WHO says its okay to only wear masks around the infected

[QuietRiot]

Well, this is breaking news. Apparently, it's advised to wear masks ONLY around people that are Covid patients under your care. IE - caregiver or a doctor or nurse on the front line. 

So, throw out everything you were told about EVERYONE wearing  mask. So WHO do you believe the WHO or CDC?  The CDC of course.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-offer-conflicting-advice-masks-expert-tells-us/story?id=70958380

[FMW]

Good grief.  No wonder so many people are just doing what they want now.  It's like choosing your own reality  based on either Fox News or CNN.    

[QuietRiot]

16 minutes ago, FMW said:

Good grief.  No wonder so many people are just doing what they want now.  It's like choosing your own reality  based on either Fox News or CNN.    

Yeah, now my nutjob Facebook friends are spamming this article around and they'll be taking it and RUNNING...with it...to the largest crowds possible.

[Philosopher]

The WHO are increasingly the outlier on masks now. Almost every government now has either recommended or made mask wearing compulsory in situations where social distancing is not possible. Therefore I would be inclined to ignore what the WHO say regarding masks now.

[QuietRiot]

2 minutes ago, Philosopher said:

The WHO are increasingly the outlier on masks now. Almost every government now has either recommended or made mask wearing compulsory in situations where social distancing is not possible. Therefore I would be inclined to ignore what the WHO say regarding masks now.

Yeah, I am noticing not too many outlets are publishing this one specific piece of news. So the Trump lovers are running with a very obscure, nonsensical article. THIS is VERY dangerous.

Among that, I think GOOGLE has exploded with Trump severing ties with WHO. 

Oh the irony! lol (funny...but not funny)

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Philosopher said:

I would be inclined to ignore what the WHO say

didn't you hear, we're no longer part of the WHO...

The argument for and against masks is rather stupid, but it's what seems to happen when people can't cope emotionally or intellectually with an issue- taking sides then venting.

 

[QuietRiot]

People don't want to wear masks because it's a reminder of some kind of global pandemic going on. They don't want to be reminded of that.

[Redhead14]

5 minutes ago, QuietRiot said:

People don't want to wear masks because it's a reminder of some kind of global pandemic going on. They don't want to be reminded of that.

Nah, that's not it.  Most of them are low-risk and don't give a sh*t about the people who are at risk and can't be bothered to make even the most minimal effort to even try to help. 

[QuietRiot]

1 minute ago, Redhead14 said:

Nah, that's not it.  Most of them are low-risk and don't give a sh*t about the people who are at risk and can't be bothered to make even the most minimal effort to even try to help. 

Yeah, I am hearing that Lowes and Home Depot workers, who wear masks, that are sanitizing the areas..get remarks from UN-masked customers heckling them, saying, "Get on that fake virus!" (redneck accent).

[Ellener]

It's a reminder that people are coming at any issue from various perspectives, with often little integrity in their willingness to promote discord and manipulate an agenda that's become nothing to do with illuminating the actual issue.

Masks are symbolic.

[Redhead14]

Just now, QuietRiot said:

Yeah, I am hearing that Lowes and Home Depot workers, who wear masks, that are sanitizing the areas..get remarks from UN-masked customers heckling them, saying, "Get on that fake virus!" (redneck accent).

I've seen the lack of concern personally and the attitude.  The motto that's promoted on TV all the time is "we are all in this together is a crock of sh*t too.  All the low-risk, non-mask wearing people are in it together.  The rest of us, who supposedly have the right and personal choice to protect ourselves, especially higher-risk people, should just take it in the . . . and submit to their BS.  

 

[lana-banana]

If you read the article, it explains why they made that decision. It's not about science, it's about trying to make sure their guidance best reflects what's possible and practical, especially in parts of the world that might not have ANY access to PPE or where sick people might be shunned and abandoned by the healthy.

The actual guidance---wear a mask as often as possible, to protect your community---isn't changing.

[Redhead14]

2 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

The actual guidance---wear a mask as often as possible, to protect your community---isn't changing.

The guidance may not be changing, but the attitude of the general population is and that's what really counts.  After what I've seen lately around here, my SO and I are going to be prisoners, for the most part, for a very long time.  I'd take a little more risk to go somewhere if people were at least taking it seriously and trying to help but that's not happening.

[QuietRiot]

4 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

If you read the article, it explains why they made that decision. It's not about science, it's about trying to make sure their guidance best reflects what's possible and practical, especially in parts of the world that might not have ANY access to PPE or where sick people might be shunned and abandoned by the healthy.

The actual guidance---wear a mask as often as possible, to protect your community---isn't changing.

 

I read the article...and it was rather a weak explanation. I mean, anyone can get a piece of cloth to put over their face. We've donated tons of textiles to these other countries and piles of them littered the streets.  This isn't PPE we're talking about, just a basic face covering.

[elaine567]

Link to the actual WHO guidelines.
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19
 

[lana-banana]

43 minutes ago, Redhead14 said:

The guidance may not be changing, but the attitude of the general population is and that's what really counts.  After what I've seen lately around here, my SO and I are going to be prisoners, for the most part, for a very long time.  I'd take a little more risk to go somewhere if people were at least taking it seriously and trying to help but that's not happening.

For sure the attitude is changing. Who knows if people might feel differently as the death counts tick back up.

[Redhead14]

4 minutes ago, lana-banana said:

For sure the attitude is changing. Who knows if people might feel differently as the death counts tick back up.

Lana, as long as "they" are low-risk and are getting affirmation from their President who is demonstrating that he's not taking it seriously, they are going to continue to do whatever the F they want in the name of "liberty" no matter how many more people may die or suffer from this virus.  They don't care now, they won't care later as long as long as they aren't affected directly.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Redhead14

[sothereiwas]

Doesn't the WHO know we won't get fooled again?

[amaysngrace]

I’m so glad we cut funding to these idiots.

[preraph]

Sheep on both sides once this was made political.  It's a pandemic.  Deal with it.

[Juha]

Good read

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

 

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era

List of authors.

Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., 

Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., 

Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., 

Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., 

and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.

Article

Metrics

5 References

10 Citing Articles

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to explode, hospital systems are scrambling to intensify their measures for protecting patients and health care workers from the virus. An increasing number of frontline providers are wondering whether this effort should include universal use of masks by all health care workers. Universal masking is already standard practice in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other parts of Asia and has recently been adopted by a handful of U.S. hospitals.

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits.

The first is during the care of a patient with unrecognized Covid-19. A mask alone in this setting will reduce risk only slightly, however, since it does not provide protection from droplets that may enter the eyes or from fomites on the patient or in the environment that providers may pick up on their hands and carry to their mucous membranes (particularly given the concern that mask wearers may have an increased tendency to touch their faces).

More compelling is the possibility that wearing a mask may reduce the likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with Covid-19 to other providers and patients. This concern increases as Covid-19 becomes more widespread in the community. We face a constant risk that a health care worker with early infection may bring the virus into our facilities and transmit it to others. Transmission from people with asymptomatic infection has been well documented, although it is unclear to what extent such transmission contributes to the overall spread of infection.1-3

More insidious may be the health care worker who comes to work with mild and ambiguous symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle aches, or a scratchy throat and mild nasal congestion, that they attribute to working long hours or stress or seasonal allergies, rather than recognizing that they may have early or mild Covid-19. In our hospitals, we have already seen a number of instances in which staff members either came to work well but developed symptoms of Covid-19 partway through their shifts or worked with mild and ambiguous symptoms that were subsequently diagnosed as Covid-19. These cases have led to large numbers of our patients and staff members being exposed to the virus and a handful of potentially linked infections in health care workers. Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.

Such measures include vigorous screening of all patients coming to a facility for symptoms of Covid-19 and immediately getting them masked and into a room; early implementation of contact and droplet precautions, including eye protection, for all symptomatic patients and erring on the side of caution when in doubt; rescreening all admitted patients daily for signs and symptoms of Covid-19 in case an infection was incubating on admission or they were exposed to the virus in the hospital; having a low threshold for testing patients with even mild symptoms potentially attributable to a viral respiratory infection (this includes patients with pneumonia, given that a third or more of pneumonias are caused by viruses rather than bacteria); requiring employees to attest that they have no symptoms before starting work each day; being attentive to physical distancing between staff members in all settings (including potentially neglected settings such as elevators, hospital shuttle buses, clinical rounds, and work rooms); restricting and screening visitors; and increasing the frequency and reliability of hand hygiene.

The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable. It depends on the prevalence of health care workers with asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic infections as well as the relative contribution of this population to the spread of infection. It is informative, in this regard, that the prevalence of Covid-19 among asymptomatic evacuees from Wuhan during the height of the epidemic there was only 1 to 3%.4,5 Modelers assessing the spread of infection in Wuhan have noted the importance of undiagnosed infections in fueling the spread of Covid-19 while also acknowledging that the transmission risk from this population is likely to be lower than the risk of spread from symptomatic patients.3 And then the potential benefits of universal masking need to be balanced against the future risk of running out of masks and thereby exposing clinicians to the much greater risk of caring for symptomatic patients without a mask. Providing each health care worker with one mask per day for extended use, however, may paradoxically improve inventory control by reducing one-time uses and facilitating centralized workflows for allocating masks without risk assessments at the individual-employee level.

