Shiloh
Editor, Senior Moderator
Source: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...art-2-what-makes-good-mask-study-and-why-most
COMMENTARY: What can masks do? Part 2: What makes for a good mask study — and why most fail
Filed Under:
COVID-19
Lisa M Brosseau, ScD; Angela Ulrich, PhD, MPH; Kevin Escandón, MD; Cory Anderson, MPH; and Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH
| Oct 15, 2021
Editor's Note: Part 2 of a two-part commentary. Part 1, published yesterday, outlined the differences in face coverings masks, the science of respiratory protection, and the hierarchy of disease controls.
Dr Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and a research consultant with the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota (UMN). Dr Ulrich is a UMN assistant professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences and a CIDRAP researcher. Dr Escandón is a physician and infectious diseases researcher in the Division of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine at UMN and also collaborates on research with CIDRAP. Cory Anderson is a graduate research assistant with CIDRAP. Dr Osterholm is CIDRAP director and Regents Professor at UMN.
As noted in part 1, not all facepieces designed to protect against respiratory diseases like COVID-19 are created equal, and they must be considered as only one tier in a hierarchy of protective steps.
Here in part 2 we spell out why not all studies involving cloth face coverings or surgical/medical masks warrant equal consideration. We'll detail the necessary elements of a rigorous study and explore some recent studies that, though highly touted by both scientists and the lay press, fell quite a bit short of the ideal.
Again, at the outset, we underscore that we are not "anti-mask." Rather, we are in favor of wearing the most protective type of facepiece for the setting—such as a non-fit tested respirator when spending more than a few minutes in a crowded, indoor space—and only in combination with other interventions...
COMMENTARY: What can masks do? Part 2: What makes for a good mask study — and why most fail
Filed Under:
COVID-19
Lisa M Brosseau, ScD; Angela Ulrich, PhD, MPH; Kevin Escandón, MD; Cory Anderson, MPH; and Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH
| Oct 15, 2021
Editor's Note: Part 2 of a two-part commentary. Part 1, published yesterday, outlined the differences in face coverings masks, the science of respiratory protection, and the hierarchy of disease controls.
Dr Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and a research consultant with the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota (UMN). Dr Ulrich is a UMN assistant professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences and a CIDRAP researcher. Dr Escandón is a physician and infectious diseases researcher in the Division of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine at UMN and also collaborates on research with CIDRAP. Cory Anderson is a graduate research assistant with CIDRAP. Dr Osterholm is CIDRAP director and Regents Professor at UMN.
As noted in part 1, not all facepieces designed to protect against respiratory diseases like COVID-19 are created equal, and they must be considered as only one tier in a hierarchy of protective steps.
Here in part 2 we spell out why not all studies involving cloth face coverings or surgical/medical masks warrant equal consideration. We'll detail the necessary elements of a rigorous study and explore some recent studies that, though highly touted by both scientists and the lay press, fell quite a bit short of the ideal.
Again, at the outset, we underscore that we are not "anti-mask." Rather, we are in favor of wearing the most protective type of facepiece for the setting—such as a non-fit tested respirator when spending more than a few minutes in a crowded, indoor space—and only in combination with other interventions...