Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1

Yeah, I agree. Maybe this article needs to mention people rebelling against obligatory masking in Western countries (like [5]). But sensationalist click-bait news about some individual losers are not worth the readers' time. --Amakuha (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a seemingly good source, but published on Medium:

• Huang, S. (26 March 2020). "Why we should all wear masks – There is new scientific rationale". Medium. Retrieved 1 April 2020.

I removed it from the article, but maybe some materials from it could be used. --Amakuha (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Can the country mandates be made into a graphical timeline?

Would be good to see it alongside a graph of new infection rate in each country, too.

Are there any reliable sources for graphs like these?

https://twitter.com/jperla/status/1245385589022576641

https://www.dietdoctor.com/should-you-wear-a-homemade-mask-in-public

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mvc6evI2qzU3M8MkrLSqKJBTO8bmzIFgqP7FkJT-tkI/mobilebasic?1

— Omegatron (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is an interesting source for masking prevalence (added by Sockerkorn):

• Personal measures taken to avoid COVID-19 – YouGov

I don't see the original data, however. --Amakuha (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention of the CuMask backed by the HK government is probably warranted, but what type of mask should it be categorised as? It is a reusable/washable textile based mask with filter/antimicrobial layers and an interchangeable filter, thus quite distinct from the cloth masks in the article. --17jiangz1 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

But it wasn't developed in COVID-19 context. And I haven't noticed these being used in Hong Kong. People in Hong Kong mostly use medical masks (surgical and respirators), I think. --Amakuha (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This photo might be worth adding. File:Mannequin with bathing suit and matching face mask Roncesvalles.jog.jpg Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe when "Fashion" section grows bigger. --Amakuha (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's big enough now! kencf0618 (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the U.S. history timeline, conflicting points of view and paragraphs under culture on discrimination, AA response and appearance of vulnerability, also Tawian. I had initially submitted a separate article for a Wikipedia entry on "Response to COVID-19 face masks" with a focus on mask shaming, but the article was rejected for being largely duplicative of this entry, with an administrator suggesting I fold relevant portions of my submission into this existing article--so that's what I did.Marcywinograd (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I created a separate article for the US by copying relevant information from this article.

Here it is: Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. --Amakuha (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Three things: (1) The references could use some work, since a lot of the citations are not stable. It links to ever-changing public information web pages, rather than, for example, reports and other documents. (2) Since advice is constantly changing, it's probably also worth it to add dates. This mainly concerns the WHO sub-section. (3) The intro contains information about specific advice from specific institutions but portrays it in a universal manner. --Cold Season (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I imagine this would be hard to achieve on a fast moving and contentious topic, but the Cloth section (and the rest of the article, less so) is bloated. It’s a product of accretion rather than coherence. How might we perform a robust copy edit? -Reagle (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I find that some edits veer off a lot from the "during the COVID-19 pandemic" part, which contribute to the bloat. --Cold Season (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Should language such as "Studies have shown face masks to be effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19" be added to the lead? Currently, the lead only contains one pro-face mask sentence, "The World Health Organization and other public health organisations agree that masks can limit the spread of respiratory viral diseases such as COVID-19". Even that sentence sort of hedges on the issue by attributing the claim of effectiveness and by saying "agree" and "can limit". The rest of the lead is devoted to controversies of one sort and mundane info.

Definitely, I would like to see what face masks are about first. At least... before a debate about the issues. I also think the mundane info should be brought into context to the pandemic, because what falls under face masks is not particularly relevant on its own to this article. --Cold Season (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

What I think is more profoundly missing, in the lede and in the article as a whole, is the shift in rationale from potential protection of the wearer (a main factor early in the pandemic, and still used in some jurisdictions e.g. Melbourne), to the major rationale in the June WHO and July CDC guidance, as protecting others from infection by the wearer. Perhaps this is more evident to me from my perspective in Canada, where mask mandates have only come in in the last month or so and always with the "protect others" rationale. However, but there are enough RS on this by now globally that I suspect it is mostly inertia preventing the shift in public health discourse from registering in the article and in the lede. This is a pervasive issue, as some forms of face protection (N95 respirators with vents, and face shields) may be particularly ineffective from a "protect others" rationale, while doing better from a "protect the wearer" standpoint. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Let's shout a conclusion that has not been proven. The number of scientific articles that do NOT support face masks is huge, and the number of articles that do provide support is small, and do not include peer review since none of them are more than 3 months old. Do we want to be a propaganda organ or a factual source? Why let science stand in the way of what we know ourselves already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottst (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We are supposed to rely on secondary and tertiary rather than primary sources. So the CDC and the WHO? Others? Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We should definetely add more pro-mask coverage. There have litterally been hundreds of studies that prove face masks work. The article is pretty confusing at the moment. --MianMianBaoBao (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone! ^_^

Should this be included?

• Rodrigo Duterte: 'I'm not joking - clean masks with petrol'

• Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte tells poor people to use petrol as disinfectant

--CoryGlee (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Petrol as disinfectant... I think the inclusion of that in the

misinformation article (maybe under the prevention section) probably has more value. --Cold Season (talk

) 20:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cold Season !!, I've added it to that article under the masks prevention subheading. I'd thank you, or anyone to check my grammar and spelling over there since my English is on the short side. Thank you again! CoryGlee (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:978fesfv has repeatedly [6] [7] [8] [9] added material purporting to give the views of Denis Rancourt. However, the sources given do not exist. Presumably the first citation, to the American Journal of Infection Control 37.5 (2020): 417-419, is a mangled reference to this 2009 study since the volume, issue and page numbers are correct; this study is by Jacobs et al, and Rancourt was not among its authors. The title of the 2009 study is "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial" whereas the title given by 987fesfv is "Masks Don’t Work A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy", which is a self-published paper by Rancourt outside his area of expertise. Similarly, the second reference is also garbled: reported as "The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses" and attributed to Rancourt, this apparently refers to another study cited by Rancourt, based on the journal, volume and issue number. The study in question is entitled Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Offeddu at al.; Rancourt was not among the authors of that paper either.

So neither of the references can be used as citations for Rancourt's opinions; he has no peer-reviewed publications in this field and it would be evidently UNDUE to include his opinion anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. I wasn't aware of the false references, as they came up on Google Scholar and thus seemed legit. Nonetheless, the research to which Rancourt refers is legitimate and presents counter-evidence to the claim that masks are effective (as has been noted above, most research findings do not support the claim that masks are effective). 978fesfv (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The studies Rancourt cites in his self-published work are generally legitimate, though of course he has been selective in assembling them. What is not legitimate is relying on Rancourt - a self-published non-specialist - to interpret those previous findings. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a refutation of Rancourt's use of sources was published last month in Psychology Today. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Cold Season removed section "Novel face masks (research and development)" with rationale "nice and all, but I find it undue and most of the content has no direct relation to the topic".

What do other editors think of it?

I don't find it undue - why would it be undue? I think most or all of the content has a direct relation to the topic ("Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic") in that the section is about: the development of novel face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, these developments are being facilitated and initiated due to the pandemic as well as getting more publicity, interest and usefulness due to it etc.

