Beware of unscientific claims on masks: Hirji

False claims complicating debate about mandatory face-covering orders

There is an unsettling familiarity for Dr. Mustafa Hirji in some of the anti-masking arguments making the rounds on social media.

The claims, which are unscientific, say face coverings — proposed as a means to limit the spread of COVID-19 — can create lethal doses of toxic gas, deprive people of oxygen or even make viruses more dangerous.

The context is different, but Niagara’s acting medical officer of health has heard these sorts of unscientific arguments before from the anti-vaccination community.

Anti-vaxxers have peddled false claims for years and gained enough traction — initially through the news media and later on social media platforms — to convince enough people to avoid immunization shots. As a result, diseases that had been effectively under control, including measles and whooping cough, emerged through outbreaks.

Hirji said he understands the debate pertaining to masks is an intense one in some quarters, but he urges people and the press to root those arguments in science.

“It is important to look at the data,” said Hirji. “Certainly, there are concerns about lim

iting people’s freedoms because a mandatory order is telling people what they can do or not do. But when it comes to the science, we have to look at the real data.”

Hirji has been recommending masks be worn where the more effective measure of physical distancing a minimum of two metres from other people is not possible. Other communities in Ontario have issued mandatory masking orders for indoor public spaces, an issue regional council held a special meeting about Wednesday.

Hirji refers to masks as a “secondary” defence against the spread of the novel coronavirus. Physical distancing and hand hygiene are, based on the science, more effective, he said.

He also said people should not rely on masks as a way to protect themselves from contracting the virus, but there is some evidence that shows that wearing a mask reduces the amount of virus an infected person might expel from their mouths and nose.

In other words, wearing a mask is about protecting others.

Recent studies of nations that have drastically reduced rates of infection point to widespread use of facial coverings as a common denominator.

However, Hirji said that evidence is observation. There isn’t any good experimental evidence yet on the effectiveness of masks that measures up to the research on hygiene or distancing.

That said, he is not dismissing their use. That asymptomatic carriers can spread the virus, along with those with only mild symptoms, is why Hirji continues to say masks should be worn when physical distancing is not possible.

He said it is hard to know what overall impact of mandatory masking on the infection rate will be. It could have a “marginal” impact, particularly given Niagara’s low case count but, ultimately, “this will be very difficult to quantify.”

He said there is a possible psychological downside to masks that has to be considered.

“I worry that people will think that because they are wearing a mask, they are invincible and they won’t engage in the more effective behaviours like physical distancing,” he said.

The debate about masks, Hirji said, should be focused on evidence and the question of how much risk a community is willing to take. Masks will reduce that risk, although it is not clear to what extent, but it will also mean a degree of restriction on people’s lives.

Whatever decisions are made, he said, debate should not focus on spurious claims about face coverings and more than false claims about vaccines should be taken seriously.

Grant Lafleche is a St. Catharinesbased investigative reporter with the Standard. Reach him via email: grant.lafleche@niagaradailies.com