed has huge problems.
   1. Response: Misleading “On March 3, 2020, WHO cited official Chinese data to downplay very serious risk of asymptomatic spread, telling the world that ‘COVID-10 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza’…Many experts citing data from Japan, S. Korea, vigorously questioned these assertions”
      See page 3 of https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1262577580718395393
8. She cites CDC original stance,
   1. Response: Misleading The CDC’s initial stance was partially based on false premises of WHO.
      CDC’s orginal reservations were against medical grade masks, not cloth DIY masks.
      Many more studies show effectiveness of masks, linked here
      as described here.

9.She says Masks make children fearful, but admits it is her opinion.
She says “You cannot explain to a two-year-old why they are being forced to cover their nose and mouth.”

Response: Irrelevant The CDC does not advise that those 2 and younger wear cloth face coverings. 1 As far as the church context, parents can choose to keep children at home and watch online, or teach children to get used to masks, even making masks. I don’t see this as much different than Halloween or other festivals. Children would prefer adults stay alive.