If you find the content of it undue - for example because none of these developments may result substantial practical usefulness during the pandemic - you could instead edit the section as adequate.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It don't see how these novel face masks are relevant to the topic: that some people are testing new biodegradable material made using sugar cane, masks infused with antiviral materials, laser-induced graphene to self-clean masks, or what not. That research in face masks has increased due to the pandemic is something else entirely. But this is not that, this is an undue focus to promote specific product development involving masks... This is an article about face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic, not a general topic about face masks (which to be frank, the type of masks section forgets). --Cold Season (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That research in face masks has increased due to the pandemic is something else entirely I don't think so. I think it's highly relevant to an article titled "Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic". this is an undue focus to promote specific product development involving masks It should inform about all relevant and notable developments and the content could be edited, e.g. updated/expanded or shortened. This is an article about face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic, not a general topic about face masks see: "the section is about: the development of novel face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic" plus those novel face masks are e.g. being developed and tested with SARS-CoV-2 in mind.

What do other editors think of this? So far I don't find the rationale for removal reasonable. --Prototyperspective (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It is something else entirely, because that section is not about the influence of the pandemic on research. That section's focus was on promoting specific novel products, which is undue. Secondly, they don't even relate why the product relates to the COVID-19 pandemic and would probably fail MEDRS if they did. --Cold Season (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you ignored my previous points and mostly repeated a previous point of yours which I already addressed.

They partially relate to why the product relates to the COVID-19 pandemic but this could indeed be improved by editing it.

However, I think your point about promotion of specific novel products is good and the text may have been both a bit too long / in-depth for its contents and not sufficiently comprehensive at the same time (e.g. not all relevant face mask developments reported about were included; note that a few my former additions have been removed).

What about this text instead (draft; it could be improved before addition)?:

Researchers are developing face-masks which could be more effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 spread than existing ones and/or have other desired properties such as

biodegradability and better breathability.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Some are also researching attachments to existing face-masks to make them more effective^[5] or to add self-cleaning features.^[5] The pandemic has increased efforts to develop such masks and some have received government grants for their development.^[5]

I agree with you on the problem of promotion of specific products and think the suggested, much shorter, text (or text similar to it) really is better than the former text.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think "could be more effective at [...] than existing ones" should be replaced with "may help with". I would also scrap the "self-cleaning" part as the main point there is that it supposedly deactivates viruses, which has the implication that it is "self-sanitizing" to them. Refs could be better, but that's a worry for later. --Cold Season (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No. And it's rather undue, since that sentence is about a single store in Shanghai. I made the sentence a bit more general. --Cold Season (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm don't know enough about the topic to dive in and add something about this 'fake news' story myself, but someone else might like to pick it up?

• Kamran Abbasi (26 November 2020). "Editor's Choice: The curious case of the Danish mask study". British Medical Journal.
  doi:10.1136/bmj.m4586
  . When the mythical trial was finally published last week in the Annals of Internal Medicine we didn't need to read it. We already knew its damning verdict on mask wearing. Social media told us as much. Eminent professors of evidence based medicine, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, confirmed this in an article for the Spectator.² Except that if you read the published paper you find almost the exact opposite.³⁴⁵

The section "Comparison by countries and territories" should be sorted geographically, not alphabetically. Alphabetical sorting is the last desperate option for cases where no meaningful sorting can be used.--ŠJů (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The pros section "Rationale for wearing masks" is not balanced with "cons and risks" rationales section. Some items publicly disupted:

• direct health risks: reinfection with various bacterial, fungal and viral diseases (when used compulsorily by the general public, it must be assumed that they will not change their mask for clean one every hour). One doctor likened such a mask to a Petri dish, where the conditions are ideal for growing germs.
• social and practical difficulties: difficulty of verbal and nonverbal communication and recognition, special impact on some groups (mentally disabled, autistic, deaf, babies, people with breathing difficulties), reduction of traffic safety due to fogging of glasses of drivers and pedestrians, increased fatigue, risk of fainting or collapse, decreased mental performance due to change in the composition and temperature of the inhaled air.
• false sense of security (disproportionate reliance on the protective function of the mask, when people underestimate other measures, such as social distance and disinfection). If the mask is perceived as a symbol of loyalty or a magical protection, rationality may disappear.
• disproportionate or unbalanced regulation, which reduces confidence in authority and arouses resistance (the obligation to wear masks even when one is alone in nature, alone in a vehicle, alone in a room, in an uninhabited public space, and in other places and situations where the negative effects may outweigh or eliminate the positive effect of the masks.

Authorities are trying to reduce the negative impacts with various exceptions, which, however, tend to be controversial and inaccurately targeted. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You could add this data, but you would still need to have it sourced from a reliable source per Wikipedia rules. 2603:7080:C43F:9694:9C3D:CEB8:990F:D97F (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I think that the article does not especify that most people that protest against wearing masks do it because in several countries, it is compulsory to wear it open public spaces, such as, wearing it being alone in the street, and with noone around you (beyond a physical distance of 2 metres). That might be an unreasonable an disproporcionated meausure. The other reason perceived by protesters could be that many consider it a meausure to collect money from taxes and fines.

--83.39.210.117 (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The word during refers to a duration in time. It seems awkward and ungrammatical to use it to modify a physical object (i.e. face masks) that exists outside of a given time frame. That was why I changed the title to Use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is consistent with the wording of the lead section: face masks ... have been employed as a public and personal health control measure ... Their use is primarily intended as a source control ... The use of face masks [has] been recommended by health professionals ... countries that recommend or mandate the use of masks.

The sub-sections of the article dealing with recommendations, rationale for wearing, (studies of) efficacy, correct handling, shortages, society, geographic comparisons, etc., all relate back to the general idea of use of masks for a given purpose. Where does the article significantly cover things pertaining to face masks that don't involve their use? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how it's awkward or ungrammatical. We have articles like Technology during World War II, Sweden during World War II (and similarly for many of the country-specific articles listed on the relevant WWII template), Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, Islam during the Qing dynasty, Australian rules football during the World Wars, etc.; those all seem fine even though the article subjects outlast the time period delineated in the title. I would rather not make the article title any longer than it already is. Einsof (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

See https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/face-mask-warning-as-scientists-find-dangerous-chemical-exposure-in-some-coverings/ar-BB1fdjvL?ocid=msedgntp . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 (talk)

Hi, it's unclear what you'd suggest adding to this page from that article, but in any case the Daily Express is considered generally unreliable (See

WP:RSP). POLITANVM ^talk

14:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/epdf/standard 20 November 2020

"What are the results of the review?" "Medical or surgical masks . . . Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort."

"Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks . .. wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18."

WHO meta-analysis on RCT's

https://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/

"OVERALL RESULT OF EVIDENCE ON FACE MASKS 1. Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

"Quality of evidence There is a moderate overall quality of evidence that face masks do not have a substantial effect on transmission of influenza."

A very widely distributed meta-analysis on masks that was supposed to be pro-masks, actually was erroneous, and had RR>1 for masks after corrections: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v2.full.pdf (Larson 2010 had the biggest data error in the meta-analysis, the numbers switched around, number of "no reported symptoms" switched to "reported symptoms")

And no, the masks don't even work for the patients in the operating theatre:

"Are facemasks a priority for all staff in theatre to prevent surgical site infections during shortages of supply? A systematic review and meta-analysis" 2020 Marson 07.10.2020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539019/

RR=0,76 for "no masks" = masks made patients' infections worse Ioooi (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ioooi, this page is just propaganda for mask advocates. 66.213.13.51 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

How come there is no mention in this article of a country where COVID masks were implemented and then cases dropped permanently, with no later case surges? 66.213.13.51 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Which do you want? "Reduced case numbers", or "no later case surges"? Because those are two very different things. What you want is probably this, from the Efficacy Studies section: the CDC stated that the benefit of universal masking, including reductions in infections and mortality, has been demonstrated in community-level analyses by a set of studies involving the Massachusetts hospital system, the German city Jena, the American state Arizona, a panel of 15 American states and Washington, D.C., Canada nationally, and the United States nationally.[10] Bakkster Man (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The "Jena, Germany" study is somewhat of a misleading fraud: they buried the embarrassing results of their ridiculous "synthetic control" model to the "Supplementary materials" ^[1] , and posted only the models that claimed masks work in the final paper. The Supplementary materials have the same data/models as the original pre-print version of the paper has, and those models show that according to their own ridiculous model, multiple places with a larger population than Jena actually increased infections by using masks. This result was not good for the propaganda, so it had to be hidden to the supplementary materials. The "synthetic control" for Jena was made 83,5% based on cities larger and denser than Jena, and it was probably biased/flawed based on population. Also, in the fall of 2020 Jena's state of Thuringen was the 2nd worst Covid state of Germany, even though they have the 4th lowest pop density out of 16 states, and Jena was above average with Covid rates during that time. Somehow, those news out of Jena were never mentioned in the mask propaganda bulletins. Jena was good for "proof" of mask effectiveness only when their case numbers were dropping. Ioooi (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am looking specifically for no later COVID-19 case surges. 66.213.13.51 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you're looking for the wrong thing, I'm afraid. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If masks worked, it wouldn't be "the wrong thing." The Arizona anaylsis showed masks don't work. The United States study ended before the November surge LOL. 66.213.13.51 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Masks do work. Whether or not other behaviors can increase the risk more than masks can mitigate is an entirely different discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your source has close to zero credibility. It uses a proven fraud "study" as a source, and disregards every single RCT-meta-analysis that tells masks do not work. The gold standard of evidence in the field of medicine are RCT-meta-analysis, for a good reason. And when multiple RCT-meta-analysis, from different countries, come to the same conclusions of masks not working, they are most likely correct.Ioooi (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion on credibility is at odds with guidelines, most notably

WP:EXTRAORDINARY sourcing to suggest they're wrong. Bakkster Man (talk

) 19:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/

Also, the reference to the German city Jena should be removed - the model "study" that said Jena benefited from masks also told that multiple neighbouring cities and areas (Main-Kinzig-Kreis-area and cities Eisenach - Suhl - Weimar) actually suffered from face masks (this information can be read in the original pre peer review version, or in the "additional information" section of the final model / "study")

The most current, systematic meta-analyses of RCT's have showed that masks currently used do not work:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/pdf/CDSR/CD006207/CD006207_standard.pdf

Even the arguments about "but why then surgeons use them" have been squashed, a meta-analysis found that surgeon mask use has increased infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539019/

(The same result has been found in every review on the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioooi (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your source criticizing the Lancet article by Cho is a blog by an unreliable source. Cho specifically discusses bias and limitations in his article. The article on surgeons and facemasks is about wound site infections and specifically concludes "The use of facemasks by scrubbed staff during implant surgery should be mandatory to prevent infection". And the worst the Cochrane review says about masks in its conclusion is that "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks" because of poor quality studies. So no, I don't think removing the information from this article is appropriate. MartinezMD (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think the blog is an unreliable source, message the Lancet editorial board about if they are redoing the whole Lancet article. Because they are, because there is such wide-spread data errors in the study. I myself have found a long list a major errors in the study when I went through it & and its source studies. The referenced "source" studies # 34, 44, 45, 49, 64, 66, 70, 72 were completely misrepresented / had major data errors in the Lancet review, and multiple others had smaller errors. The Lancet study is nothing but a fraud based on bad observational studies, omitting every single quality RCT in history. Ioooi (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Where's your source that they're redoing the article? You haven't included that. MartinezMD (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I myself found a large portion of the mistakes, and contacted the Lancet editorial board to correct them. They told that they are redoing it in their email.Ioooi (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOR apply here. MartinezMD (talk

) 23:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked the claims about the Chu et al. (2020) study's representation of the results of the Scales et al. (2003) study as set forth by http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/#. According to Chu et al. (2020), Scales et al. (2003) favors the use of face masks. The truth is, in fact, the opposite. There's absolutely no doubt that the Chu et al. (2020) study is flawed to at least some degree, and it should be removed immediately as a source.

WP:NOR certainly don't apply. If a source is wrong, it should be removed. There's no requirement that some external trustworthy source explicitly call out that Chu et al. (2020) is flawed before it can be removed from here. 5.186.122.187 (talk

) 06:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple major "errors" in there. Only 7/23 of the studies with non-zero infected data had their data correctly in the Lancet-"study". Referenced studies #34, 44, 45, 49, 64, 66, 70, 72 had major frauds in the data. This study is nothing but a complete fraud. For example: Ref number #70 from the study ^[2] Lancet / Chu et al has data: "Events, face mask (n/N) 1/1286 Events, no face mask (n/N) 119/4036" It is a complete, utter lie. The original study says: ”About 78.3% (94/120) of the infected cases wore surgical masks” They had taken the data from "Level 2" protection category, NOT from mask category: "Level 2 protection: disposable hat, medical protective mask (N95 or higher standard), goggles (anti-fog) or protective mask (anti-fog), medical protective clothing or white coats covered by medical protective clothing, disposable gloves and disposable shoe covers" I can provide you with the other "data errors" as well, but posting them will take significant space, due to the fact you have to actually read & quote the original studies to see the errors. Ioooi (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Get a reliable source,

WP:NOR were in regards to Ioooi saying he was emailing Lancet. MartinezMD (talk

) 06:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do not believe me, contact one of the authors, Holger Schunemann. He's the one who responded to me. Ioooi (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, "reliable source"? If someone publishes an article in The Lancet stating that 394839 * 394829 = 38, and a Wikipedia article cites it, then, according to policy, it can't be deleted until someone "reliable" states that the result is wrong? It couldn't be more obvious: Table 2 in Scales et al. (2003) [11] clearly states "No. healthcare workers with exposure: Entry into room: 31", "No. (%) exposed healthcare workers with SARS: Entry into room: 6 (19)", "No. healthcare workers with exposure: Always wore at least: Any mask (N-95 or surgical mask): 13", "No. (%) exposed healthcare workers with SARS: Always wore at least: Any mask (N-95 or surgical mask): 3 (23)". Figure 4 in Chu et al. (2020) [12], however, states "Events, face mask (n/N): 3/16", "Events, no face mask (n/N): 4/15" for the Scales et al. (2003) study. These are clearly not the same figures. It shouldn't be necessary to have a reliable source confirm that 13 is not 16 and that 3 + 4 is not 6 etc. Or to have a reliable source confirm that we're indeed reading what we're reading. So it must be something else that you're after. What is it? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Scales report is difficult to terse out. 6 people had recognized patient exposure but 7 got SARS. So he may be factoring in the 7th person, I don't know. And yes, when a reliable source publishes something, it'll take a reliable source to refute it. Don't like it? Take up an rfc. MartinezMD (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDRS. Specifically, this is a secondary source (a review of primary studies), meaning it is given greater weight specifically because it avoids your hypothetical example of one author publishing a bogus result. In this case, it's a review of "172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings". Bakkster Man (talk

) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it's very easy to terse out. And yes, he's including the 7th person that the original study did not include because it was NOT a documented case of SARS, merely a suspected one. Very conveniently, the 7th person was one of the non-mask wearers. Alas, I did the math and even with that 7th person included, the result would have still been in favor of not wearing a mask. Probably why they had to change the denominator from 13 to 16 as well - because THEN the numbers will favor wearing a mask. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't like that results that even someone from grad school can conclude are wrong get used on Wikipedia. Before COVID, deduction - which in this case would amount to a = 13 and b = 16 => a ≠ b - was considered a most reliable source of knowledge. Now, apparently, it has to yield for Chu et al. Sad in my opinion, because it will only hurt Wikipedia's credibility. But fine, you'll get your rfc. Here it is [13]. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It avoids nothing if it's the secondary source that is flawed. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to remove the Chu et al. study - and I understand that you don't - may I suggest that it be included in the article that the Chu et al. study misrepresents the Scales et al. study? Then our readers can decide for themselves if they trust the original data more than the flawed copy that Chu et al. presents. Or is that impossible because Chu et al. - being a meta-analysis - is more credible than Scales et al., and we hence must understand that Chu et al. knows better the correct data for the Scales et al. study than Scales et al. themselves do? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not Chu et al is flawed, Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting generally high quality sources such as the Lancet. It's our job to accurately reflect what these sources say, not to perform citizen science to critique them ourselves. So we either need to wait for the Lancet to retract or publish a revision to the study, or for another high-quality source (see requirements in

WP:MEDRS) to come to a different conclusion. If you find such a study, link it here so it can be evaluated. Bakkster Man (talk

) 12:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Do all the other studies reviewed have an error? Because I don't see how a potential single error invalidates the review, especially when Scales's own conclusion is "Use of gowns, gloves, and masks as barriers appears to reduce the risk for SARS transmission in most but not all situations." Chu might have made a mistake on the denominator of a single study, but how does this invalidate the entire review? MartinezMD (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not a "single error", only 7/23 of the studies with non-zero infected cases had their data correct in the Lancet meta-analysis. References #34, 44, 45, 49, 64, 66, 70, 72 have such marjor "errors" that they can not be anything but frauds commited on purpose. For example: Ref number #70 from the study ^[3] Lancet / Chu et al has data: "Events, face mask (n/N) 1/1286 Events, no face mask (n/N) 119/4036" It is a complete, utter lie. The original study says: ”About 78.3% (94/120) of the infected cases wore surgical masks” They had taken the data from "Level 2" protection category, NOT from mask category: "Level 2 protection: disposable hat, medical protective mask (N95 or higher standard), goggles (anti-fog) or protective mask (anti-fog), medical protective clothing or white coats covered by medical protective clothing, disposable gloves and disposable shoe covers" Ioooi (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) I respectfully dissent. A policy that, in principle, allows an article stating that 13 = 16 simply because that's what credible The Lancet says, is not compatible with an encyclopedia. Which means that either Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, or you are misrepresenting the policy. I cannot refer you to any credible study concluding that facemasks with a high certainty do not work, nor can I refer you to any credible study concluding that with a high certainty they do work, because I've found no such study, and I doubt one even exists. (2) I have no idea. But the blog post has been correct so far. Looking at Table 3 in the Heinzerling et al. (2020) study [14], we see that 0/3 health care workers who wore facemasks during non aerosol-generating procedures tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (after having developed symptoms, since the table states "COVID-19" and not "SARS-CoV-2"; the correctness of this interpretation is confirmed elsewhere in the article). In Figure 4 in Chu et al. (2020) [15], these numbers have become 0/31. Does this mean that the conclusion of Chu et al. is wrong? Maybe. Or maybe not. But it does mean that Chu et al. should not be relied upon and should not be used as a source. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"A policy that, in principle, allows an article stating that 13 = 16 simply because that's what credible The Lancet says, is not compatible with an encyclopedia." This presumes that:

• the Lancet study is invalid
• the study isn't a meta-analysis of other primary studies coming to the same conclusion
• the study is at odds with the mainstream consensus
• encyclopedias are meant to overrule credible science when the writers disagree

None of these appear to be the case here, and even if you removed the Lancet study we're still left with the CDC conclusions that broadly match the Lancet's (community masking for source control works, even if individual masking for self-protection is of limited benefit). And the primary attempt to cast doubt on the study is coming from... an economics blog post (which has an arguably sketchy history of COVID takes, which seem to be POV-pushing). I think the simpler suggestion is that the unreliable source economicsfaq blog is the one claiming 13=16, and trying to cast doubt on a MEDRS meta analysis in a reliable source. It's going to take a better source (or for the credentialed professional reviewers at the Lancet to reach the same conclusion as 'Andrew from economicsfaq') to upend consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Source control does not seem to work, if you check out actual studies on it. RCT-meta-analysis with "source control"-subgroup analysis ^[4] found that masks used as "source control" increased infections. (Fig 3C, page ~29) The CDC statements are not based on actual studies, but on flawed, biased retrospective stories on mask users, without any actual pre-planned trials, randomization or control groups. Even the best reductivistic "particle counter" -lab tests have shown that masks increase particle production, if you move even slightly. And the studies on surgeons show surgeon's masks have increased infections ^[5] These results would be absolutely impossible if masks actually worked as "source control" Ioooi (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

'The CDC's interpretation of 45 source studies is wrong' is quite the

WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Bakkster Man (talk

) 19:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article's stating that facemasks work. I have a problem with the article's using that particular source, simply because it's flawed. The conclusion of Chu et al. may be right, or it may be wrong, but the premises are incorrect, and that's the problem. I can verify that it misrepresents at least two studies, and so can you; I've made that very easy for you. I don't care about the blog's take on COVID-19. Chu et al. misrepresents at least two studies, and that's a fact, whether it's pointed out by a COVID-skeptical blog or not. But I think that we now finally understand where our opinions differ: I don't want a Wikipedia article citing a source, be it credible or not, reaching its conclusion, be it correct or not, by means of invalid premises or invalid deduction. In other words, I reject "The night's white horse is black => Facemasks work" no matter who states it and no matter whether facemasks work or not. You don't. That must be the conclusion we're left to draw. I simply don't believe it's in Wikipedia's best interest to use the kind of source that Chu et al. is. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to rephrase the original complaint from "it is a proven fraud" to "it is not reliable"? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no proof that it's a fraud, but it does misrepresent data, so if that's what you mean, I'd say yes. However, if you by reliable mean "published in The Lancet", I'd have to choose between an unsupported claim and a wrong one, and I prefer neither. 5.186.126.1 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if we are too stupid to compare two tables and conclude that the numbers differ, aren't we too stupid as well to even paraphrase the article here on Wikipedia? I mean, in order to paraphrase something, you need to understand what it means, right? But we're not clever enough to do that; it's all pure citizen science. And no, the "no original research" argument is not valid here. That policy applies to the content of the article. It does not apply to the process of deciding what sources not to use. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not reading well. I specifically replied to this, and repeated it. "I myself found a large portion of the mistakes, and contacted the Lancet editorial board to correct them. They told that they are redoing it in their email.Ioooi" Look above. The contact to the editorial board is OR and an email lacks Verifiability. MartinezMD (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's original research. Which is why it should not be included in the article. And removing Chu et al. as a source won't cause it to be. So what's your point? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@

I'm not Ioooi, but you're right. It seems that the matter is political; had the source stated that facemasks don't work, it'd probably have been removed. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No. If any significant number of

WP:FALSEBALANCE subsections for more detail on the nuances of this policy). However, the absence of such sources speaks a great deal about the efficacy of masks. You are welcome to find sources to that effect, if you can, and they will be considered for inclusion according to Wikipedia's policies. -- The Anome (talk

) 14:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) What is a "significant number"? Please let me know in advance so I can be sure that if I find N sources, you won't simply say that "significant number" means N+1. (2) Why are the sources added by Ioooi not being considered? Are they deemed unreliable? Don't they meet the "significant number" criterion? (3) Even if I find such sources, will that lead to the Chu et al. study no longer being used as a source? You might recall that I wrote that I'd no problem with the article's stating that facemasks work. The problem was, and is, that a study that misrepresents data is used as a source. 5.186.126.1 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"However, the absence of such sources speaks a great deal about the efficacy of masks" On the 7th of March I already added an extra paragraph here with sources clearly stating that masks do not work in preventing respiratory infections. Check out the actual studies on masks, and you will come to the same conclusion. The whole mask propaganda is based on fraudulent studies (Lancet / Chu et al), and a finnish one, which switched to "masks don't work" after correcting only ONE of their data errors: "Meta-analysis across all studies with risk ratios found no association with number of infections (RR=0.957 [0.810−1.131" ^[6] (There are still multiple data errors in the most recent update (16.4.2021, v3), but correcting the rest only make the results even worse for masks.) And how do I know this? Because I found the biggest mistake that switched the results, and I have actually gone through the original studies behind the RCT-meta-analysis. For example, the Aiello 2010 and Aiello 2012 data are still wrong. Ioooi (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Chapter "5.2 Public use of face masks" links to this article here, it also mentions there are false claims spread that the usage of masks causes adverse health-related issues such as low blood oxygen levels,[258] high blood carbon dioxide levels,[259] and a weakened immune system[260] , so shouldn't we put a link back and also mention this in this article here? Cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wearing the masks correctly causes a clear, demonstrable drop in blood oxygen levels, ventilation etc: check out Fig.2 ^[1] It is only with masks not worn properly that do not cause these effects. (That study had the masks securely tightened to the face, no leakage around the mask)Ioooi (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a scientific fact that masks cause low blood oxygen levels. The studies saying something else used subjects who did not wear the masks properly, fitting them tight to the face. Every single study that has studied masks used properly have stated that masks cause a clear drop in oxygen levels. Ioooi (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No, there's a reason why

WP:MEDRS says we use secondary sources. Your linked primary study of 12 people (at max-exertion exercise, it should be noted, not standard activity levels) had one finding, a larger study of 30 people found the opposite, "gas exchange is not significantly affected by the use of surgical mask, even in subjects with severe lung impairment". Please do not attempt to spread misinformation, or portray a single contradicted study out of context as 'scientific fact'. Bakkster Man (talk

) 16:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

UNE 0064-1:2020 defines "Non-reusable hygienic masks." which are not surgical masks UNE-EN14683:2019+AC:2019 but also are not mere cloth masks. Where are they covered in this article? --Error (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't the norm for wearing masks taken advantage of by protestors in Hong Kong who wanted to hide their identities? --Error (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you have a reliable source? MartinezMD (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I copied it from Surgical mask. --Error (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else find these sections totally unreadable? The CDC section, for example, jumps from April 2020 to June 2020 to May 2021 to November 2020 to April 2020 to July 2020, with no discernible thread to follow. It reads like a schizophrenic jumble of public health vignettes rather than a coherent narrative. I tried to organize them linearly, but was reverted and told I wasn't allowed to do that because I haven't edited the article before (which is false). Anyone else totally bewildered by these incomprehensibly messy sections? Einsof (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Cold Season (talk · contribs) was wrong to restore the organization by topic. The chronological organization is clearer, although it's not perfect — the third-party comments about the guidance should be separated to a new sub-sub-subsection. But for now, I have restored the ordering. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Medical sources need to be secondary studies. See

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 October 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yiyi Dai.

Above undated message substituted from

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TFMonk19970531.

Above undated message substituted from

I removed this wide-ranging and absolute claim. The reference given does not support it and the claim is of course disputed by many. But perhaps the statement counts as

Good catch on the sourcing. I returned (tweaking the wording from "significant" to "effective") with the CDC science brief on community masking. A bit surprised we weren't using it already, but should be more than strong enough of a source. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this [[16]] a RS? It's a meta-analysis which suggests there is overall only poor quality evidence for real-world efficacy. But perhaps the paper isn't (in our terms) usable. Springnuts (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful as a resource identifying additional journal meta-analyses we could cite (a comparison to the CDC list of studies might be interesting for how they seem to come to different conclusions). Better to err on the side of peer-reviewed journals, particularly when the alternative is a partisan think tank's working paper. Doubly so since these authors, if their assessments are reliable, should be able to get it published in a medical journal. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and please remove it again since they have restored it. This is pseudoscience. Do japan (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." So I think CDC is a RS, although it would be better to give a peer reviewed RS. Dan88888 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Our problem is also CDC’s partisanship, but we have to avoid falling into OR, and the question is also highly politicised, with at least an element of reluctance to publish material which is not aligned with the CDC view. I think we might rewrite along the lines of “Many authorities have asserted that population-wide masking has proven effective in reducing the transmission of COVID-19” or “In the US the CDC has taken the view that …” … or similar? This would also jar much less with the following paragraphs which note the very low quality of evidence for significant effect, or even effect at all. Springnuts (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally, we consider public health recommendations to be among the highest reliability sources we have. In general being the key phrase. We would need another strong, reliable source (no Cato Institute) to raise such a concern or note disagreement. The ECDC does seem to place a lower confidence and significance[17], and the WHO continues to recommend masking while noting A mask alone, even when it is used correctly, is insufficient to provide adequate protection or source control[18]. Looking at the wording, I could see room to adjust the "proven significant" wording to more accurately represent the scale of the effectiveness. Do people interpret the word "significant" here to mean statistically significant but small in magnitude, or a large magnitude change? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I see part of the problem being the intense politicisation, which means that, to take an example domestic to me in the UK, the London transport authority mandated mask wearing on public transport claiming scientifically proven efficacy when in fact that was simply not true, they had no evidence - this was revealed through a freedom of information request which was eventually granted 12 months later. Of course we can only report the scientific consensus, but the scientific consensus is not driven entirely by the science. Springnuts (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course we can only report the scientific consensus, but the scientific consensus is not driven entirely by the science. On this article, I think there's significant latitude to handle both of those aspects. The scientific rigor and findings, and the communications and policies. The difficult part is not conflating the two. At least as it stands today, the best I can tell is the science says there's a modest risk reduction from masking, particularly in conjunction with other mitigations (ie. with physical distancing over short periods, rather than in close quarters for a full workday). So dialing in on that wording to neither overstate nor understate that in the lede is the first order of business. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree fully. Springnuts (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear community,

I will be editing this article with my eye on grammatical issues, sentence structure, flow, and appropriate use of citations.

Sustainabilitypurpose (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources in medicine

WP:MEDRS will help you when deciding what citations are appropriate for sharing evidence pertaining to human health. If you want to share your suggested citation improvements first here on the talk page, the community can help! JenOttawa (talk

) 13:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Some editors have interpreted this as Bundgaard saying that masks are only effective in a setting where masks are common. But that isn't in the paper. It is just the setting he has. Someone might do some research showing that population mask use was an explanatory variable, but we can't say it until they do. Dan88888 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

He also says, "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."

