COVID-19: MYTHS ABOUT MASK WEARING

In science, it is important to adopt a degree of professional scepticism.  If a scientist says something, does it stand up to scrutiny?  That applies specifically to the value of wearing face masks. 

People also have genuine concerns about wearing masks that need to be addressed.

One of the foremost proponents in the UK for wearing masks and face coverings is Trisha Greenhalgh MD, a qualified doctor now Professor of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University.

She has compiled a paper setting out key concerns and myths, together with the scientific evidence that has influenced her views.  Topics include:


DO MASKS WORK?

A distinction has to be made between:

• Masks and face coverings acting as Source Control, reducing the chance that an infectious person infects somebody else, and 
• Protecting the wearer.  Whilst the is evidence that face coverings can provide a degree of protection for the wearer, the key issue is whether they stop infections spreading.

There have not been any strictly controlled trials comparing people wearing masks and those not, for a number of reasons including:

• Source control cannot be tested without having completely segregated populations with and without masks
• Deliberately infecting individuals who and then placed in the groups would be ethically wrong

We therefore have to look for real-life evidence.

It is probably no coincidence that infection levels have dropped quickly in South East Asian countries where wearing face coverings has become a societal norm.

Trisha also gives some specific examples, such as "One man flew from China to Toronto wearing a mask for the entireflight, became symptomatic the next day and tested positive forcovid-19; none of the other passengers or crew became infected."





"Comparing Czech Republic and Austria, both of which introduced social distancing on the same day; the former also introduced compulsory face coverings.  New covid-19 infections fell more quickly in the Czech Republic, and only began to fall in Austria after masks were made mandatory 2 weeks later"


She adds "We do not need to prevent every transmission of every droplet or every viral particle. As with hand-washing and social distancing, the objective of the policy is more modest: to achieve a substantial reduction in the transmission rate of the virus."   Mask and face coverings help to achieve that more modest objective.


BUT DON'T MASKS CAUSE HARM TO THE WEARER?

It is alleged that wearing face masks can cause harm to the wearer, specifically dis-comfort, dehydration, facial dermatitis, distress, head-aches, exhaustion and a host of other complaints.  One tweet listed "Doctors are reporting : thrush, impetigo, legionnaires disease, gum disease, tooth decay, pleurisy, pneumonia, asthma, all from mask wearing."

It is acknowledged that prolonged wearing of medical-grade masks by health care workers can result in physical and psychological harm.  Working hard, such people can become exhausted.

But there is no evidence of any serious issues for the general piublic wearing simple masks and face coverings.  A little discomfort perhaps, but nothing compared to the benefit of wearing masks.


DON'T MASKS CAUSE A BUILD UP CARBON DIOXIDE AND REDUCE THE OXYGEN AVAILABLE TO THE WEARER?

Oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules are far smaller than the weave of the materials used to make masks.  There is no evidence of people incurring problems even after long periods wearing a mask.

Indeed doctors have shown their blood oxygen levels are not affected by wearing a mask, including this doctor wearing four masks simultaneously.


WON'T WEARING MASKS MEAN PEOPLE WILL TAKE LESS CARE IN OTHER WAYS?

'Risk Compensation', whereby introducing one precaution makes people reduce their use of other precautions, is well documented. 

The concern is that people made to wear masks would reduce other infection control behaviours such as hand-washing.  In Sweden the concern behind not recommending the use of masks is that it would mean people reduce their social distancing.

Of more concern is that people who know they are infectious will see masks as an excuse to live life normally.  Boots says on their face masks web page "Face masks should not be used in place of social distancing and hand washing, or in place of self-isolation. Anyone with coronavirus (COVID-19) symptoms, and their household, must still self-isolate at home."

We can't ignore Risk Compensation.  But on balance, the rewards and advantages of wearing masks outweighs any such concerns.


"I'M NOT GOING TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO.  I HAVE MY RIGHTS."

If you want to smoke yourself to death, you've been warned, but it remains your choice.  But it has to be outside a pub, for example, so other people are not affected.  'Passive smoking', whereby people inhale the smoke of others, has been blamed for the deaths of people such as Roy Castle, a trumpeter and TV personality who spent much time in smoky jazz clubs.

Being infectious with COVID-19 and not wearing a mask is very much like passive smoking.  People in your vicinity can be infected if you are infectious and not wearing a mask.

But it's more than that.  You are also at risk of catching COVID-19, which we know is not just about death.  Other people wearing masks protect you.

We need to look after each other.  "My mask protects you.  Your mask protects me."


OTHER MYTHS

There are a variety of other myths and excuses for not wearing a mask.  None of them are enough to counteract the benefits of the general public wearing masks.


IN CONCLUSION

Unless you really can't wear a mask or face covering, and an exemption would be justified, it is right and proper for you to wear one to protect your fellow citizens in case you are infectious without realising it.  Other people will be doing the same for you.