A Look at Evidence for Mask Effectiveness vs. COVID-19
Image
(Note: CDC does not recommend masks for children under age 2.)
Curiosity might kill cats but it’s a really good thing in humans. We could all use more of it. I offer the following to the masks-vs-COVID curious. My view on both mask use and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use—along with most other COVID-related questions—has been that being dogmatic isn’t appropriate either way.
That said, my overall impression of the evidence continues to be that masks are very likely somewhat helpful and HCQ very likely isn’t. This post focuses on masks.
Types of Evidence
Evidence comes in many forms. Here I’ll look at these categories:
- Studies of studies: analyses of lots of studies, often referred to as “meta-analysis.” (See What Is a Systematic Review/Meta-analysis?)
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs): studies that include a randomized control group for comparison purposes and for isolating the variable being tested. Double-Blind Placebo Controlled Trials (DBPCTs) are a type of RCT used when tests of substances are involved. If you have gaps in your background, or need a refresher, some reading:
- What Is a Control Group?
- Hirsh Health Sciences Library: Study Designs in the Health Sciences: RCTs.
- Introduction to RCTs in particular (and the role of DBPCTs): University of North Carolina, ERIC Notebook: Randomized Controlled Trials. See also AOGS Review: A Simplified Guide to Randomized Controlled Trials:
An RCT is a study design that is generally used in experiments testing the effectiveness and/or safety of one or more interventions. The intervention being tested is allocated to two or more study groups that are followed prospectively, outcomes of interest are recorded, and comparisons are made between intervention and control groups. The control group may receive no intervention, a standard treatment, or a placebo. The intervention can be therapeutic or preventive and does not necessarily have to be a pharmaceutical agent or a surgical intervention.
- Other kinds of studies and investigations: items from “rigorous but only indirectly relevant” to “study design not clear” to “anecdotal.”
- Independent organizations of professionals experienced in the most relevant fields.
1. Studies of Studies
The Lancet Meta-Analysis
June 2020. Full title: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). [Emphsis added]
A Summary of findings:
The findings of this systematic review of 172 studies (44 comparative studies; n=25 697 patients) on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS provide the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection, and their optimum role might need risk assessment and several contextual considerations. No randomised trials were identified for these interventions in COVID-19, SARS, or MERS
Note that The Lancet here uses a space where we use a comma in large numbers, so “25 697” is 25,697. In statistics “n” stands for the number of data points—in this case, people.
A bit more detail from the study:
Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection … with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD –10·6%, 95% CI –12·5 to –7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.
The Lancet study sees a pattern of benefit for both n95 and high quality non-n95 masks but cautions that RCTs are needed to arrive at anything like certainty.
International Journal of Nursing Studies Review
August 2020. Full title: A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients.
A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials on use of respiratory protection by healthcare workers, sick patients and community members was conducted. Articles were searched on Medline and Embase using key search terms. [Emphasis added.]
The studies analyzed go back years and don’t specifically examine SARS-CoV-2. They’re RCTs of how respiratory viruses, especially flu viruses, are hindered by masks. The study includes these observations:
The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.
“Source control” here refers to people with symptoms known to be infected.
It may also help to note that in the studies, close fitting masks meeting the N95 standard or better are often referred to as “respirators” rather than “masks.” “Medical masks” are distinct from N95 respirators, and “cloth masks” or “face masks” refer to masks not manufactured for health care workers in clinical environments. (For more, see FDA: N95 Respirators Surgical Masks, and Face Masks.)
In general, the results show protection for healthcare workers and community members, and likely benefit of masks used as source control. We found eight clinical trials … on the use of masks in the community (Table 1).…
To date, six randomised controlled trials … have been conducted on the use of masks and/or respirators by healthcare workers in health care settings (Table 2).
The analysis includes remarks about studies that attempted to compare respirator effectiveness to surgical mask effectiveness in clinical settings. It isn’t yet clear to me what the authors are saying on that point, but it doesn’t appear to be relevant to the overall picture.