Some editors have summarised this simply as masks didn't provide statistically significant benefit to wearers. I don't think that's a fair summary of the paper. Bundgaard himself summarises it as, "Follow social distancing measures are wear a mask when outside the home: 1.8% infected. Follow social distancing measures when outside the home: 2.1% infected. Percentage point difference 0.3 (95% CI ~ 0.4 to 1.2). I'm not quite sure the best way to simplify that though. Perhaps we could say he found it probably had benefit for the wearer, which is what those 95% confidence levels show. Or we could say he observed a benefit to wearers but the result was not statistically significant. Dan88888 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Dan88888 I'm not sure who interpreted the paper as you are saying it's been used. The edits you've made so far seem to have contrasted this study with numerous others as if it casts doubt on the effectiveness of masks overall. That's certainly how it was originally used in this article. It's a relatively old study (in terms of pandemic history) and not actually focused on the effectiveness of masks themselves. At its heart, it's about public health policy, specifically about implementing a recommendation. The scope of interpretation is also limited to the context in which the study was conducted: moderate community transmission, existing social distancing guidelines, and <5% of the community using masks at the time. (Also, compliance with proper mask usage was self-reported and likely unreliable.) My belief is that this study, if it belongs in the article, should remain out of the lead. I had summarized it there since it was used in the lead previously (with wildly incorrect interpretation), but my vote is to keep it out of the lead. Popoki35 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a study I think we should mention. It's the largest randomised control trial that has been peer reviewed. So it's important science. It is also a good study for how much masks protect the wearer as opposed to source control. I just haven't struck upon the best way to summarise it for an audience which does not have an understanding of the methodology of science. But I am persuaded by your argument it shouldn't be in the intro.

I tend to think we should have a subheading in the article for Scientific evidence, and there we can go into the nuance of what precisely is and what is not established by science.Dan88888 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The study is included under the Governmental role section. Possibly the Rationale for wearing masks section could be merged/changed to reflect more of the underlying science as you're saying? I think that could be a good improvement. A quick google search shows a plethora of available studies, and all the ones I've seen so far are available without a paywall. I've previously included a brief sentence from this study about protection of wearers (~85% effective for surgical masks). Popoki35 (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Efficacy section looks like an area we can beef up. The Talic paper looks to me the right starting point because it is a systematic review and meta analysis. Talic finds six papers provide sufficiently robust to be included in the meta analysis. Of all the papers CDC lists, only one that has been peer reviewed was too late to be in the Talic review (Karaivanov). So I think the next step is for me to read and understand these seven papers. (In case you are wondering the Wang paper is the Beijing, China one.) Dan88888 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I did what I said, though we could still add a bit more from those texts. Now there are five more papers that I want to add, including three which will supercede what is currently summarised as part of the Talic reference. Once we have enough peer-reviewed papers in the Efficacy section, we can maybe thin out some of the CDC references, which are not formally peer reviewed. Dan88888 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm reverting your recent addition, since both papers appear to be primary analysis, rather than the secondary (meta-analysis) that we want to use in order to improve the quality of sourcing. Especially since we have secondary sources already (Talic and public health orgs), I don't see the value of adding primary sources which agree with the conclusions of secondary sources. If the other papers you're recommending are secondary sources, they will prove more useful. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

CDC is a reliable source, but not a great one. You are incorrect to identify them as primary sources. A newspaper report of a peer-reviewed achademic journal is not as good a source as the original journal. We can't use Talic by itself because of copyright restrictions. Dan88888 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

When I said secondary sources, I meant in terms of

WP:MEDSCI

, where policy statements and health guidelines by CDC, ECDC, NIH, and WHO (among others) carry significant weight because they are indicative of consensus.

What's your copyright concern with the Talic meta-analysis in BMJ? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to include as much as possible from the Talic meta-analysis. But I asked the BMJ of I can add one of their figures, and the quote over 300 USD as a fee. If you can think of a way to do it, go ahead and be bold. I really don't see why when Talic relies on 11 papers on mask wearing, why these 11 shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article section on the evidence on mask wearing. I'm not disagreeing Talic is better than the 11, just it would be a threadbare article with only one citation. I've read the links your provided, and I don't understand why you think CDC compares with a peer-reviewed achademic journal. Dan88888 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you may need to brush up on your

WP:BMI

).

We shouldn't be using figures lifted from the study, but we don't need to. Nor is citing more papers necessarily a good thing, particularly when they're lower quality. One meta-analysis is worth a hundred primaries, and when we have multiple secondary sources in agreement we should be able to cite nearly everything to those sources, instead of the primaries. Generally speaking, of course, some of the primaries may have notable conditions or findings which we can cite to the primaries, but that comes with corresponding lower certainty (which your edits are missing, so I'm reverting again). For example, you wrote masks are the most effective form of risk reduction, but we can't phrase the cited primary study with such certainty. Better phrasing would be, for example, "a cross-sectional online survey of 8158 adults in China between February and March 2020 found masks to be the most effective intervention among respondents".

Regarding the CDC question, I'll point you to

WP:MEDORG. While public health organizations don't have the same form of peer review as journals, they do have internal reviews, and their statements typically are typically filling the role of secondary review (as in this case, as you indicate they based their analysis on nearly the same set of primary studies as Talic). The potential unreliability of public health organizations typically only becomes thorny when it's in conflict with the secondary journal literature, which is not the case here. Bakkster Man (talk

) 20:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You do make some good points. But I still don't see your point about CDC; the articles you cite don't seem to support your view that it is better than a peer-reviewed journal.

• • I'm extremely open to your points about improving the way I cite those 11 articles. However, since we disagree about the interpretation about Wikipedia policy, it seems we now need an independent opinion. It seems to me that since the talk page supported my view before your revert, I should revert your challenge until this happens. However, I will wait until tomorrow to do that. Dan88888 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur with getting an outside perspective or mediator, if we don't get other input in the next day or so. I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for their relevant experience. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have raised it there, but because of the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=1081248484&oldid=1081166018 evidencing a consensus for preferring peer-reviewed academic literature over CDC, I must ask you to respect the consensus while that conversation is happening .Dan88888 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I will always respect consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either interpretation of the paper (no significant reduction, or a reduction but not significant) is accurate. The study results were simply inconclusive. In any case, with the quantity of secondary sources available, I think we should focus on their expert meta analysis (many including this study) rather than focusing on this primary study. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

My naive hot take. Meta-analysis are better than CDC data assuming both sources are moderately recent. In addition to not having the academic standards that come along with peer review, the CDC role can at times be political and designed for complinace through "simplicity of messaging".

I don't quite understand the point about including material from the paper. You can include other material on wikipedia, but there might be some issues around copyright (wikipedia requires that contributions are licensed under a particular licence that allows others to reuse this data). Surely we could both include figures *and* cite the best source. An alternative would also be we recreate the figures ourselves using the data and cite the data's source Talpedia (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's the copyright licence, where the work is licensed for non-commercial use and if it was on Wikipedia the commercial license would have been appropriated. I've read up on US Copyright Law, and I think I know the boundary now. (The thinks I have to do to edit Wikipedia!) Recreating their diagram would probably not be OK.

I added a textual summary of the meta-analysis. I added a few extra words that you need to check the primary sources to verify so you know what they were measuring); we could add links to these if anyone thinks what is written is contentious. If everyone is happy with this approach, I think we don't also need references to the primary sources.Dan88888 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• If the paper under discussion is
  talk
  ) 09:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear community,

I will be editing this article with my eye on grammatical issues, sentence structure, flow, and appropriate use of citations.

Sustainabilitypurpose (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources in medicine

WP:MEDRS will help you when deciding what citations are appropriate for sharing evidence pertaining to human health. If you want to share your suggested citation improvements first here on the talk page, the community can help! JenOttawa (talk

) 13:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A user reverted my edit to add four peer reviewed articles to this page. The argument was that these were primary sources and not secondary sources. This is incorrect. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary says, "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals ...". Each of the articles I added were peer-reviewed journals. I have to revert the edit of this user, unless a better argument is given. Dan88888 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, do you mind sharing the four articles here? If you post the examples we can try to figure out what the ideal

WP:MEDRS source is to share that evidence. Thanks! JenOttawa (talk

) 12:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Three were all from Talic, so the answer is to use Talic:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-10680-5

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33108317/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655321000572

One was from CDC, so the answer for that one is to use CDC:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629621000606~~~~ Dan88888 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

First, peer review is not the same as a review article. The similarity in the words throw people off. One of our ideal source types is the peer-reviewed review article.

Second, yes, that definition is exactly what we mean when we say that a peer-reviewed report on a clinical trial is a primary source. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event – there are none closer to a scientist's own research than the scientist himself, right? – and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved – such as the scientist who did the research work himself.

Also notice that your second quotation comes from

WT:NOR. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dan88888, thanks for sharing. Please disregard if this is not helpful! I have not been working on this article, I just happened to notice on WPMED talk page. In response to your above question as to whether the above four articles are primary or secondary in nature, I just looked at them and they are all primary research studies (Loi et al- case control study, Xu et al- cross sectional study, Krishnamachari et al- population based ecological study, Karaivanov et al- observational study). Since this article also has well developed society and culture, shortage of masks, industry of mask making sections, I would assume that referencing would be

WP:RS depending on if it is a medical claim. I do not have any experience editing non-medical articles so please correct me anytime! For MEDRS, it is my understanding that we would need to find a peer reviewed secondary source that reviews this primary research studies in order to add the evidence from these studies in the wikipedia article. I did notice that Krishnamachari et al is included in this systematic review: [19]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34308320/. I hope this helps a little. It is so great to see so many people coming together to improve these articles. JenOttawa (talk

) 20:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Some editors have interpreted this as Bundgaard saying that masks are only effective in a setting where masks are common. But that isn't in the paper. It is just the setting he has. Someone might do some research showing that population mask use was an explanatory variable, but we can't say it until they do. Dan88888 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

He also says, "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."

Some editors have summarised this simply as masks didn't provide statistically significant benefit to wearers. I don't think that's a fair summary of the paper. Bundgaard himself summarises it as, "Follow social distancing measures are wear a mask when outside the home: 1.8% infected. Follow social distancing measures when outside the home: 2.1% infected. Percentage point difference 0.3 (95% CI ~ 0.4 to 1.2). I'm not quite sure the best way to simplify that though. Perhaps we could say he found it probably had benefit for the wearer, which is what those 95% confidence levels show. Or we could say he observed a benefit to wearers but the result was not statistically significant. Dan88888 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Dan88888 I'm not sure who interpreted the paper as you are saying it's been used. The edits you've made so far seem to have contrasted this study with numerous others as if it casts doubt on the effectiveness of masks overall. That's certainly how it was originally used in this article. It's a relatively old study (in terms of pandemic history) and not actually focused on the effectiveness of masks themselves. At its heart, it's about public health policy, specifically about implementing a recommendation. The scope of interpretation is also limited to the context in which the study was conducted: moderate community transmission, existing social distancing guidelines, and <5% of the community using masks at the time. (Also, compliance with proper mask usage was self-reported and likely unreliable.) My belief is that this study, if it belongs in the article, should remain out of the lead. I had summarized it there since it was used in the lead previously (with wildly incorrect interpretation), but my vote is to keep it out of the lead. Popoki35 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a study I think we should mention. It's the largest randomised control trial that has been peer reviewed. So it's important science. It is also a good study for how much masks protect the wearer as opposed to source control. I just haven't struck upon the best way to summarise it for an audience which does not have an understanding of the methodology of science. But I am persuaded by your argument it shouldn't be in the intro.

I tend to think we should have a subheading in the article for Scientific evidence, and there we can go into the nuance of what precisely is and what is not established by science.Dan88888 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The study is included under the Governmental role section. Possibly the Rationale for wearing masks section could be merged/changed to reflect more of the underlying science as you're saying? I think that could be a good improvement. A quick google search shows a plethora of available studies, and all the ones I've seen so far are available without a paywall. I've previously included a brief sentence from this study about protection of wearers (~85% effective for surgical masks). Popoki35 (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Efficacy section looks like an area we can beef up. The Talic paper looks to me the right starting point because it is a systematic review and meta analysis. Talic finds six papers provide sufficiently robust to be included in the meta analysis. Of all the papers CDC lists, only one that has been peer reviewed was too late to be in the Talic review (Karaivanov). So I think the next step is for me to read and understand these seven papers. (In case you are wondering the Wang paper is the Beijing, China one.) Dan88888 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I did what I said, though we could still add a bit more from those texts. Now there are five more papers that I want to add, including three which will supercede what is currently summarised as part of the Talic reference. Once we have enough peer-reviewed papers in the Efficacy section, we can maybe thin out some of the CDC references, which are not formally peer reviewed. Dan88888 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm reverting your recent addition, since both papers appear to be primary analysis, rather than the secondary (meta-analysis) that we want to use in order to improve the quality of sourcing. Especially since we have secondary sources already (Talic and public health orgs), I don't see the value of adding primary sources which agree with the conclusions of secondary sources. If the other papers you're recommending are secondary sources, they will prove more useful. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

CDC is a reliable source, but not a great one. You are incorrect to identify them as primary sources. A newspaper report of a peer-reviewed achademic journal is not as good a source as the original journal. We can't use Talic by itself because of copyright restrictions. Dan88888 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

When I said secondary sources, I meant in terms of

WP:MEDSCI

, where policy statements and health guidelines by CDC, ECDC, NIH, and WHO (among others) carry significant weight because they are indicative of consensus.

What's your copyright concern with the Talic meta-analysis in BMJ? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to include as much as possible from the Talic meta-analysis. But I asked the BMJ of I can add one of their figures, and the quote over 300 USD as a fee. If you can think of a way to do it, go ahead and be bold. I really don't see why when Talic relies on 11 papers on mask wearing, why these 11 shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article section on the evidence on mask wearing. I'm not disagreeing Talic is better than the 11, just it would be a threadbare article with only one citation. I've read the links your provided, and I don't understand why you think CDC compares with a peer-reviewed achademic journal. Dan88888 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you may need to brush up on your

WP:BMI

).

We shouldn't be using figures lifted from the study, but we don't need to. Nor is citing more papers necessarily a good thing, particularly when they're lower quality. One meta-analysis is worth a hundred primaries, and when we have multiple secondary sources in agreement we should be able to cite nearly everything to those sources, instead of the primaries. Generally speaking, of course, some of the primaries may have notable conditions or findings which we can cite to the primaries, but that comes with corresponding lower certainty (which your edits are missing, so I'm reverting again). For example, you wrote masks are the most effective form of risk reduction, but we can't phrase the cited primary study with such certainty. Better phrasing would be, for example, "a cross-sectional online survey of 8158 adults in China between February and March 2020 found masks to be the most effective intervention among respondents".

Regarding the CDC question, I'll point you to

WP:MEDORG. While public health organizations don't have the same form of peer review as journals, they do have internal reviews, and their statements typically are typically filling the role of secondary review (as in this case, as you indicate they based their analysis on nearly the same set of primary studies as Talic). The potential unreliability of public health organizations typically only becomes thorny when it's in conflict with the secondary journal literature, which is not the case here. Bakkster Man (talk

) 20:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You do make some good points. But I still don't see your point about CDC; the articles you cite don't seem to support your view that it is better than a peer-reviewed journal.

