2023-11-07 20:40:04
– And they protect!
New overview studies show: Masks reduce infection with potentially dangerous airborne pathogens such as Sars-CoV-2 – even after the pandemic.
Published: November 7th, 2023, 9:40 p.m
If you want to protect yourself from infections with airborne viruses such as Sars-CoV-2, it is best to choose an FFP2 mask.
Foto: Getty Images
People are coughing, snotting and sniffling everywhere – on public transport, in the supermarket, at work. This has at least partly to do with the increasing number of corona infections, but not only. Various cold viruses, the RS virus, influenza and flu-like infections are currently booming again.
They are all transmitted through the air, particularly indoors where there are many people. And against all these pathogens, there is a simple method that can be used to reduce the risk of transmission: with a face mask, ideally one of the FFP2 type.
The only thing is: almost no one wears a mask anymore. Mouth and nose protection seems to remind people too much of the pandemic – and no one wants to know about it anymore. Out of sight, out of mind. “We have switched from panic mode to indifference mode,” says epidemiologist Antoine Flahault, director of the Institute of Global Health at the University of Geneva.
“We switched from panic mode to indifference mode.”
Antoine Flahault, University of Geneva
“The data situation is clear,” writes Tom Frieden, former director of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), on X. “Masks can reduce the risk of spreading Covid and becoming infected yourself.” This is also the conclusion at the end of October in the journal “Jama Network Open” published review paper. The goal of Tom Frieden’s team of authors was to create a basis for better coping with future pandemics. Their conclusion: “Face masks are probably an important measure to respond to future threats from new respiratory pathogens.”
The British Royal Society comes to a similar conclusion. In one Report on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) – in addition to masks, this also includes measures such as keeping your distance, lockdowns, testing, tracking contacts and others – she writes: “Studies consistently come to the conclusion – although not 100% – that mandatory masks and wearing masks are effective measures for reduction of infections.”
Since Sars-CoV-2 has been tested almost exclusively in hospitals, Switzerland has been flying blind when it comes to the current circulation of the coronavirus. The only data that provides evidence of the activity of Sars-CoV-2 (and a few other viruses) comes from wastewater samples from selected sewage treatment plants. Accordingly, neither influenza viruses (flu) nor RS viruses are currently circulating. Only traces of Sars-CoV-2 are noticeable in the wastewater, although (still) at a low level. Rhino and other cold viruses are not tested for.
Currently, around 150 people with a positive corona test have to be treated in hospital every week, and the number of laboratory-confirmed deaths is currently around 5 people per week. (nw)
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the question of masks has been at the center of heated debates. In spring 2020, the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) and the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that the benefits of masks for healthy people had not been proven. This was primarily a protective claim because there was simply a lack of masks for the entire population. The BAG later changed the recommendations, and today the website says: “Since the coronavirus is transmitted through droplets and aerosols, masks can protect you and others from infection.”
A controversial meta-study by the Cochrane research network added fuel to the fire of the mask debate last June. Masks in the population, the study said, would probably have little or no influence on the occurrence of flu or Covid-like illnesses. Critics immediately came forward. Among other things, they loudly complained that the Cochrane researchers primarily took older studies with flu or cold viruses into account in their analysis. Cochrane had to immediately apologize for the incorrect interpretation of the study.
The main problem with the Cochrane analysis: It only took into account so-called randomized controlled studies (RCT), which serve as the gold standard in many areas of medicine – especially when testing new therapies – but which can be misleading, especially when it comes to the question of masks . Did the test subjects always wear the mask correctly? Did you become infected when you took off your mask at home, for example? What type of mask did you wear? All of these factors can massively distort the results of such studies.
Seat belts also do not require clinical testing
The team led by Tom Frieden and Shama Cash-Goldwasser writes in the review article that randomized, controlled studies are not the gold standard for answering the question of how well masks protect against infection or the spread of viruses. Many highly effective rules and recommendations that prevent illness and injury have never been tested in such studies: seat belts, motorcycle helmets, speed limits on highways, bans on smoking indoors, etc.
This also applies to the masks, the researchers continue. Like seat belts, masks are essentially a technical aid whose effectiveness has been sufficiently proven under laboratory conditions. In addition, as the pandemic progressed, a lot of high-quality data clearly confirmed the benefits of the masks. Accordingly, masks can never offer absolute protection, but they can help contain infections and illnesses. The team writes that such study results have lost focus due to the one-sided attention to randomized, controlled studies.
Chinese researchers recently published a high-quality study in the journal “Nature Communications”. They examined the effectiveness of various non-pharmaceutical interventions during 131 outbreaks in the pandemic in China, from April 2020 to May 2022 (during the period when China went into complete lockdown).
Accordingly, a mask requirement could reduce the so-called R-value by 25 percent (Pre-Delta) to 50 percent (Omicron). The R value indicates how many people an infected person infects on average. The researchers found similarly high reductions in the R value for social distancing measures and contact tracing.
“We now know that masks can also be very effective in a real world,” says Antoine Flahault from the University of Geneva: passengers in Hong Kong.
Foto: Paul Yeung (Bloomberg, Getty Images)
“The study is very interesting,” says Antoine Flahault, even though it was carried out in an authoritarian regime and under a zero-Covid strategy. We also had a mask requirement, but it was never enforced as rigorously as in China. Therefore, China was probably ideally suited to carry out such a study. “We now know that masks can also be very effective in a real world,” says Flahault.
The current situation in Switzerland is completely different. Nevertheless, the mask can still offer protection for us – for ourselves and especially for those around us if we ourselves have a respiratory infection. Especially for people at risk, especially those with a weakened immune system, an infection with Sars-CoV-2 or another pathogen can lead to serious illnesses. In addition, every Sars-CoV-2 infection carries a small risk of long-lasting symptoms, i.e. Long Covid.
Expert Antoine Flahault knows how masks provide the best protection:
Anyone who suffers from a respiratory infection can protect those around them by wearing a surgical mask. “Even with a surgical mask you can drastically reduce the amount of viruses released into the surrounding air,” says Flahault.
However, if you want to protect yourself, you should wear an FFP2 or FFP3 mask. “An FFP2 mask protects much more effectively than a surgical mask if only a few people wear a mask,” says Flahault. “I always find it a little sad when I see fragile and vulnerable people trying to protect themselves with a surgical mask.”
The mask offers further advantages: It not only protects against Sars-CoV-2 viruses, but also against all airborne pathogens such as cold or influenza viruses. “I don’t want to get infected with Sars-CoV-2 or a flu-like pathogen,” says Flahault.
All of these measures apply primarily to stays in poorly ventilated indoor spaces or public transport. Flahault therefore advises taking precautions: “I recommend wearing a mask whenever the CO2 concentration in an indoor area exceeds 800 ppm, or on public transport if the journey takes longer than 15 minutes.”
After the Corona pandemicNik Walter is an editor in the knowledge team of the Tamedia editorial team. The doctor of biology has been writing for Tamedia since 1997, and from 1999 to the end of 2021 he headed the knowledge department. The focus is on life sciences, medicine and science policy. In 2013 he won the Prix Media of the Academy of Natural Sciences.More information@sciencenik
Found an error? Report now.
49 comments
1699404709
#Corona #masks #protect #studies #show