CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’ or ‘Often’

[Cathoholic]

CDC Study: 85% of Coronavirus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’ or ‘Often’​

EDWIN MORA

14 Oct 2020

An overlooked study published recently by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that cloth face coverings or masks are mostly ineffective in preventing the spread of the Chinese coronavirus as promoted by public health officials.

The CDC conducted the study, largely ignored by the media, in the U.S. in July and made its findings public in September. It compared 154 “case-patients,” those who tested positive for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease), and a control group of 160 “control-participants,” those who were symptomatic but tested negative.

CDC researchers examined participants who reported wearing a cloth face covering or mask at least 14 days before illness onset, which falls into the incubation period of 2–14 days estimated by the agency.

The researchers found that 71 percent of the case-patients contracted the virus despite reporting “always” wearing a cloth face covering or mask at least 14 days before illness onset, and 14 percent contracted the virus despite reporting “often” wearing one at least 14 days before illness onset.

That indicates 85 percent of the COVID-19 study participants contracted the virus even after either always (71 percent) or often (14 percent) wearing a face covering or mask, suggesting the masks are not entirely effective at preventing the spread of the coronavirus.

Additionally, the rate of COVID-19 patients who wore a mask mirrored the percentage of those who were showing symptoms but tested negative, suggesting that the masks did little to protect those who did not test positive from symptoms. . . .

. . . Acknowledging the limitations of the study, the CDC pointed out, “Adults in the study were from one of 11 participating health care facilities and might not be representative of the United States population.” . . .

. . . Wearing a mask at “gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” did not prevent them from getting infected, the CDC study indicated…

… Redfield went as far as telling a Senate panel last month that masks are “more guaranteed” to protect against the coronavirus than a potential vaccine.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) mandated use of masks in his state prompted the governor’s office to urge restaurant patrons via Twitter in October to keep their masks on while dining.

“Going out to eat with members of your household this weekend? Don’t forget to keep your mask on in between bites. . . .

CDC: 85% of Virus Patients Reported Wearing Masks ‘Always’ or ‘Often’

 

[Cathoholic]

Tucker: What is the scientific rationale for wearing masks?​

Oct. 14, 2020 - 9:15 - ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host examines new research questioning effectiveness of face coverings

Tucker: What is the scientific rationale for wearing masks? | On Air Videos | Fox News

Tucker: What is the scientific rationale for wearing masks? | Fox News Video

.

Tucker Carlson responds to CDC over his critique of face masks​

Oct. 15, 2020 - 1:08 - ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host reacts to a CDC statement about face masks and coronavirus

Tucker Carlson responds to CDC over his critique of face masks | On Air Videos | Fox News

Tucker Carlson responds to CDC over his critique of face masks | Fox News Video

 

[Annie]

I thought the point of wearing masks was to prevent other people catching it from us rather than to protect ourselves?

 

[Roselle]

I’ve figured the typical face masks worn as not all that helpful against the virus. I still wear one when out shopping or elsewhere in public though as that is policy. I know some people that hold a lot of faith with face masks. Wearing one or telling others to wear one brings them comfort. Overall though I look forward to the day were face coverings are not needed.

 

[JonNC]

I thought the point of wearing masks was to prevent other people catching it from us rather than to protect ourselves?

Yes, but according to Redfield,

“These actually, we have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense,” he continued. "I might even go so far as to say this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity might be 70%, and if I don’t get an immune response the vaccine’s not going to protect me. This face mask will."

Yeah, pretty much, but too many Americans can’t give up their freedoms and the virus continues to spread.

One has no more right not to wear a mask than they do to go into a restaurant without shirt and shoes.
OTOH, the federal government has no enumerated power to enforce a mask mandate.

 

[Rockoh22]

Yeah, pretty much, but too many Americans can’t give up their freedoms and the virus continues to spread.

True. The American Spirit of Freedom.

However, what country has indeed removed the virus from their land? And, do you trust the numbers of COVID Deaths or cases from other countries as accurate?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, but according to Redfield,

“These actually, we have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense,” he continued. "I might even go so far as to say this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine ,

That’s proof-texting. I’m sure Redfield knows that masks are more effective when worn by the infected person.

OTOH, the federal government has no enumerated power to enforce a mask mandate.

There are thousands of government mandates that are not enumerated powers and yet have not been struck down by the courts, so your reading is not supported.

 

[PaulinVA]

preventing the spread of the Chinese coronavirus

Okay, when I read this I know it’s coming from a reliable source.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Overall though I look forward to the day were face coverings are not needed.

I’m not sure it will ever be entirely different. Even a reasonable degree of “herd immunity” will not protect those who have no immunity. Eventually, everyone who is vulnerable will get the disease. Even Fauci doubts any vaccine will afford long-lasting protection. I doubt wearing face masks makes any difference now or will in the future.

The medical community might be greatly underestimating the number of people who have natural immunity. They all say it’s extremely contagious, and I don’t doubt that. If masks don’t provide any greater protection than having nose hairs, then why isn’t everybody getting it? My guess is (and I think there is some medical opinion behind it) some have natural immunity so robust that one doesn’t even test positive with a small resident portion of the virus. I think there is a substantial body of medical opinion that greatly more people have “had” it than anyone knows.

As I have said before, virtually nobody dies of the common cold anymore. But plenty of Amerinds did shortly after contact with Europeans. It can be deadly if one doesn’t have sufficient immunity. I remember it was once said that pneumonia was “the old man’s friend”. In other words, old and unhealthy men would be “put out of their misery” by pneumonia eventually. But we don’t know whether it was pneumonococus or colds or coronavirus or just what.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If there were a day with scattered rain storms, and people went out and wore there rain gear for some of the time while out, would we conclude that rain coats are I effective?

 

[JonNC]

That’s proof-texting. I’m sure Redfield knows that masks are more effective when worn by the infected person.

Maybe, but he here clearly is saying the wearer benefits from the wearing, perhaps to a greater degree than a vaccine.

There are thousands of government mandates that are not enumerated powers and yet have not been struck down by the courts, so your reading is not supported.

It is so odd how, when Trump said he was in charge, the left screamed “10th amendment”.

 

[Annie]

Yes, but according to Redfield ,

What he said was kind of vague. Sure, if a vaccine only works on 70% of the recipients and you are one of the 30%, a mask will be more protective than nothing, but it doesn’t mean masks are that protective of the wearer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

but he here clearly is saying the wearer benefits from the wearing, perhaps to a greater degree than a vaccine.

Nope. Still prooftexting. He was talking about the effectiveness of masks to society. He used the pronoun “me” to stand for everyone, and masks worn by everyone. He was not talking about individual protection in the presence of people who are not wearing masks. You don’t get to rise to a position like his without being keenly aware of the science.

 

[toabb]

Breitbart…meh

 

[PaulinVA]

The study says 40‰ of the infected people had close contact with infected people, and that restaurants were a key place to become infected, since people took masks off there.

 

[JonNC]

What he said was kind of vague. Sure, if a vaccine only works on 70% of the recipients and you are one of the 30%, a mask will be more protective than nothing, but it doesn’t mean masks are that protective of the wearer.

I just quoted what he said. In context. He was comparing wearing a mask to a vaccine.

 

[JonNC]

Breitbart…meh

ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, WAPO, NYT… meh

 

[Annie]

I said he said a mask would be better protection than nothing at all, as would happen if the vaccine were only 70% effective.

IOW, we will have to continue some of these “rules” even after we get a vaccine.

 

[JonNC]

Nope. Still prooftexting.

Nope. Reading the clear meaning of the words he said in their context. Read them again.

He was talking about the effectiveness of masks to society.

Read his words, instead of your interpretation of them.

 

[CradleRC58]

No one can convince me that a mask does not offer some protection.

First of all, a mask serves as a reminder not to touch your face.

Also, I can see the effectiveness of a mask with my own eyes. Twice now, I have stepped out onto my porch on a chilly morning and seen my breath as I exhale. After putting on a mask, I could no longer see my breath. That is easily observable proof that the mask catches the moisture/droplets. Perhaps not all of them, but enough of them to conclude a mask does offer some benefit.

I can’t put much stock in these findings that people get infected even though they wore masks frequently.

The virus is in the air and it settles on surfaces. And it’s also in the sewers. It’s in the air of public restrooms in large concentration after an infected person in the contagious stage of the infection uses that restroom for a bowel movement. When someone enters a public restroom soon after, mask or no mask, it’s in your hair, on your clothes, on your bare arms, on your shoes, on a mask that is reused, etc.

So no, masks can’t be claimed to prevent infection in smaller rooms occupied by someone who is infected, but in larger spaces in combination with social distancing, they do indeed offer some protection imo.

It’s just a nasty virus and it is in the air all over the globe like a pestilence.