For the PDF version of this report, click here.
What is COVID-19?
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a respiratory virus named “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2). It is in the same family as the virus that caused the SARS outbreak of 2003, and both of the viruses appear to have originally come from bats 27,28 . The “severe” part of the virus’s name comes from its extreme contagiousness and serious complications. Thankfully, most people who have COVID-19 only experience flu-like symptoms such as fever, cough, difficulty breathing, and fatigue. However, COVID-19 is much more contagious than the flu, and it has a much higher death rate: 0.3 to 5.7% based on the most reliable estimates 29–34 . For reference, the common flu has a death rate of 0.1%. Serious COVID-19 complications include damage to the lungs, liver, and heart, permanent loss of taste and smell, blood clots, stroke, and death 31 . The rate of complications including death is much higher in individuals with preexisting conditions, particularly the elderly and those with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory conditions, high blood pressure, cancer, an organ transplant, sickle cell disease, immune disorders, and those living in areas with more air pollution 33,35,36 .
How is COVID-19 transmitted?
While much is still being learned about this disease, it appears that the main way the virus is spread is through small droplets of moisture that are produced when a person exhales, talks, coughs, or sneezes 5,34,37. These tiny droplets can travel many feet through the air and linger in the air or on surfaces for several minutes to hours after the infected person has left the area 17,19,35,38,39. The virus can enter a new person’s body directly by being breathed in or landing in the eyes, nose, or other mucus membranes 40–42. The virus can also spread indirectly through objects and surfaces.
After infection, most people experience an incubation period where there are no symptoms—typically lasting 5 days, but sometimes lasting 15 days 1,5,43. Infected individuals are most contagious during the day before first symptoms and in the few days after onset, meaning that people who feel completely healthy can spread the virus to loved ones and strangers 10,37,44. Up to one in three COVID-19 carriers show no symptoms at all (asymptomatic) 12,45, though they can still spread the virus 1,4,46. It is estimated that half of all transmissions occur from individuals not showing symptoms 1,47. We have compiled information on the pathology of COVID-19 in children, adolescents, and young adults in a new report that is freely accessible here 48.
Are masks effective for individuals and communities?
There is clear evidence that face coverings reduce the spray of droplets produced during speaking, coughing, and sneezing 6,17,19,49–52. This is why masks have long been recommended for individuals with respiratory infections 7,7,40,53–55. Furthermore, home-made cloth masks are similar in effectiveness to surgical masks in diffusing the “jets” of droplets that could spread COVID-19 (for details on mask types, see Figure 1 and the “deep dive”) 6,19. For example, one of the most definitive studies on viruses and face masks found a 90% reduction in influenza viruses after breathing through a mask and a complete removal of coronaviruses 50. However, not all face coverings are equally effective. Multi-layer synthetic and cotton masks provide the most filtration, while bandanas and fleeces (neck gaiters) provide very little or no protection 6,20. Because only fitted respirators (the finest-meshed masks) provide reliable protection from external droplets and viral particles 41,53,56, public masking works through “source control,” 15 where “my mask protects you, and your mask protects me.” 50
While it is always difficult to establish cause and effect at the community level, there is now strong evidence that public masking can slow or even stop the spread COVID-19 in states and countries 4,7,11,13,16,44,57. One of the most conclusive studies on the subject compared the effectiveness of universal masking in the health-care system of Massachusetts 8. This large study involved 75,000 participants, including healthcare workers and patients. Of all the public health interventions, universal masking appears to be the most associated with stopping the exponential growth of COVID-19 cases, first flattening and then decreasing the infection rate 8. Another study from Missouri demonstrated the effectiveness of universal masking in commercial settings 9. Two hair stylists contracted COVID-19 but continued to work for 10 days, servicing 139 clients. Because the salon had a universal masking policy, all stylists and 98% of clients were wearing cloth, surgical, or N95 masks during the encounters. None of the clients or other stylists in the salon developed symptoms 9,16. Similar accounts are being reported from around the U.S. and the world 13,16,58,59, supported by quantitative simulations 60 and randomized controlled trials from other diseases 7.
There is also recent evidence that masking is effective at state and national levels. In countries where public masking was common before the pandemic (where it was culturally normal for sick people to wear masks in public), COVID-19 had an initial daily growth rate of 10%, versus 18% in countries without such norms 10,61,62. Likewise, the COVID-19 growth rate and mortality rate are lower in countries and states that required public masking 12,13,63. The relationship between public masking and lower COVID-19 mortality could be due to lower viral loading (how many particles you are exposed to) decreasing the severity of infection 63. This suggests that even when masks do not completely stop transmission, they could still save lives. Universal masking was also pivotal to the success of South Korea and Hong Kong, which were able to contain COVID-19 without lockdowns 11,15,64.
There is some anecdotal evidence that masking is working in Utah. Since the mask mandate was passed for Salt Lake and Summit Counties on June 27 th, the number of new cases in those areas has decreased, while the number of new cases in the rest of the state has increased 65. Likewise, the July 10 th request by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for all members to wear masks in public coincides with a flattening and then decrease of COVID-19 cases statewide 66.
Figure 1. Diagram of correct face mask usage. Courtesy of the American Medical Association.13
Photo by Desai, A. N. & Aronoff, D. M. Masks and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA 323, 2103–2103 (2020).
Are masks dangerous?
Perhaps the most robust demonstration of the safety of public masking is that this practice has been widely used for decades in many countries, especially in Asia 61,62,76 . In these regions, where it is common to wear a mask when sick or when there is an outbreak masking has proven safe among children, adults, and the elderly 11,23 . Likewise, widespread use in the northeastern U.S. has been highly safe 16,59 . This history of widespread use decreases the risk of unexpected side-effects 76 .
Because masks have been used by medical professionals for centuries, there is a large body of scientific evidence about their performance and safety 41,50,56,67–69. Several mild and rare side effects have been identified, including skin irritation, headaches, and general discomfort in a minority of users 1,21,22,70. However, certain individuals with acute, preexisting conditions, such as COPD and end-stage renal disease can have difficulty breathing when they wear a respirator (N95) for long periods 24,71–74. It is also recommended that individuals should not wear a mask if they cannot remove it on their own—for example, children under two, or people who are unconscious—for common sense, comfort, and safety reasons 18.
Despite widespread concern on social media and in the news, there is no evidence that masking causes dangerous hypoxia (low oxygen) or hypercapnia (high carbon dioxide) in healthy individuals, even when multiple masks are layered on top of each other 22,70,74. In fact, wearing a surgical mask during exercise has been used as a treatment to reduce exercise-induced asthma 69.
There are two main concerns about public masking from a public health perspective, both based on studies of other diseases. First, there can be overcompensation or a “false sense of security,” where mask users are less vigilant in following other preventative measures such as physical distancing or hand washing 1,25,62,70. Second, if masks are worn improperly, there can be self-contamination, where bacterial or viral particles accumulated on the outside of the mask are transferred to the hands and then potentially to the mouth or eyes 41,54,75. In response to the first concern, observations from this pandemic suggest that wearers of masks are actually more likely to take additional precautions than those who don’t wear masks 1,5,11,25. To the second point, mask users should wash their hands after removing their mask and wash masks daily (Figure 1). However, the risk of self-contamination is most likely in clinical situations where masks are used to protect the wearers 41,75. This is less of a concern in a public masking scenario, where masks are used to contain infection sources. Additionally, it has been pointed out that “if a mask is contaminated at removal, it has (by definition) already protected the wearer from contagious droplets.” 59
Perhaps the most robust demonstration of the safety of public masking is that this practice has been widely used for decades in many countries, especially in Asia 61,62,76. In these regions, where it is common to wear a mask when sick or when there is an outbreak masking has proven safe among children, adults, and the elderly 11,23. Likewise, widespread use in the northeastern U.S. has been highly safe 16,59. This history of widespread use decreases the risk of unexpected side-effects 76.
What would the economic consequences be of public masking?
The most recent analysis by Goldman Sachs suggests that increasing masking by 25 percentage points from current levels would cut the COVID-19 growth rate by 3-fold and prevent the need for a second round of economic shutdowns 23 . They predict this would result in an economic benefit of approximately $1 trillion. Another study found that 80% of the population wearing cloth masks when in public would be more effective at stopping the virus than a strict lockdown of the whole population 60 . There is nearly universal consensus that masks could be one of the most powerful and cost-effective tools to stop COVID-19 and accelerate the economic recovery 1,5,10,11,16,23 .
Don't take our word for it
The research cited in this report comes from independent medical teams from around the world. Having multiple groups investigate the same question and comparing their independent conclusions increases the reliability of the science. To make it easier for you to evaluate the strength of this evidence, we have compiled PDFs of each cited study in this online folder. To get started, here are five of the most definitive scientific studies on public masking and COVID-19:
For general background, here are 4 fact-checked resources:
What kinds of masks are we talking about?
There are three main types of masks each with different purposes. Experts have advised the general public to wear cloth face coverings to slow the spread of COVID-19, in conjunction with hand washing, physical distancing, and other protective measures (Figure 1).
N95 Respirator: An N95 mask (formally called a respirator) has an extremely small pore size that filters out most particles and aerosols. Given the shortage of these devices, it has been recommended that N95 masks should be reserved and set aside for healthcare workers in clinical settings. Because they are fitted to the face and have such a high filtration capacity, these respirators provide protection from outside droplets and particles.
Surgical Masks: Surgical masks provide basic protection for the wearer but are primarily meant to protect others from droplets and particles coming from the wearer (“source control”). They are sometimes referred to as ‘medical masks.’ Some studies show similar performance to N95 respirators for source control 67,75.
Cloth Face Coverings: These are the reusable “home-made” masks that we have been recommended to wear when in public. Surprisingly, they have proven as or more effective as surgical masks and even N95 respirators in some circumstances to contain droplets and disperse air 6,17,19,20. They should be washed and dried daily, and some sources recommend alternating days between masks (Figure 1). The level of filtration depends on the type of fabric and number of layers (Figure 2), with multi-layer masks of synthetic and natural fibers outperforming bandanas and neck gaiters, which provide very poor filtration 6,20,49,52,53. However, several research groups have pointed out that because the blocking of jets of air and trapping of droplets is the purpose of masks in this pandemic, the most important consideration is comfort, which will increase likelihood of wearing the mask in different environments and reduce adjustments and touching of the mask 5,10,59.
The most recent studies have shown that even a basic covering is quite effective at limiting the spread of infectious respiratory droplets from speaking or coughing (see Figure 3) 6,17,78 . Research measuring the number of droplets from the mouth of someone speaking with and without a mask shows that although cloth coverings certainly aren’t foolproof, they prevent most particles from traveling long distances where they could potentially infect others 6,78 . Multi-layer masks can prevent the spread of more than 90% of respiratory droplets—similar in source control to surgical and N95 masks (Figure 2) 6,20 . Other research has also discovered serious differences in filtration of COVID-19 sized droplets between N95, surgical, and cloth masks. This research also found that the most important thing while wearing a mask is to have a proper fit. Even N95 respirators filtered less than 50% of particles when worn with gaps 49 .
Figure 2. Effectiveness of different mask types at capturing respiratory droplets. A value of 0 means that all droplets were captured, while a value of 1 means no reduction in droplets. From Fischer and others 2020: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech.
Because of the unparalleled nature of a pandemic in recent history, it was initially difficult to obtain research on the effectiveness of different mask types in public spaces. However, recent studies have shown decreased cases of COVID-19 in areas where masks and social distancing are mandated, and experts say that the efficacy of these mandates will only increase over time 13,14,23,77.
The most recent studies have shown that even a basic covering is quite effective at limiting the spread of infectious respiratory droplets from speaking or coughing (see Figure 3) 6,17,78. Research measuring the number of droplets from the mouth of someone speaking with and without a mask shows that although cloth coverings certainly aren’t foolproof, they prevent most particles from traveling long distances where they could potentially infect others 6,78. Multi-layer masks can prevent the spread of more than 90% of respiratory droplets—similar in source control to surgical and N95 masks (Figure 2) 6,20. Other research has also discovered serious differences in filtration of COVID-19 sized droplets between N95, surgical, and cloth masks. This research also found that the most important thing while wearing a mask is to have a proper fit. Even N95 respirators filtered less than 50% of particles when worn with gaps 49.
Figure 3. Respiratory droplets ejected into the air while speaking without and with a mask. The images show droplets illuminated with lasers. Modified from Anfinrud and others 2020: Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering.
Face coverings in past pandemics:
Since the late 19 th century, facemasks have been used in efforts to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The first studies began using masks to create a sterile surgical environment. By 1920, surgical masks began to be implemented in many hospitals, although they were slow to catch on because surgeons found them to be annoying and generally preferred to not speak while operating 76. It wasn’t until the 1960s that masks became widespread in hospitals in the United States. Since then, multiple types of research have been conducted to evaluate how much masks can help, including laboratory tests, “natural experiments” where researchers compare effectiveness of different policies, and computer simulations based on what we know about transmission dynamics and the pathology of COVID-19 1,5,76.
During the 1918 influenza pandemic, many western cities (including San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle, and Juneau) tried to mandate facemasks by law. At that time, most Americans did not understand why they needed to wear masks, and they resisted what they perceived as an unnecessary irritant. “The primary purpose of wearing a mask is not to prevent a healthy person from getting sick, but rather to prevent people already infected from contaminating others through casual contact” 79 . Unfortunately, the 1918 pandemic took the lives of 675,000 Americans, and another 50 million worldwide 80. As the United States approaches 140,000 deaths from COVID-19, we should consider all the available evidence on this subject, including context from past pandemics.
COVID-19 and Back to School Efforts:
We have now completed a detailed report on school reopenings during the pandemic, which is accessible here 48. We invite you to consult the report directly, but for convenience, we have pasted the executive summary below.
In-depth analysis of health risks associated with masking:
Certain health conditions and statuses preclude or increase the risk of wearing face coverings 121. Young children under the age of 2 and those who have trouble breathing, due to chronic respiratory conditions or acute or end-stage illness should not wear masks 24,73,74,122. Masks are not appropriate for those who are unconscious or otherwise incapable of donning and doffing their own mask. Increased caution should be used when considering masking for individuals with physical, intellectual, or developmental disabilities, such as those of the deaf/hard of hearing community who rely on lip reading to communicate. Lastly, there is little research on the use of masks during exercise, though the World Health Organization recommends against it 69,123–125.
As with all medical interventions, there are several documented side effects of wearing a mask. Face masks can cause discomfort, and wearing a mask can direct exhaled breath into the eyes, leading to general irritation and potentially touching the face, which is a danger to transmission and infection 70. Wearing a mask in itself can be a reminder to not touch your face, but if they’re adjusted or removed frequently, this may negate the protective benefits against transmission and infection 126–128. One study showed that masks were associated with headaches, vague discomfort, and acne, although the headaches were significantly associated with pre-existing headaches 21.
Some of the main arguments against masks involve fear of hypoxia and hypercapnia—a lower availability of oxygen and an overabundance of carbon dioxide caused by wearing masks. Professionals, cited in media and press publications, and national and international public health organizations concur that it is highly unlikely for either hypoxia or hypercapnia to occur while wearing a mask 15,71,72,122,123,129–131. The only cases where this has been documented to occur are with the use of N95 respirators by medical patients with acute, preexisting conditions, such as AECOPD and end-stage renal disease 24,71–73. There are several studies that are widely cited on social media that misinterpret the medical evidence about masks. For example, a small trial of surgical masks among surgeons showed a slight decrease in blood oxygen 132. The levels stayed within a healthy range and the authors conclude that the deoxygenation may have been due to the stress of performing surgery rather than the masks. 132 Similarly, the studies we cite above about how serious disease can prevent some individuals from safely wearing a mask 24,71–73, are often referenced as evidence for why masks are not safe for healthy individuals. The current literature and industry practices indicate that there is very minimal risk of hypoxia and hypercapnia when wearing N95 respirators, and even when a surgical mask is layered on top there appears to be no physiological burden or significant change in oxygen or carbon dioxide levels 22,59. There is no evidence that cloth masks, which are looser fit and not sealed, would cause such conditions.
One significant risk of wearing masks lies in overcompensation, also described as the “football-helmet effect.” The concept is that the safety provided by a mask can give a false sense of security, leading to greater disregard of other protective measures. For example, cloth masks primarily provide source control rather than external protection (“my mask protects you, your mask protects me”), though some level of external protection appears likely depending on the fabric and way the mask is worn 41,70,126,133. The fear is that someone wearing a mask might be more likely to engage in risky behaviors and therefore put themselves and others at higher risk of infection 134. Furthermore, if masks are not worn or cleaned properly, they can result in “self-contamination” 18, as discussed previously. While there is no evidence that masks cause fungal or bacterial infections 130, the more humid habitat created by a mask may allow SARS-CoV-2 to remain active and possibly lead to the defeat of innate immunity and subsequent infection and transmission 70.
In past situations with less virulent diseases and lower levels of community spread, experts expressed caution when extending the successes of mask-wearing to large interpersonal contexts such as schools or healthcare settings 41,54,135. They emphasized that other preventative measures such as physical distancing, washing hands, and staying home would be more effective than purely relying on masks 136. In the current pandemic, the consensus is growing that public masking should be used in combination with other efforts rather than not at all 1,5,7,10,126,133,136. Even the cautious and consensus-driven World Health Organization, which initially recommended against masks, now encourages their use in areas of widespread COVID-19 transmission 137, in light of new information on the disease and the results of large-scale comparative studies 135.
1. How did you select the papers you included?
We generated an initial list of studies using Google Scholar and Web of Science. We focused this initial search on studies specifically dealing with COVID-19 and masks. As we read those papers, we added pertinent studies they cited to our list. Additionally, we considered about a dozen studies that concerned individuals sent us. These studies were mostly about the safety of masks. Our goal was to provide a non-technical summary for those interested in this topic. Because the medical literature on COVID-19 is so large, we cite many studies that are reviews, summaries, and commentaries on the state of the literature. While we also read many specific primary research articles, we favored citations of reviews and summaries to encourage readers to interact with the peer-reviewed holistic assessment of the state of scientific understanding. These synthesis papers are often more reliable and robust than any individual study upon which they draw 138. They also avoid the "single-study syndrome," where one study is interpreted without context from other work. Science is a joint venture and only reliable when the result is repeatable and falsifiable.
2. How did you ensure you weren’t getting a biased sample of studies?
We considered all the scientific studies on masks and COVID-19 that we could find, including about a dozen sent to us by individuals who do not support masking. We continue to consider all studies that are sent, so if we missed a particularly pertinent piece on COVID-19 and masks, please send it along (but please read FAQ #4 before sending unrelated studies). Likewise, if you see an error or point of confusion in the report, please let us know and we will update if we find there is an error. This has happened several times already, mainly with typos, but also with two important mistakes: 1. In the viral transmission section, we initially wrote “COVID-19 viruses” when the study in question was actually about coronaviruses generally, and 2. Our initial description of the most recent WHO recommendations were confusing. At the top of the report, we mention the “last updated on” date, so you can know when the last change was made.
3. Why do you cite some non-scientific sources such as news articles and government reports?
We cited a few of these articles for context to provide an idea of what the larger conversation is outside of science. In one section (the deep dive on mask safety), we cite some of these news reports because they have quotes from legitimate medical experts. We mention that we are citing media sources in that section to make sure people know what we are basing our interpretation on.
4. What about this or that study that was done on another disease?
There is a huge amount of research on other diseases, including several on the effectiveness of public masking in stopping those diseases (though fewer than we expected) 7,40,41,54. We cite some of this research in our report to provide context. For example, it’s helpful to know that public masking was widely considered ineffective before the COVID-19 pandemic based on studies done with other diseases in very different contexts. This explains why many medical experts and agencies recommend against mass masking initially—that was the state of the available science in December 2019 and January 2020.
For our report, we focus heavily on the COVID-19-specific studies for one very important reason: COVID-19 is the disease causing this pandemic. Findings from previous outbreaks and community studies are helpful as a starting place, especially in the absence of more directly pertinent evidence. However, the pathology of each disease and the societal dynamics of each outbreak are different. Naively applying findings about influenza and masks in normal times to COVID-19 during a global pandemic is problematic, to say the least. As we evaluated the evidence from multiple studies, we gave more weight to those that dealt specifically with the current outbreak, while still considering the other studies for context.
One specific study is worth mentioning here, because of how often it is brought up in discussions of masks: MacIntyre and others 2015, " Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings." 40 This study is often brought up as evidence that masks (especially cloth masks) don't work, and that they might actually cause harm (increase risk of infection). On first read of the abstract, it is easy to get this impression. However, this is a completely incorrect interpretation of this research for several reasons. First, the study is on different diseases in different conditions (see last two paragraphs). Second, the study tested the effectiveness of masks at protecting the wearer (in this case healthcare workers), rather than source control, which is the primary purpose of masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, the study did not have a "no mask" control, so they have no way of comparing cloth mask with no mask. The authors make this clear in the "Strengths and limitations" section of their paper, which appears adjacent to the abstract when you download the PDF. Importantly, the same research group did a study the following year on the effectiveness of masks at reducing infection when worn by sick individuals 41. They found that masks likely reduced infection, though they acknowledge that they didn't have enough participants to strongly conclude anything. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, this research group has done a systematic review of the effectiveness of masks 7, including their 2015 study. They conclude:
“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.”
5. Why don’t you cite this or that specific study?
There are thousands of papers on COVID-19, which is a scientific achievement on its own. I salute the researchers and organizations that have, often at great expense, changed their research programs to address this important challenge. However, this means that we cannot cite every study on COVID. See the previous FAQs for info on how we decided what to focus on and what to cite.
6. Why do you claim there are controlled experiments when there haven’t been any randomized controlled trials of public masking?
One of the most common arguments made against masking is that there aren’t any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing effectiveness of public masking. This is not true. A very recent systematic review by Macintyre and Chughtai 7 of public masking studies (including many RCTs) concluded that masks are effective at slowing the spread of many respiratory diseases. Additional RCTs on this subject are coming out frequently 55. However, there are not, to our knowledge, any COVID-19 specific RCTs yet published. This deserves some context.
RCTs are powerful tools that can—when done correctly—quantify the effectiveness of a drug or other intervention. They are often described as the gold standard for establishing cause and effect and are usually required before high-risk changes in medical practice are implemented (for example introducing a new medication). RCTs also take time and ethically require that the trial doesn’t cause undue risk or harm to the participants. In the context of a global pandemic, it is not surprising that there are not yet RCTs on COVID-19 and public masking. Indeed, concern over the lack of RCTs sparked a fruitful discussion in the medical community (mainly in March and April), as it should have, about whether to change recommendations without RCTs. Check out this paper by Greenhalgh and colleagues 1 from April for a snapshot of what was being discussed at that point.
As this discussion played out in the medical community, other types of evidence started becoming available, including:
The first two types of studies often cannot definitively establish the specific cause of the outcome; for example, how much was the masking itself versus the psychological reminder to respect greater physical distance that resulted in the decrease in death? However, they are extremely powerful (and often more robust because they can involve many more people than even the largest RCT) at assessing overall outcome of an intervention. The third kind of study can’t provide definitive evidence of the generality of an intervention (e.g. will masks always protect people getting their hair done by an infected hair dresser?), but in the absence of more controlled studies, these case studies are indispensable as metrics of real-world performance and outcomes. The fourth and fifth kinds of studies complement the others by establishing specifics of how the disease works and first-order estimates of potential effectiveness of interventions (in this case masking).
Given the mounting evidence, most medical experts and public health entities updated their recommendations early this year. Given the high likelihood of benefit and the extremely low risk of the intervention (there is abundant evidence that mask wearing is exceedingly safe for healthy individuals), recommending public masking was determined to be the only ethical course of action. While most papers we read continue to call for RCTs in their conclusions or discussion, they also recognized that such results could still be months or years out. Some papers have also pointed out that given the strength of the evidence, an RCT on public masking may no longer be ethical because asking people to not wear masks in areas of COVID-19 would knowingly endanger participants.
Because our report is meant for a general audience, we classified studies as controlled or observational. We used controlled to refer to any study with a manipulation (for example, implementation of healthcare worker and then patient masking in the Massachusetts study, or lab experiments on mask filtration of droplets and viral particles). We used observational to refer to studies that compare groups or outcomes without a targeted intervention. We recognize this division is imperfect, but after discussion, we decided it was a clearer distinction than observational and manipulative, the more common scientific terms.
7. Were you trying to prove something with this study? Aren't you biased?
Our only purpose in performing this research was to make more of the science available to the public. Here is the email Dr. Abbott sent to his lab group on July 14th, when he initiated the project:
Dear lab group,
Just reaching out to see if any of you might be interested in contributing to a one or two page report on efficacy and risks of wearing masks? Maybe it's just my social media feed, which is dominated by moms and dads, but this appears to be a hot topic right now. As there is very little trust in currently available summaries, I think a succinct and carefully nonpoliticial mini-review could do a lot of good. I don't know if it would be publishable in a peer-reviewed journal (depends on how much we want to put into it), but we could easily self publish on the lab website and do a press release.
To the question of bias, yes, like all humans, we are. Our beliefs and values influence how we see the world around us. We discussed this as a group of authors and worked hard to provide a fair summary of the literature. Staying neutral was helped by the variety of political views and backgrounds among the co-authors. We take scientific integrity extremely seriously, plus I believe that we have a God-given responsibility to be honest. We recognize there are inevitable gaps and room for improvement, but we have done my best to accurately represent the scientific literature.
Especially during these politically charged times, all of us need to be extra vigilant and responsible about what we share and say. Whether it is this report or anything else, please read the article before reposting and interpreting it on social media. It’s a matter of basic honesty and integrity. Plus, what we say and share has serious consequences in the real world.
- November 19, 2020A team of Irish medical and public health professionals recently published a White Paper entitled “COVID-19 Alternative Strategy: A Case for Health and Socioeconomic Wellbeing,” calling for an “evidence-based” approach to pandemic management. In the paper, the team provides a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns and scrutinizes their overall efficacy while ... READ MORE
COVID-19 Alternative StrategyA Case for Health and Socioeconomic Wellbeing
Category: Published Studies: Masks are INEFFECTIVE
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 11/19/2020
- September 18, 2020AbstractBackground:Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.Objective:To assess whether rec... READ MORE
Annals of Internal Medicine: Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask WearersWearing Cloth Face Masks: Protection Is “Statistically Insignificant”
Category: Published Studies: Masks are INEFFECTIVE
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 11/18/2020
Abstract There is no biological history of mass masking until the current era. It is important to consider possible outcomes of this society-wide experiment. The consequences to the health of individuals is as yet unknown. Masked individuals have measurably higher inspiratory flow than non-masked individuals. This study is of new masks removed from manufacturer packaging, as well as a laundered cl... READ MORE
Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 1: Friable mask particulate and lung vulnerability
Category: Published Studies: Masks are INEFFECTIVE
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 11/17/2020
Download the PDF attachment by clicking Download below.... READ MORE
Hugs Over Masks (Canada): Mask Health RisksFour pages of links to studies (PDF)
Category: More NOMASK Documents & Links
Download the PDF by clicking the attachment link below.... READ MORE
Hugs Over Masks (Canada): Mask EffectivenessSeven pages of links to studies (PDF)
Category: More NOMASK Documents & Links
LInk: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.htmlSee Jon Rappoport's view on this document: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/11/02/cdc-plans-covid-concentration-camps/This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in... READ MORE
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian SettingsJuly 26, 2020
Category: Related CDC Documents
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 11/02/2020
curated by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D. – http://marilynsingletonmdjd.com/Updated September 26, 2020IntroductionCOVID-19 is as politically-charged as it is infectious. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO, the CDC and NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci discouraged wearing masks as not useful for non-health care workers. Now they recommend wearing cloth face coverings in public setting... READ MORE
Association of American Physicians and SurgeonsDefinitive study establishes conclusively not only that masks don't work, but WHY.
Category: Published Studies: Masks are INEFFECTIVE
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 10/18/2020
- October 06, 2020[Open the link above to to view the charts which reveal there is no correlation (or "clear science") behind the use of masks and rates of "infection".] Excerpt:In case it isn’t obvious, these charts fail to show any correlation between mask mandates (which presumably increase the wearing of masks) and reductions in COVID-19 infections. If you l... READ MORE
Category: Charts & Graphs
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 10/07/2020
From: https://www.gpadacenter.org/faqs-ada-small-business-and-face-mask-policies- July 10, 2020The ADA and Small Business: Frequently Asked Questions About Face Mask Policies and Serving Customers with Disabilities.The Great Plains ADA Center has received many questions regarding face mask policies and the ADA from the business community. We have collected a summary of these questions and our... READ MORE
FAQS: THE ADA, SMALL BUSINESS AND FACE MASK POLICIESPlus Definition of "Reasonable Accommodations"
Category: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 10/02/2020