More on mask wearing and studies

In the Letters to the Editor section of New Times on Sept. 25, there were two interesting takes on mask-wearing during a pandemic.

One, from Todd Peterson quoted one study found on the CDC website which was a “meta” study produced by a team of Chinese (University of Hong Kong) scientists. It was not conduct

ed by the CDC. Meta studies are simply statistical analysis of the data from other “real” studies. Here is the full sentence from that report:

“Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Here’s another line from the face mask portion (10 of the 14) study:

“Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.”

I suggest that Mr. Peterson might want to conduct a “Super” Meta study of all the scientific studies found on the CDC website relative to mask wearing, and see how that turns out.

No real need to point out that body shaming (a form of bullying) the head of the CDC, is just as inappropriate as criticizing a senior citizen because he has trouble holding a glass of water or walking down a ramp.

The second article, by Paul Adinolfi, makes a good “legal/technical” argument for the general wearing of face masks. Basically, it considers the public good vs potential public harm. And, of course, the “cost,” except for the politically motivated, social media brain-washed, or just plain vain, is negligible.

I wholeheartedly agree. Why would anyone not wear a mask in public during a pandemic?

Even if the “CDC study” by Drs. Xiao, et al, were the only study of face-mask efficacy, one asks, “What’s the harm?”

Logical arguments aside, like chicken soup, “It couldn’t hurt.” Paul Donnelly New Fairfield