Hi Suzanne, thank you for that link. The 53% doesn't make much sense nowwhere we have a much more infectious strain. The analysis was October 2021 - no relevance in Omicron world. As the BMJ critiqued - only 6 studies. Classic gaming of the system by MoH by locking in old data in new policy in a dynamic environment. What occurs when kids have had COVID-19, and demonstrated to be not at risk of hospitalisation and death? That wasn't a consideration in this Talic paper. Nor were nuanced ethics around harm from wearing.
Mask wearing and covid-19 incidence—That Talic paper only looked at six studies with a total of 2627 people with covid-19 and 389 228 participants were included in the analysis. Overall pooled analysis showed a 53% reduction in covid-19 incidence (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75), although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I 2 =84%). They acknowledged that the studies weren't perfect: 'Risk of bias across the six studies ranged from moderate to serious or critical.'
How many studies are available now which strongly suggest uncertainty?
This intervention prevents communication. This is our children and young people. What are the bioethical issues here that add up to judgements that protect children? This is why the government SHOULD be reviewing the literature not drawing on an out of date paper.
I have been pursuing this locally after receiving advice from our local school that masks reduce transmission by 53%. Quote from the school letter: "Wearing masks can reduce new cases of the virus by as much as 53%.".
I have been advised that this figure was included in a recent bulletin from the MOE to schools in the context of reimplementing mask wearing. There are several schools who have copied this data into communications to the parents - thereby reiterating and creating "folklore" around mask wearing.
My research pointed me to the following rebuttal in the BMJ:
Hi Suzanne, thank you for that link. The 53% doesn't make much sense nowwhere we have a much more infectious strain. The analysis was October 2021 - no relevance in Omicron world. As the BMJ critiqued - only 6 studies. Classic gaming of the system by MoH by locking in old data in new policy in a dynamic environment. What occurs when kids have had COVID-19, and demonstrated to be not at risk of hospitalisation and death? That wasn't a consideration in this Talic paper. Nor were nuanced ethics around harm from wearing.
Mask wearing and covid-19 incidence—That Talic paper only looked at six studies with a total of 2627 people with covid-19 and 389 228 participants were included in the analysis. Overall pooled analysis showed a 53% reduction in covid-19 incidence (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75), although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I 2 =84%). They acknowledged that the studies weren't perfect: 'Risk of bias across the six studies ranged from moderate to serious or critical.'
How many studies are available now which strongly suggest uncertainty?
This intervention prevents communication. This is our children and young people. What are the bioethical issues here that add up to judgements that protect children? This is why the government SHOULD be reviewing the literature not drawing on an out of date paper.
I have been pursuing this locally after receiving advice from our local school that masks reduce transmission by 53%. Quote from the school letter: "Wearing masks can reduce new cases of the virus by as much as 53%.".
I have been advised that this figure was included in a recent bulletin from the MOE to schools in the context of reimplementing mask wearing. There are several schools who have copied this data into communications to the parents - thereby reiterating and creating "folklore" around mask wearing.
My research pointed me to the following rebuttal in the BMJ:
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302/rr-17