2. Randomized Controlled Trials
The two RCT lists below are all from the International Journal of Nursing Studies meta-analysis above. I’m listing these here for convenience as evidence that RCTs of mask effectiveness against viruses do exist. Some have existed for more than a decade.
Community mask RCTs
- B.J. Cowling, R.O. Fung, C.K. Cheng, V.J. Fang, K.H. Chan, W.H. Seto, et al. Preliminary findings of a randomized trial of non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent influenza transmission in households. PLoS ONE, 3 (5) (2008), p. e2101
- C.R. MacIntyre, S. Cauchemez, D.E. Dwyer, H. Seale, P. Cheung, G. Browne, et al. Face mask use and control of respiratory virus transmission in households. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 15 (2) (2009), p. 233
- B.J. Cowling, K.H. Chan, V.J. Fang, C.K. Cheng, R.O. Fung, W. Wai, et al. Facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households: a cluster randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med., 151 (7) (2009), pp. 437-446.
- A.E. Aiello, G.F. Murray, V. Perez, R.M. Coulborn, B.M. Davis, M. Uddin, et al. Mask use, hand hygiene, and seasonal influenza-like illness among young adults: a randomized intervention trial. J. Infect. Dis., 201 (4) (2010), pp. 491-498.
- A.E. Aiello, V. Perez, R.M. Coulborn, B.M. Davis, M. Uddin, A.S. Monto. Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial. PLoS ONE, 7 (1) (2012).
- E.L. Larson, Y.-.H. Ferng, J. Wong-McLoughlin, S. Wang, M. Haber, S.S. Morse. Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on URIs and influenza in crowded, urban households. Public Health Rep., 125 (2) (2010), pp. 178-191.
- J.M. Simmerman, P. Suntarattiwong, J. Levy, R.G. Jarman, S. Kaewchana, R.V. Gibbons, et al. Findings from a household randomized controlled trial of hand washing and face masks to reduce influenza transmission in Bangkok, Thailand. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses, 5 (4) (2011), pp. 256-267.
- Suess, C. Remschmidt, S.B. Schink, B. Schweiger, A. Nitsche, K. Schroeder, et al. The role of facemasks and hand hygiene in the prevention of influenza transmission in households: results from a cluster randomised trial; Berlin, Germany, 2009-2011. BMC Infect. Dis., 12 (2012), p. 26.
Health care worker RCTs
- J.L. Jacobs, S. Ohde, O. Takahashi, Y. Tokuda, F. Omata, T. Fukui. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Infect. Control, 37 (5) (2009), pp. 417-419.
- Loeb, N. Dafoe, J. Mahony, M. John, A. Sarabia, V. Glavin, et al. Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial. JAMA, 302 (17) (2009), pp. 1865-1871.
- C.R. MacIntyre, Q. Wang, S. Cauchemez, H. Seale, D.E. Dwyer, P. Yang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses, 5 (3) (2011), pp. 170-179.
- C.R. MacIntyre, Q. Wang, H. Seale, P. Yang, W. Shi, Z. Gao, et al. A randomized clinical trial of three options for N95 respirators and medical masks in health workers. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 187 (9) (2013), pp. 960-966.
- L.J. Radonovich, M.S. Simberkoff, M.T. Bessesen, A.C. Brown, D.A.T. Cummings, C.A. Gaydos, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc., 322 (9) (2019), pp. 824-833.
3. Other studies
Anecdotal: Springfield-Greene County, Missouri
Two hairstylists with COVID-19 ended up not infecting any of their 140 clients. The official release from Springfield-Greene County Health Department credits masks along with other measures, but with only two main data points and no controls for other variables, what can it prove? At best, anecdotal evidence for (or against) mask effectiveness is low value (though not worthless).
Non RCT Studies Linking Positive Outcomes to Mask Wearing
A not yet-peer reviewed paper. Full title: Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks.
Update August 4, 2020. The study is not an RCT but uses statistical methods to attempt to control (or something like that) for variables.
In countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing, per-capita coronavirus mortality increased on average by just 15.8% each week, as compared with 62.1% each week in remaining countries. Conclusions. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.
Other studies of this sort, linking improved outcomes with mask-wearing:
- Health Affairs, June 2020: Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US
- Publisher unclear, June 2020: Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update June 15, 2020).
I’m skeptical of the power of statistical methods to control for non-mask factors that may have influenced outcomes in these locations. What’s clear, though: the pattern in most of these studies is consistent with the idea that masks help slow the spread of disease in general and COVID-19 in particular.
Duke University Mechanical Study of Masks for Ability to Block Droplets
August 8, Science Advances. Full title: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech.
We tested 14 commonly available masks or masks [sic] alternatives, one patch of mask material, and a professionally fit-tested N95 mask (see Fig. 2 and Table 1 for details). For reference, we recorded control trials where the speaker wore no protective mask or covering. Each test was performed with the same protocol… . We used a computer algorithm (see Materials and Methods) to count the number of particles within each video.
This small study is an RCT, but of a different kind, focusing on droplet blocking rather than infection outcomes. The study doesn’t include a summary of results (despite having a “Results” heading. I hate it when they do that!). Study authors did summarize findings in interviews for WRAL and CNN.
The gist: fitted N95s performed well, surgical masks nearly as well, high quality cloth masks “pretty good,” and bandanas worst of all. Of course, the study doesn’t “prove” masks work in preventing the spread of coronavirus. It is evidence that cloth masks produce reduction in the spread of droplets.
4. Independent organizations of experienced, specialized professionals
For many of us, the most compelling evidence that it’s worth the effort to get as many people as possible masked up when in crowded places is the wide range of organizations of professionals who are in favor of mask use.
A more or less random sample (I’m skipping WHO and CDC, which everyone must already know by now).
- American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, American Nurses Association (and a bit more from AMA)
- Mayo Clinic (See also Debunked myths about face masks)
- Cleveland Clinic
- Johns Hopkins
- 300 Doctors in Iowa
- Infectious Disease Society of America
- Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy
- Ottawa Public Health
- Public Health Agency of Canada
- Canadian Thoracic Society
- British Medical Association (BMI, Northern Ireland)
It’s true that the occasional MD can be found who says masks are useless or even harmful, but the consensus is overwhelming that masks are, if not necessarily a huge help, at least worth the trouble of trying.
Summary
While analysis studies (1) show somewhat mixed results, they’re pretty clear that in the past, high quality masks have helped prevent the spread of various kinds of viruses. RCTs (2) show the same pattern: not much yet on masks vs. SARS-CoV-2, but some good evidence for flu and other respiratory viruses. Other kinds of studies (3) also suggest masks are more likely than not to be somewhat helpful against SARS-CoV-2. When it comes to what the majority of people who study infectious disease for a living believe on the subject (4), there is little disagreement that—along with other efforts—masks are worth the bother in the battle to defeat this pandemic.
Does HCQ effectiveness against COVID-19 have anything even close to this kind of supporting evidence? I may write a follow up on that question. It might be very short.
A response to one objection in this already-too-long post: The RCTs I’ve found have not yet specifically tested masks on SARS-CoV-2. It shouldn’t be hard to recognize that, as they say, “absence of proof is not proof of absence.” When it comes to masks, why would coronavirus be different from other respiratory viruses? It might eventually prove to be different, but that evidence doesn’t yet exist.
I expect other objections in the form of misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I’m saying here. I don’t owe anyone a defense of what I’m not claiming.
Conclusion
I’m not convinced that cloth masks make a substantial difference against COVID-19, but I have no doubt at all that they’re worth a large-scale try. Public officials who think they can save lives and get their local economies working better sooner by mandating masks don’t need my support. But for what it’s worth, they have it.
Photo by David Veksler on Unsplash.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 57 views
Don’t worry Andrew. FIRST thing I said to my husband when I pulled up this thread just a bit ago was “That baby shouldn’t be in a mask. I *will* be commenting as that is not safe at all. Please tell me SOMEONE has said something.” Infants are at significant risk of being smothered because of how tiny their breathing passages are. Masks are a significant risk for them.
