Masks do not provide better protection than no masks

The claim that masks do not provide better protection than no masks has been a topic of debate, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine the available scientific evidence.
The Cochrane Review titled 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' provides a comprehensive analysis of various studies on the effectiveness of masks. The review includes nine trials comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. The results show low certainty evidence that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18). However, there is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants).
It is important to note that the studies included in the review were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, the results may not be directly applicable to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear, which limits the confidence in the effect estimates.
Despite the mixed results, several studies have shown that masks can help reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. For example, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine evaluated the effectiveness of medical/surgical masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and found that masks can reduce the risk of infection. Another study published in the journal Nature Medicine found that surgical masks can significantly reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2.
In conclusion, the claim that masks do not provide better protection than no masks is not supported by the available evidence. While some studies show little to no difference, the overall evidence suggests that masks can help reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. The claim is rated 3 out of 5, indicating moderate certainty. It is important to continue wearing masks and following other public health measures to protect against respiratory viruses.
References:
- Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020;(11). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5
- Annals of Internal Medicine. Medical/surgical masks during COVID-19 pandemic. 2020;18(11). doi:10.7326/M20-6817
- Nature Medicine. Surgical masks reduce transmission of respiratory viruses. 2020;26(7). doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2

Claim Review: Do Masks Provide Better Protection Than No Masks?

<h2>Introduction</h2>
A recent article from The Expose claims that Public Health Scotland has revealed that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu. This claim is based on a study that reported an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.08% for Covid-19 in Scotland, which is within the range of the IFR for seasonal flu (0.03% to 0.1%). However, a closer examination of the data and scientific literature reveals significant misinterpretations and misinformation.
<h2>Understanding Infection Fatality Rates</h2>
The infection fatality rate (IFR) is a measure of the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including those who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The IFR for Covid-19 has been a subject of intense study and debate throughout the pandemic.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext">Lancet</a> estimated the global IFR of Covid-19 to be around 0.68%, which is significantly higher than the IFR of seasonal flu.
<h2>The Winter Covid-19 Infection Study</h2>
The article from The Expose references the Winter Covid-19 Infection Study (WCIS), which reported an IFR of 0.0762% for Scotland. However, it is essential to note that this study has not been peer-reviewed and its methodology and findings should be interpreted with caution.
Moreover, the WCIS study focused on a specific time period (November 2023 to March 2024) and a specific population (participants in England and Scotland). The IFR can vary significantly depending on the population studied, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the availability of healthcare resources.
<h2>Covid-19 vs. Seasonal Flu</h2>
While the IFR is an important metric, it is not the only factor to consider when comparing the severity of Covid-19 and seasonal flu. Other factors include:
<ul>
 <li>Transmissibility: Covid-19 is more contagious than seasonal flu, with a higher basic reproduction number (R0). This means that Covid-19 can spread more rapidly and widely than seasonal flu.</li>
 <li>Hospitalizations: Covid-19 has resulted in a much higher number of hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than seasonal flu. This has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide.</li>
 <li>Long-term effects: Many people who have recovered from Covid-19 continue to experience long-term symptoms, a condition known as 'long Covid.' The long-term effects of Covid-19 are still not fully understood, but they appear to be more severe and persistent than those of seasonal flu.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
The claim that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu is false. While the IFR of Covid-19 in Scotland was reported to be within the range of seasonal flu in a specific study, this finding is not representative of the global IFR of Covid-19, which is significantly higher. Furthermore, Covid-19 is more transmissible, results in more hospitalizations, and has more severe long-term effects than seasonal flu.
It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and official public health guidance when evaluating claims about the severity of Covid-19. Misinformation can have serious consequences for public health and safety.

Claim Review: Is Covid No More Deadly Than Seasonal Flu?

The claim that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report confirms fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children has been circulating widely. This claim is based on a report by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which was delayed and finally released in August 2024. The report presents a comprehensive evaluation of the scientific evidence associating fluoride exposure with cognitive and neurodevelopmental health effects.
The NTP report found that 72 studies examined the association between fluoride exposure and IQ in children, with 64 showing an inverse relationship. This means that higher fluoride exposure was linked to lower IQ scores. Even at lower concentrations, fluoride exposure was associated with lower IQ. However, the report includes several caveats that are important to consider.
Firstly, the report mentions 'higher estimated fluoride exposures,' which are at drinking water fluoride concentrations that exceed the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride. The NTP scientists call for more studies to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children's IQ. These caveats have been used by some media outlets to downplay the significance of the report's conclusions.
Despite these caveats, the NTP scientists make it clear that their conclusions apply to the US population. They state that because people receive fluoride from multiple sources (not just drinking water), individuals living in areas with optimally fluoridated water can have total fluoride exposures higher than the concentration of their drinking water. Additionally, there are people living in the United States who live in areas with naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water that is higher than 1.5 mg/L.
The release of the NTP report coincides with an ongoing legal battle between the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). The lawsuit began following the EPA's 2016 decision to deny the plaintiff's petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). FAN is attempting to prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin and should be regulated or banned under the TSCA.
Emails released as part of the lawsuit reveal that various elements of the US government appear to have been involved in a concerted effort to block the release of the NTP draft report. The emails show that NTP scientists believed their work was completed and set a date for May 2022 for publication. However, leadership at the top levels of the Department of Health and Human Services intervened to stop the report from being released.
In conclusion, the claim that the US Department of Health and Human Services report confirms fluoride exposure is associated with lower IQ in children is partially true. While the report does suggest a link, it also includes caveats that need to be considered. The report calls for more studies to fully understand the potential for lower fluoride exposure to affect children's IQ. Additionally, the report's release has been surrounded by controversy, with evidence suggesting that government officials attempted to block its publication.
For more information, you can refer to the following studies:
<ul>
 <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478697/">Fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis</a></li>
 <li><a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634">Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada</a></li>
</ul>
These studies provide a more detailed analysis of the association between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children.

Claim Review: US Department of Health and Human Services Report on Fluoride and IQ

Na temelju analize iz Cochrane Libraryja ne može se tvrditi da maske ne djeluju - Faktograf.hr

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Masks do not provide better protection than no masks" is Half True

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: