https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

https://archive.is/w4FZ6

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Background

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

…

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community).Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks(risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence.Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks(RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence).

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes.The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection(RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no differenceto the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).

One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.

(continued)

>>18271341

Hand hygiene compared to control

Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence),suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported.Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness(RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence).

We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated.

There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

>>18271318

>Nurse, Doctors, following orders which they knew were against their oaths and against Society.

regarding "vaccines":

If they injected themselves with the same poison, are they to blame? They were acting on false information, indoctrinated into them.

For the ones that knew and got a fake vaxx port, while they themselves handed them out: God will judge them.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-910-knowingly-and-willfully

>>18271384

5:43:00

"Shouldn't you wait until you do know? until the science does support it…"

"Do I wait? No. I do not wait, because I have to take into account the health of the child."

"And so for that reasonyou are okay with telling the parent does not cause autism, EVEN THOUGH THE SCIENCE ISN'T THERE YET TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM?"

"Absolutely."

shortly after:

"there is no study comparing the health of vaccinated to unvaccinated children"

"Why is that study not being done?"

"Probably because it is considered bad malpractice not to vaccinate a child."

>>18271402

Nuremberg was a show trial.

Almost no one got punished.

>>18271422

Every quack that injected that shit into people KNOWINGLY will be fucked and will probably lose everything he thought he ever had.

>>18271446

>What about the medical industry across the globe STILL forcing the masks?

QUACKS are enforcing it on themselves, because they are retarded (most). They are primarily hurting themselves.

If the sickness industry wasn't controlled like the military, none of that would be possible.

>>18271471

following protocols and orders (to not get sued, hint)

not question anything

obeying

vaccine information giving out to pharmacists: almost nothing, it boils down to "trust the experts, vaccines work, anyone saying otherwise is a moron, think of polio!!!"

It's the typical mind control through trauma.

I really can't blame people that are mind controlled like this. I can blame however people that know what they are doing.

>>18271526

>it merely shows a girl crying because she's scared of needles

another negative effect of vaccines.

TRAUMA in the MIND

>>18271554

>>18271579

>How strong is one’s will for freedom?

Pretty strong.

>>18271603