That said, Thankfully I have only seen appropriately aged children wearing masks around here. Most parents of infants that I have seen have very light and thin pieces of very breathable muslin over their infant bucket seats when indoors in public spaces (with air conditioning-so no danger of overheating.) These pieces of thin cloth are commonly used as nursing covers and are incredibly breathable. It is mostly just used as a visual “stay away from the baby” notice honestly though. It is not at all a “mask” type substitute.
For others, An excerpt from CDC is as follows. “Mothers should wear a mask and practice hand hygiene during all contact with their neonates. Of note, plastic infant face shields are not recommended and masks should not be placed on neonates or children younger than 2 years of age.” Link here
[Andrew K]I realize my point about the photo seems like a minor quibble, but I’m actually quite serious: kids younger than 3 shouldn’t be wearing masks. Definitely not younger than 2. That’s the official advice, as there is a significant suffocation risk. I’m kind of surprised nobody else has noted this.
Since I’m not living in the US right now, I’m legitimately curious: how widespread is this guideline ignored; i.e., how often do you see infants and very young children in masks?
Crystal, Thanks for clearing that up and for the link.
(Maybe I should photoshop that image and put the ol’ red circle slash over the baby’s mask… actually, it can easily go in a caption. EDIT: in the caption now.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I have tried several different kinds. Honestly, I have issues with everything I have tried so far. Switching to just a plastic face shield distorts my vision and causes migraine headaches, so that isn’t an option for me either.
Per the CDC, I should not wear a mask. (Exemption for “people who have trouble breathing.”) But trying telling that to anyone out in the general public. Post having what we (and my doctors) firmly believe was COVID-19, and being able to leave quarantine my breathing was in a REALLY bad place. I wore a mask for an extra week beyond even the recommended when I *had* to leave home, and I was a mess. When I finally just took it off I was ripped into by random people who didn’t even bother to ask my reasons for not wearing a mask. The dirty looks were absolutely astounding. Even informing people just got me a “Well, if you can’t wear a mask then you shouldn’t be out in public PERIOD.” and the like. As if they are my doctor, full time maid and offering to take care of ALL of my responsibilities for me with zero charge…. Unless you are volunteering to cover all responsibilities and the extra costs associated with mandating that for those of us that can’t wear a mask then you don’t get to tell us that we aren’t allowed to care for ourselves and our families by getting GROCERIES.
I am prescribed medication that is used for COPD patients. Some weeks my asthma makes zero impact in my life, others it flares badly. My doctors have told me to maintain distance when in stores. Something I already do. They fully understand that wearing a mask exacerbates my asthma, and while they grudgingly tell me to put a mask on when possible, they also were clear that breathing is the priority and not wearing a mask is preferred in my situation.
Add to that the fact that something over my face, and the *sensation* of my breathing being restricted triggers other issues I have going back in my past. But if I remove the mask away from people in order to work through it and calm myself so that I can avoid an asthma attack, put it back on, and continue shopping…I will inevitably be yelled at (No, that is not an exaggeration-it has happened. Multiple times.) and someone will get in my face over it-further exacerbating my panic and causing me to have to remain even longer in the store.
There is zero grace being shown towards people that are struggling with masks. Many people feel that they are morally superior to anyone they see that doesn’t have one on, and they feel that they have every right to get in their faces over it. I have talked to *multiple* other people that can not wear masks and we are feeling that we are on constant eggshells and on guard for literal physical assault whenever we have to go out. Even when we are wearing masks-because we know that inevitably we will need to remove the mask briefly- and we have all been attacked over the issue many times already.
The number of *Christians* that I have seen on Facebook mocking people who claim to have breathing problems astounds me. The lack of love for those of us that *are* struggling is appalling.
(I should clarify, this is not to be construed as me yelling at you or raking you over the coals Dgszweda - I am responding to your question about what masks I have tried. The rest of my commentary is not directed directly at you. It just pertains to the subject being discussed.)
