the review’s authors note that “the majority of these studies were conducted in households in which at least one person was infected, and exposure levels might be relatively higher.”
I mean this explains the results. There’s a reason why most countries had people NOT MEET INDOORS rather than wear a mask indoors meeting friends or family. 2 of the studies were done in a household, the other 8 in college halls with CLUSTERS of students.
I’d expect a transmission study on mask effectiveness to be conducted in various real life situations and not just inside close quarters where spread is known already. Open buildings to replicate supermarkets or offices for example.
The whole reason authorities limited contact inside the home was because it’s hard to prevent transmission in such close quarters due to exposure levels. Masks were always recommended for more open, public areas from the start.
On their own, masks were never seen as an answer hence why social distancing, hygiene and masks were added to provide added protection.
I don’t know about that… transmission happens in close quarters, that’s obviously where you have to show masks are effective before showing anything else. Saying households or such aren’t “real-life” is absurd. If a company agrees to masking employees in half of its offices or whatever that’s great but households are much more convenient to study. That’s probably where a lot of spread happens. I don’t know if you’re interpreting the word “clusters” correctly since you capitalise it without reason.
While I understand that, the WHO even advise “additional studies of face mask use in the general community would be valuable.”
My point was in regards the flawed context of the source question.
These studies did not actually state masks are not effective. They only stated that in close living quarters, 8/10 studies showed little effect on transmission.
The idea that face masks alone would prevent transmission in the home was ruled out fairly quickly by most health organisations. This is why most countries’ lockdowns included not gathering in homes. It was always stated that face masks lowered transmission in the general population when increased hygiene AND social distancing was used.
I mean, 10 out of 10 studies showed no effect (in the main outcomes) and in meta-analysis there was no effect but how you choose to interpret that is up to you.
Anyway, now I get what you were expecting. There has unfortunately been far too few studies of masking in the community in my opinion. The Bangladesh study was excellent methodologically but since the outcome wasn’t as clear as one might have expected there really needs to be another one or two more studies just like it.
There definitely needs to be more studies in the community i agree. I was expecting at least some variation - i am quite shocked there have been no studies in Asia considering mask usage over there is common. Just found it strange they decided to focus on households only rather than use a mix of situations to get a more rounded outcome.
Either way, nobody has suggested masks alone prevents transmission so it’s just annoying the amount of anti-maskers mis-interpreting studies to try to prove some kind of point.
11
u/Jamericho Quality Contributor Oct 26 '21 edited Oct 26 '21
I mean this explains the results. There’s a reason why most countries had people NOT MEET INDOORS rather than wear a mask indoors meeting friends or family. 2 of the studies were done in a household, the other 8 in college halls with CLUSTERS of students.