• • I'm extremely open to your points about improving the way I cite those 11 articles. However, since we disagree about the interpretation about Wikipedia policy, it seems we now need an independent opinion. It seems to me that since the talk page supported my view before your revert, I should revert your challenge until this happens. However, I will wait until tomorrow to do that. Dan88888 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur with getting an outside perspective or mediator, if we don't get other input in the next day or so. I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for their relevant experience. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have raised it there, but because of the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic&diff=1081248484&oldid=1081166018 evidencing a consensus for preferring peer-reviewed academic literature over CDC, I must ask you to respect the consensus while that conversation is happening .Dan88888 (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I will always respect consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we have reached consensus on how to treat Talic. The medical claims are the ones from Talic, and the primary sources are used to provide additional contextual information which are not medical claims. I don't feel strongly on whether we cite those sources, as long as the information from them is there.

We may need to do more work in the CDC part of the Efficacy section, where we do cite sources, and some of the material (e.g. about hairdressers) is not peer reviewed.~~~~ Dan88888 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a2.htm is published by CDC and not peer reviewed, and it is described by them as “report[ing] as quick as possible” and “often preliminary”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources says, “Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published “. So I think analogously the preliminary material from the MMWR should be removed once there is a better source.~~~~ Dan88888 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Which MMWR sources of the 5 cited are you referring to? On a quick look, they're potentially worth evaluating differently by how they're used. For historical context of when the CDC recommended things, especially early pandemic, MMWR might be appropriate. Specific case studies are probably best replaced by the meta-analyses (again, unless used specifically to reference dates that masking behaviors and recommendations shifted and why, rather than direct efficacy estimates). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed them. I agree that MMWR and CDC (or equivalent) will often be the best source early on for a new disease, to be replaced when a peer reviewed systemic review or meta-analysis is available.Dan88888 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either interpretation of the paper (no significant reduction, or a reduction but not significant) is accurate. The study results were simply inconclusive. In any case, with the quantity of secondary sources available, I think we should focus on their expert meta analysis (many including this study) rather than focusing on this primary study. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

My naive hot take. Meta-analysis are better than CDC data assuming both sources are moderately recent. In addition to not having the academic standards that come along with peer review, the CDC role can at times be political and designed for complinace through "simplicity of messaging".

I don't quite understand the point about including material from the paper. You can include other material on wikipedia, but there might be some issues around copyright (wikipedia requires that contributions are licensed under a particular licence that allows others to reuse this data). Surely we could both include figures *and* cite the best source. An alternative would also be we recreate the figures ourselves using the data and cite the data's source Talpedia (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's the copyright licence, where the work is licensed for non-commercial use and if it was on Wikipedia the commercial license would have been appropriated. I've read up on US Copyright Law, and I think I know the boundary now. (The thinks I have to do to edit Wikipedia!) Recreating their diagram would probably not be OK.

I added a textual summary of the meta-analysis. I added a few extra words that you need to check the primary sources to verify so you know what they were measuring); we could add links to these if anyone thinks what is written is contentious. If everyone is happy with this approach, I think we don't also need references to the primary sources.Dan88888 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• If the paper under discussion is
  talk
  ) 09:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure but this seems like the right article to mention the U.S. mask mandate was ruled unlawful nationwide by a federal judge today. See Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth waiting for a few days, to see whether the ruling is appealed. Travel during the COVID-19 pandemic is another place where that could be mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, Travel during the COVID-19 pandemic deals only with international travel, this has very little to do with that. And So It (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC) sock of banned user

COVID-19 pandemic in the United States would be a good location for this. Even if appealed and overturned/vacated, that a judge ruled this way would still be notable in the national article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it gets completely overturned, then it might not be worth mentioning at all (What would we say? "Masks were briefly not required on public transit in the US, but then they were again"?). But my thought was to wait for a few days for purely practical reasons: so we don't have to write and source it now, and then re-write and re-source it again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"A few days" is not the speed of the federal court system. The appeal was filed last Wednesday already. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused by the tense of this article.

There are a few sections, like the part talking about the mask shortage, that seem to refer to a specific event/period.

However, most of the rest of the article seems to describe the entire time period of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is still in effect at the time of this comment.

The article isn't strictly about the US governmental mask mandate. It is about wearing masks during the pandemic (literally. It is right in the title). It does specify that the information is about the USA. But since this is a pandemic, it explicitly includes the USA. And masks are still being worn by a significant portion of the population.

So my question stands.

Why is this written in past tense?

It feels like someone could easily read this article in it's current(past tense) state and conclude "Oh, I guess we don't need to do that anymore." 2601:19A:C101:1459:A802:3C32:F63A:434A (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

On 11:48, 20 September 2022‎, User:ValarianB did remove the section about risks, stating, "The Wikipedia is not a platform for antimasking conspiracy theories". This action was taken with said summary despite that said section had inline citations from a news publication (Politico)^[1] and scientific journals (Scientific Reports and Nature)^[2].

I don't know why ValarianB claims that said information is a conspiracy theory. Where exactly in the information removed there is a conspiracy theory? Maybe they are under the impression that only positive information regarding facemasks should be included in this article and anything critical or negative is a conspiracy theory and should not be included. If this is the case, their stance is a violation of the

In any case, if they had doubts about some of the text, they could have tried to verify the information themselves, instead of just removing content based on unreasonably biased opinionated beliefs. Thinker78 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think for any claim that facemasks have a deleterious effect on health, a
  WP:MEDRS would be needed. Is there any such? Bon courage (talk
  ) 18:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I did cite a scientific journal, which is a "reliable, third-party published secondary source". The guideline you cited ( WP:MEDRS) also states, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." The journal I cited is also in a relevant field and the study was made by experts in a relevant field.

But I find the same study in the National Library of Medicine of the US Government.[20]

Regarding the other publication, Politico, per the aforementioned guideline, "Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not." Said citation backed information regarding an action that the government took, its statement about it, and a general and common sense reflexion by critics, who "stated that to know about possible long term effects, analysis needed to be made".

Can you explain

1. what exactly did you think it was a conspiracy theory?
2. Why did you think it was a conspiracy theory?
3. Do you still think it is a conspiracy theory?

Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a platform for antimask, antiscience lunacy. ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This type of response isn't helpful. It generates unnecessary argument and hostility. MartinezMD (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't make it any less true. When people come to the Wikipedia to push antimasking pov's or Ivermectin-licking or the dozens of other conspiracies, we don't give them the time of day. ValarianB (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

For COVID articles, we're pretty strict about MEDRS sourcing, because of the high rate of disruptive editing and because the rate of science means a lot of unreplicated primary sources. The source you give above is a primary source, we would want a secondary source (literature review, meta analysis, etc) before considering it

WP:DUE for inclusion. Yes, this is stricter than most research repositories, for a good reason. We want replicated science, or at least public health policy that has reviewed the study and considers is compelling enough evidence to act upon. Bakkster Man (talk

) 19:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As per Bakkster, see the MEDRS guidelines, especially the

WP:MEDPRI section. This primary study is speculative with the risk. A secondary study is needed. If it made a notable conclusion, it could have been included if it was described very accurately. MartinezMD (talk

) 22:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@MartinezMD:, @Bakkster Man: What about this other source? https://chemicalwatch.com/425786/scientists-urge-regulatory-action-on-titanium-dioxide-particles-in-face-masks Thinker78 (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's behind a paywall. I can't see the source but it looks more like a news article than a scholarly research article. I'll be about of town for a week so I won't be able to follow up until after that. MartinezMD (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Same, typically when we talk about a secondary source for medical information, we want either a systemic review paper in a journal ("we looked at multiple primary studies on the topic, and concluded the literature as a whole says...") or a major public health or clinical recommendation. This appears to be the step prior to that latter element, if the CDC or OSHA (for example) made official recommendations as a result of this primary study (or follow-ups), then that would be a reliable source that would indicate notability here. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)