[dgszweda]What kind of mask was she wearing? There are a number of online tools to help people who have mild to moderate asthma handle a mask. Those that have severe asthma or COPD, it is not recommended that they go out without a mask (even though it is difficult to wear one). That is because they are in a very high risk category for complications from COVID.
Not sure what you mean about a crusade. I would never berate anyone over it. I haven’t seen that issue yet, but I guess it is out there. I am not sure I would classify that the evidence of mask effectiveness is questionable at best. It is becoming a pretty established belief that the science and evidence supports that masks are very effective.
Hey! Thanks for noting that in the caption! I really appreciate that! I just didn’t want someone seeing that and thinking it was such a great idea to pop an infant into a mask. :) Thanks!
[Aaron Blumer]Crystal, Thanks for clearing that up and for the link.
(Maybe I should photoshop that image and put the ol’ red circle slash over the baby’s mask… actually, it can easily go in a caption. EDIT: in the caption now.)
People with difficulty breathing do have a dilemma. But the dilemma only exists because wearing a mask or not wearing one somehow became perceived as political. I get how that happened but I still don’t understand
- Why it happened
- Why it persists
On the first point, the country is desperate for solution-focused—as opposed to political fight-focused or “winning” focused—leadership. Do we really have so few influencers now who won’t/can’t set aside their political fights long enough to help the country work together to solve what was obviously a huge problem?
On the second, Trump is pro-mask now… so the right wing has his permission now to be OK with masks. So why are they still still clinging to the politicization narrative, which was bogus to begin with?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Here is a concern I have for people in your situation, Crystal, which if I understood you correctly, is that you have a medical condition where doctors say you should not wear a mask. Correct?
Then why are you out exposing yourself to a virus that attacks people with conditions such as yours?
My point is, you say the mask mandate is prohibitive and people are rude to you without a mask, but you are exposing yourself to a terrible virus by being out in public. It seems to me people in your situation should be quarantining at home. You are the very ones the quarantine was designed to protect!
Another poster above yours talked about a woman so obese she was struggling to breathe with a mask in a store that required one. Once again, obesity that high is a strong indicator that COVID will cause a person serious trouble. They should not be out walking around exposing themselves either way. The same goes for people with asthma so bad they can’t wear a mask…
Aaron wrote:
On the second, Trump is pro-mask now… so the right wing has his permission now to be OK with masks. So why are they still still clinging to the politicization narrative, which was bogus to begin with?
Aaron, those of us who tend to be more conservative are not getting our positions from Trump- especially on Covid-19. It looks like you are the one obsessed with Trump, not us. Trump has been much more pro lockdown than most of us on the right. He has been much more pro mask than those of us who have been listening to scientists from high ranking universities instead of listening to Dr. Fauchi like Trump has been doing. My positions on Covid-19 do not come from Trump. I had even heard about Hydroxi before Trump had talked about it. What it comes down to is that we do not just believe whatever NPR and CNN tell us, so since Trump is their enemy and we do not fall in line, we become their enemy too. So then we get lumped in with Trump simply because we both question the same sources. This is not intellectually honest.
I am in a unique place. We live in South Dakota where there has never been an overreaction to Covid-19. We did react and did take precautions, but did not cripple our economy. People got sick and some died, but our death rate has actually been lower than most of the rest of the nation and our economy is still booming. Our freedoms have been protected (freedoms btw that help us help the poor and spread the gospel).
I have a hard time seeing what all the overreaction is about. We just got back from a vacation to the Black Hills of western South Dakota. The hotel was packed, parking at the attractions was a challenge, and the places were filled. Few were wearing masks. We visited some friends while we were in Rapid City and they said it has been like that for months. Many of the visitors were from out of state- from all over the country. If these people catch Covid, they will be going back home, so it is hard to guage the spread, but what about the tourism workers? The hospital in Rapid City has not been overwhelmed and people around Rapid City have been going on mostly like normal. I posted about this on facebook and I have a Bible college friend in Rapid City who liked the post. He has noticed the same thing and is not panicked either.