There may be additional benefits to broad masking policies that extend beyond their technical contribution to reducing pathogen transmission. Masks are visible reminders of an otherwise invisible yet widely prevalent pathogen and may remind people of the importance of social distancing and other infection-control measures.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. The potential value of universal masking in giving health care workers the confidence to absorb and implement the more foundational infection-prevention practices described above may be its greatest contribution.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at NEJM.org.

This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org.

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[QuietRiot]

On 5/31/2020 at 5:06 AM, Juha said:

Good read

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

 

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era

List of authors.

Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., 

Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., 

Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., 

Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., 

and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.

Article

Metrics

5 References

10 Citing Articles

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to explode, hospital systems are scrambling to intensify their measures for protecting patients and health care workers from the virus. An increasing number of frontline providers are wondering whether this effort should include universal use of masks by all health care workers. Universal masking is already standard practice in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other parts of Asia and has recently been adopted by a handful of U.S. hospitals.

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits.

The first is during the care of a patient with unrecognized Covid-19. A mask alone in this setting will reduce risk only slightly, however, since it does not provide protection from droplets that may enter the eyes or from fomites on the patient or in the environment that providers may pick up on their hands and carry to their mucous membranes (particularly given the concern that mask wearers may have an increased tendency to touch their faces).

More compelling is the possibility that wearing a mask may reduce the likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with Covid-19 to other providers and patients. This concern increases as Covid-19 becomes more widespread in the community. We face a constant risk that a health care worker with early infection may bring the virus into our facilities and transmit it to others. Transmission from people with asymptomatic infection has been well documented, although it is unclear to what extent such transmission contributes to the overall spread of infection.1-3

More insidious may be the health care worker who comes to work with mild and ambiguous symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle aches, or a scratchy throat and mild nasal congestion, that they attribute to working long hours or stress or seasonal allergies, rather than recognizing that they may have early or mild Covid-19. In our hospitals, we have already seen a number of instances in which staff members either came to work well but developed symptoms of Covid-19 partway through their shifts or worked with mild and ambiguous symptoms that were subsequently diagnosed as Covid-19. These cases have led to large numbers of our patients and staff members being exposed to the virus and a handful of potentially linked infections in health care workers. Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.

What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.

Such measures include vigorous screening of all patients coming to a facility for symptoms of Covid-19 and immediately getting them masked and into a room; early implementation of contact and droplet precautions, including eye protection, for all symptomatic patients and erring on the side of caution when in doubt; rescreening all admitted patients daily for signs and symptoms of Covid-19 in case an infection was incubating on admission or they were exposed to the virus in the hospital; having a low threshold for testing patients with even mild symptoms potentially attributable to a viral respiratory infection (this includes patients with pneumonia, given that a third or more of pneumonias are caused by viruses rather than bacteria); requiring employees to attest that they have no symptoms before starting work each day; being attentive to physical distancing between staff members in all settings (including potentially neglected settings such as elevators, hospital shuttle buses, clinical rounds, and work rooms); restricting and screening visitors; and increasing the frequency and reliability of hand hygiene.

The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable. It depends on the prevalence of health care workers with asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic infections as well as the relative contribution of this population to the spread of infection. It is informative, in this regard, that the prevalence of Covid-19 among asymptomatic evacuees from Wuhan during the height of the epidemic there was only 1 to 3%.4,5 Modelers assessing the spread of infection in Wuhan have noted the importance of undiagnosed infections in fueling the spread of Covid-19 while also acknowledging that the transmission risk from this population is likely to be lower than the risk of spread from symptomatic patients.3 And then the potential benefits of universal masking need to be balanced against the future risk of running out of masks and thereby exposing clinicians to the much greater risk of caring for symptomatic patients without a mask. Providing each health care worker with one mask per day for extended use, however, may paradoxically improve inventory control by reducing one-time uses and facilitating centralized workflows for allocating masks without risk assessments at the individual-employee level.

There may be additional benefits to broad masking policies that extend beyond their technical contribution to reducing pathogen transmission. Masks are visible reminders of an otherwise invisible yet widely prevalent pathogen and may remind people of the importance of social distancing and other infection-control measures.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. The potential value of universal masking in giving health care workers the confidence to absorb and implement the more foundational infection-prevention practices described above may be its greatest contribution.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at NEJM.org.

This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org.

 

 

This is also from the NEJM...a little further into the video there's a demonstration via the NEJM regarding Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering 

 

 

[QuietRiot]

Also , Juha...what I'm gleaming from that article is that this is a situation that only applies to health care workers in direct contact with Covid positive patients? And cannot be comparable to the average Joe citizen who wear masks?

[schlumpy]

I realize my paranoia quotient has risen because of the pandemic but I suspect that this information is designed to undermine the confidence that citizens have in their governments. Why would the WHO put out such statements without coordinating with the governments that fund them?

[Philosopher]

The WHO have finally changed their advice on wearing masks:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52945210