What are the nickel and dime defenders

The main thing is a mask !?

AW: A lot of hot air instead of real education

by Dr. Markus Veit on August 27th, 2020 at 11:22 am

Dear commentator "A lot of hot air", even if your contribution does not exactly represent the level of factual discussion in the dictum, I do not want to leave him unanswered, obviously one has to get used to this denigration as a substitute for factual discussions.
First of all, I would like to state that I want my contribution to be understood as a contribution to my opinion, as it is also shown. In the original manuscript that I had sent to the DAZ, this was shown even more clearly and then deleted by me, which was due to the need for a reduction. I am well aware that the present study results are contradictory and inconsistent and that it is certainly difficult to derive clear measures from them. So everyone will draw their own conclusions, I have set out mine and I look forward to any factual discussion on the subject. We should lead one. In relation to the arguments you have put forward, I would like to present my view of things below.
1. There are quite a number of studies with the experimental deficits and / or designs I have cited that are not suitable for answering the question at hand. Even those where the results of measurements on viral RNA indicate the risk of the transmission of viral infections. Incidentally, this also happens every day in the media, where an increase in infected people is reported and not positive test results of the PCR test, which, like every test, has an alpha error, which inevitably results in a (possibly considerable) proportion positive test results are due to this alpha error and not to an infection.
2. With regard to the literature cited by you for the detection of viruses that are capable of replicating in "the air", I would like to note that this publication deals with the measurement in rooms with hospitalized patients. That was not even the subject of my opinion. This affects everyday masks and the compulsion to wear them (sometimes even outdoors). So if we want to get closer to this topic, we have to look for studies that depict exactly this everyday situation and also address the "everyday masks" sewn from a variety of materials. In this respect, this quote from you is a prime example of citing studies that are not appropriate to answer the question at hand.
3. For 30 years of my professional life I have supported pharmaceutical companies with the approval of pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturers with the certification of medical devices with a team of scientists. In both cases, the proof of a positive benefit-risk ratio is a key point of the official approval and the resulting marketability of the products. This also applies to medical masks as medical products. It is in the inherent nature of benefit-risk evaluations that they can only be done when there is data on both benefit and risk. Such an evaluation is not possible without data. These data are missing for any type of mask for children. Therefore, the corresponding assessments cannot be carried out and corresponding products are consequently not marketable (according to the previous regulatory requirements) and if they are used nevertheless, risks cannot be excluded. No more and no less have I stated and concluded for myself that the use of masks for children is unethical and possibly dangerous against this background. If you come to a different conclusion, it would mean, with disconcerting consequence, that you (as pharmacists?) Would allow drugs and medical devices that are "maybe" safe and "maybe" effective.
4. Regarding the studies I cited: If you read my text carefully, two things bothered me. First, the methodological quality of the study by Chu et al. Unfortunately, I could not provide arguments for this because of the limited number of characters that the DAZ (understandably) made available to me. You are right to criticize that. In the brevity required here, too, I would like to state the following. The study addresses three types of protective measures: a. Distance, b. medical (!) masks, eye protection. To this end, 172 studies were evaluated in the meta-analysis, 39 of which concerned masks with the result ("low certainty") and of which 3 studies were situations outside of medical facilities. These three studies had the worst outcome of all and a barely measurable advantage between the groups being compared. And this study is the only (!) Study to which an ad hoc commission appointed by the federal government refers to justify the mask requirement in schools and other care facilities for children and adolescents. This study does not investigate this question at all! Secondly, I therefore demanded that studies that investigate the question should also be cited, and I cited Chiu's study. I have not commented on the quality of this study - only that it comes to a different conclusion. At this point, it was important for me to point out that the assessment of the data situation by the ad hoc commission (and others !!) requires all available data to be taken into account - which in my opinion is not and is not done properly.
5. At no time did I request that masks only be used by the pharmaceutical industry, but rather that the facts of the situation be appropriately assessed. As far as the use of everyday masks is concerned, I pointed out in this context that I question the political demand to wear them in everyday situations not only because there is no (sufficient) data on the safety and effectiveness of such masks, but also because because I consider you superfluous in view of the current infection situation. Anyone with a high school diploma can work out how big the chance is, given the current numbers, of meeting someone infected. If what the Tagesschau reported yesterday is correct, infected people invariably show symptoms. People with symptoms should stay at home and not mix with people - with or without a mask!
Many greetings Markus Veit