We are in a different world here in South Dakota- a world without panic. A world where some get sick and most recover, but a few die. It is not much different than any other year other than some people are a bit more scared than usual. Other years people got sick and died too. Based on the stats nation wide, it looks like about twice as many are dying of Covid-19 as were dying from the flu. Any death is serious, but it is not worth the unreasonable panic I am seeing.
There are any number of sicknesses out there every year that could kill me. You don’t get to tell me how I should and shouldn’t handle this virus. You don’t get to prioritize what my life looks like because of your fears. You do not get to lock me up in the name of “safety” and determine what the next several years of my life look like. COVID-19 is NOT going to go away. My doctors are clear about that. We get to choose how we will live out our lives with that knowledge.
You don’t know what precautions I take when I do go out, and you aren’t my doctors. You also apparently completely missed references to the fact that I do indeed wear a mask *many* times when out-referenced by the fact that I am getting attacked when I do have to remove it (while well away from other people-who then approach ME to attack me over it.)
I have lost many friends and family members to automobile accidents. I don’t have the right to tell everyone else whether they should use automobiles or not. We all understand that using an automobile carries with it a certain amount of risk. People get to decide what acceptable risk is to them in these choices.
[Mark_Smith]Here is a concern I have for people in your situation, Crystal, which if I understood you correctly, is that you have a medical condition where doctors say you should not wear a mask. Correct?
Then why are you out exposing yourself to a virus that attacks people with conditions such as yours?
My point is, you say the mask mandate is prohibitive and people are rude to you without a mask, but you are exposing yourself to a terrible virus by being out in public. It seems to me people in your situation should be quarantining at home. You are the very ones the quarantine was designed to protect!
Another poster above yours talked about a woman so obese she was struggling to breathe with a mask in a store that required one. Once again, obesity that high is a strong indicator that COVID will cause a person serious trouble. They should not be out walking around exposing themselves either way. The same goes for people with asthma so bad they can’t wear a mask…
[Aaron Blumer]People with difficulty breathing do have a dilemma. But the dilemma only exists because wearing a mask or not wearing one somehow became perceived as political. I get how that happened but I still don’t understand
- Why it happened
- Why it persists
On the first point, the country is desperate for solution-focused—as opposed to political fight-focused or “winning” focused—leadership. Do we really have so few influencers now who won’t/can’t set aside their political fights long enough to help the country work together to solve what was obviously a huge problem?
On the second, Trump is pro-mask now… so the right wing has his permission now to be OK with masks. So why are they still still clinging to the politicization narrative, which was bogus to begin with?
Well, I can think of a couple answers.
On your first point, as I have posted earlier in one of the other threads, some of us who are “resisters,” so to speak, aren’t resisting because we think there’s NO chance that masks help at all. We would actually be happy to contribute to an actual solution — like, e.g. pairing a mask requirement with ceasing lockdowns and opening things up more. If most or even many businesses are going to have to stay closed anyway, masks or not, then masks are not really contributing to a solution; they’re just slowing down the inevitable. I’d also argue that keeping things closed while requiring masks tends to indicate to people that masks are not really seen as working. I’d happily change my behavior on them if wearing masks meant reopening.
On your 2nd point, maybe it’s because there are many of us who don’t worship at the feet of Trump, even when we like a lot of what he is doing. I’m not taking my view of masks from him any more than I’d take my view of how to treat and talk about women from him. Clearly, the whole flip-flopping from the WHO and CDC on mask effectiveness hasn’t helped either, and these are organizations that ought to have the extensive experience dgszweda refers to above, so that does make the current mask policy look more political than anything else, whether it is in actuality or not.
However, when it comes down to it, my view on this is that the virus is out in the wild, masks aren’t going to prevent me from getting it, and it’s likely that until and unless a 100% effective vaccine comes out, my chances of getting it in the future (if I haven’t already had it, as I had a nasty respiratory illness after returning from Europe in January) approach 100% anyway. I already wear masks when required and out of love for others that are at risk. Beyond that, I’d rather just get it over with and be able to go on with life as usual (or not — if God chooses to take me, then it was my time). Our country survived the flu epidemics of the 50’s and 60’s without lockdowns, and the percentage of fatalities in this country was around that of Covid. Masks on top of lockdowns is not handling this better than previous generations did, IMHO.
Dave Barnhart
Our country also survived the first 150+ years not having real medicine, and drinking untreated water. Does that mean we do not use antibiotics, pain medicines, blood pressure medicine, and the like? Do we not drink treated water?
What about a/c, air travel, internet and cell phones?
With progress you make changes.
We can debate what changes to make and what policies to implement, but the “we survived 1950 and 1917 with no quarantine” does not apply.
Granted, this particular disease is borderline on its true deadliness. What if we had an epidemic of smallpox, or ebola, or some novel virus with a death rate of either of those. Say 10 or 20%. Would people in ‘Merica (shout out to you Tyler) resist masks and quarantines then?
I think they would.
that I have attended the last 4-5 years is now acting like nothing is happening. Especially with the youth group. They are having pool parties, bashes, overnights, everything like normal. No social distancing in Bible studies or Sunday worship either for the youth. My daughter, who has a trach but is otherwise healthy, still has not re-engaged the youth meetings out of health concerns. What bothers me is no one reaches out to her. Makes me mad actually. So disappointed with the church again.
[Mark_Smith]that I have attended the last 4-5 years is now acting like nothing is happening. Especially with the youth group. They are having pool parties, bashes, overnights, everything like normal. No social distancing in Bible studies or Sunday worship either for the youth. My daughter, who has a trach but is otherwise healthy, still has not re-engaged the youth meetings out of health concerns. What bothers me is no one reaches out to her. Makes me mad actually. So disappointed with the church again.
Mark, I can see why you might be frustrated with your church — not taking any precautions at all is not helpful to anyone. Even though most of our congregation doesn’t wear masks, we do distance from one another, close pews, do extra cleaning, etc., etc. And I agree that not reaching out to your daughter is not acceptable. Are you looking for video phone contact or something similar? Because with the conditions your daughter has, most people trying to care for those at risk would stay away out of caution and respect. I’m certainly avoiding close contact with people at risk, including in my own family.
Regarding an earlier point you made, I don’t worship the past, but I don’t consider everything in the present to be better either (just look at American culture if you need any examples). Ideas aren’t necessarily better just because they are new. People have quarantined the at-risk and sick for thousands of years, but now we think it’s better to stop the healthy from doing anything? It’s only going to slow down the process of herd immunity. At least some nations are realizing exactly that.
And by the way, I think that the relative deadliness of Covid does figure in to people’s risk calculations. If we were having an epidemic of something as deadly as Ebola, but also airborne, I’d do a lot more than I’m doing for Covid. BUT, I’d also not trust cloth masks to keep me safe either. I’m not sure what most other people would do, as people can in general be pretty stupid, and that characterization applies to most of us at one time or another. Personally, though, I’d doubt that people would behave exactly the same for a much deadlier disease, as much of what motivates most people is fear.
Dave Barnhart
I will be honest. We made a written “safety plan” per our Governor’s orders, and nobody wore masks. I didn’t even wear a mask. We were supposed to. I basically said, “meh,” and let it go. I know I should have, because people look to the pastors to set an example. About 20% of the folks wore masks, but nobody else did.
Two weeks, an elderly lady approached me and politely said how disappointed she was that nobody wore masks. I apologized to her, sent out a church email asking people to wear masks, and had “Please Wear a Mask” sign placed at the entrances. My whole family now wears masks at church. Miraculously, now 95% of the people wear masks at church.
I should have enforced it earlier, but I didn’t. I personally think it’s unnecessary, but that’s what our public health folks want. It might help. It might not. I know it doesn’t hurt anything. So, we do it.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion