Why would scientists oppose a mask wearing study?

Because the mask he has an expiration date, if not careful, then his effect has a very serious harm to our respiratory tract. Wearing a mask helps prevent the spread of the new coronavirus, which has become the consensus of today's epidemic prevention and control. However, James Heathers, a researcher at Northeastern University Americans, a scientist who recently called for the elimination of research related to the wearing of masks, wrote an article in Retreat Watch, hoping to discuss an issue when scientists oppose a conclusion and gain universal acceptance.

But what exactly are they opposing when the basic facts are inaccurate, or even when the methods are flawed, this article was actually published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on June 11. By analyzing the epidemic trends and countermeasures in Wuhan, Italy and New York in China from January 23 to May 9, 2020, it is determined whether mandatory mask-wearing is the determinant of different trends in the three epicenters.

The corresponding author of the article is Mario Molina, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Diego in California, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with two other scientists in 1995 for explaining how man-made compounds can deplete the ozone layer and thus avoid potentially catastrophic environmental consequences.

Although we all agree that masks play an important role in slowing the spread of the novel coronavirus, the conclusions of this study are based on falsified statements and are methodologically flawed, with a statement on June 18 saying that based on a comparison of linear case slopes between regions, the article uses masks as an observation variable but ignores policy differences between regions, including those on whether or not to wear masks.

If you have other different ideas and views, you can share your personal views in the comment area below, if you like me, you can pay attention to it, and finally wish you all the best.

Because wearing a mask cannot be long-term, it is generally only necessary to wear a mask for prevention when the epidemic virus is to be infected, and if you wear a mask for a long time, it will lead to breathing problems, and the air you breathe is not the fresh air that flows.

1 The analysis ignored the time lag between the spread of the virus and the number of reported cases; 2 The date of implementation of the policy is not a good representation of the behavior of the population; 3 The policy period is also accompanied by a series of great social changes, which will affect the new coronavirus infection rate; 4 The number of cases adopts a simple linear regression model, which does not conform to the dynamic law of infectious diseases. 5 The demographics, policies, and contact behaviors of Wuhan, Italy, New York City, and the United States are inappropriately considered nearly equivalent in terms of the pandemic; 6 The absence of measures to measure or propose statistical uncertainty is a departure from scientific norms, especially given that the analysis is based on only three regions.

Because the most important thing in the current epidemic is not to study how to wear a mask, but to conduct an in-depth study of the overall situation, the ultimate purpose of wearing a mask is not to prevent the entry of the virus, as long as you wear it correctly.

For this study, it can be said that the conclusions are correct, but the method of process analysis is full of errors. Heathers and other opponents said in a statement that the study was based on a comparison of the slope of linear case numbers between regions, and that masks were used as an observation variable, ignoring policy differences between regions, including whether or not to wear masks.

This afternoon, I was going to eat, and then after thinking about it, I found that I had eaten all the more reasonable working meals near the company, so I decided to go to the Wandelong supermarket near the company with my colleagues to buy something to eat.

When I arrived at the door, I found that due to the epidemic, I had to measure my temperature, scan the itinerary code, and wear a mask.

It's troublesome, but in order to cooperate with the epidemic work, they all did it one by one, and at the last step, they didn't wear masks. Then, they had masks at the door, thinking they were delivered. As a result, it was sold, a bag of 2 yuan 10, we said not so much, just 1, because colleagues have it, but people do not sell, saying that the company stipulates that it cannot be dismantled.

Later, my colleague, when I went in, I waited at the door. In the process of waiting, I found that many people did not wear masks, some bought masks and went in, and some left.

After about 20 minutes, my colleague came out and we went back.

In fact, this question is a very small one. If this janitor is a person who is the leader and management of a supermarket, he will never refuse customers to enter the supermarket in order to sell 2 yuan masks. 2 masks for one person are also very valuable.

But the person at the door, if he is a person who sells things, then his thinking is, I can sell an extra 2 yuan now.

I am in the IT industry, doing first-class promotion and other services for enterprises. So, I know how important service is and how easy word of mouth is.

This small action of the supermarket, their 3 people who are in charge of epidemic prevention at the door, probably don't understand this truth. Or maybe they have limited knowledge. Hehe, or I'm too smart myself. The mind is too active.

If the supermarket distributes masks for free, is it a transfer or a loss?