izentrop wrote:If you stopped your systematic reviews before you understood anything
Imagine that I read the collective's article, hence my legitimate reaction.
izentrop wrote:If you stopped your systematic reviews before you understood anything
https://rogueesr.fr/20220209/#FFP2Comment on the HCSP report
Summary — “The mask alone cannot reduce the risk of transmission; it constitutes one measure among all the protective measures to be respected (vaccination, hand hygiene, ventilation of the premises, social distancing, etc.). »
This sentence from the summary is truly astounding. All of the scientific literature cited and commented on below demonstrates, on the contrary, that the FFP2 mask, in real use, filters viral particles 3 times better than surgical masks. By imagining a situation where everyone wears such masks, the risk of transmission is lowered by the square of the filtration power, since there is an effect on inhalation and exhalation. To date, there is no article proving that hand-held transmission constitutes a significant route of transmission. The introduction of hand hygiene, during the first weeks of the epidemic, was effective against gastroenteritis but affected the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 only marginally. No clinical study, no real population study has shown a significant effect of hand hygiene in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is also important for many epidemics. Finally, vaccination has indeed contributed to reducing transmission up to the Delta variant, but this is practically no longer the case for Omicron BA.1. The vaccines currently available to us have been designed to stimulate a good humoral immune response which, by acting as a barrier to the expansion of infectious foci in the tissues, protects against the serious forms of the disease. In contrast, their ability to stimulate a mucosal immune response, which protects against asymptomatic infections in the upper respiratory tract and against contagion, has only been evaluated for Astrazeneca, in phase III, with mixed results.
Summary — "The HCSP emphasizes that it seems difficult to envisage offering teachers the wearing of an FFP2-type respirator, due to its long-term discomfort with respiratory discomfort and the risk of loss of its expected filtration performance when speaking. and movements. »
FFP2 masks have been worn by teachers for 2 years, without experiencing any respiratory discomfort (in accordance with pressure drop measurements), or discomfort. The "expected filtration performance during speech and movement" is taken into account in the normative tests. It is therefore incorrect to speak of a "loss of performance" in relation to these filtration standards.
Summary — “In addition, it seems illusory to organize the control and compliance with the conditions of optimal use of such a mask, in particular the verification of the adjustment to the face linked to the model and the size of the FFP2 type APR put on. available."
FFP2 masks are much easier to wear correctly than surgical masks, by shaping the nose clip. In particular, FFP2s cannot be worn under the nose, unlike surgical masks. Measurements in the real population and in clinical tests show that the performance of FFP2s is significantly superior to that of surgical masks without any particular “fit verification” procedure. »
izentrop wrote:I don't see anything wrong, according to you which arguments are false then?
To date, there is no article proving that hand-held transmission constitutes a significant route of transmission. The introduction of hand hygiene, during the first weeks of the epidemic, was effective against gastroenteritis but affected the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 only marginally. No clinical study, no real population study has shown a significant effect of hand hygiene in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is also important for many epidemics.
Rather, it is the vaccine and the quality of care that protect against death.GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:Italy, Greece, Austria have switched to FFP2 since January 1st.
izentrop wrote:Rather, it is the vaccine and the quality of care that protect against death.
He says proudly as co-responsible for crimes.izentrop wrote:Rather, it is the vaccine and the quality of care that protects against death.
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 281 guests