[ad_1]
From about the 13th minute into the discussion, even moderator Markus Lanz seemed surprised by what the president of the Medical Association, Klaus Reinhardt, said about everyday masks at ZDF on Thursday night. After all, the class representative of the German medical profession seemed to doubt one of the few means in the fight against the crown crisis: the mask requirement.
He’s not convinced about everyday masks, Reinhardt says, “because there is no scientific evidence that they are really helpful, especially not in self-protection and probably very little in protecting against infection from others.” In relation to the mask requirement in public places, he spoke of a “mask requirement”. That’s all your personal opinion, so Reinhardt. In no case does he want to be instrumentalized in a “war of masks” in quotation marks. Lanz then rightly asked: Can there be an opinion given the scientific evidence?
“The mask requirement is not discussed in German expert circles”
Karl Lauterbach, an SPD health expert, physician and epidemiologist, demanded Reinhardt’s resignation if he did not withdraw his statements immediately. What Reinhardt presented to “Lanz” is scientifically untenable. “The mask requirement is not discussed in German specialist circles,” Lauterbach said.
One reason for the ongoing debate: At the beginning of the crown crisis, experts were initially hesitant to recommend everyday masks. There was great concern that the mask could lull people to a false sense of security and cause those wearing them to adhere to distance rules less frequently. Also, masks were hard to come by at the time.
However, when it became clear that people could transmit the virus before they were aware of the infection, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) turned around. Because if practically anyone can be infected without knowing it, it makes sense that everyone also uses a mask. Therefore, since mid-April, the RKI recommends wearing a mask where the distance rules cannot be respected, for example, in public transport or in the supermarket.
Meanwhile, scientists have presented dozens of studies talking about the effectiveness of masks in the crown crisis. Some examples:
But why do scientists have to resort to hamsters and extrapolations to prove the effectiveness of masks in the crown crisis?
In theory, the safest evidence would be to lock an infected person in a room with other people and wait to see if wearing a mask prevents infection. However, human provocation studies in which people are intentionally exposed to pathogens are controversial. It should be accepted that previously healthy subjects would become seriously ill. As long as there are no drugs that reliably prevent Covid 19 deaths, the Paul Ehrlich Institute considers such studies in the corona crisis unjustifiable.
However, studies leading up to the corona crisis showed that masks can protect against viruses. A British research team had tested various substances for their permeability using the Escherichia MS2 virus, which is harmless to humans. The result: a surgical mask was able to contain 90 percent of the viruses when exhaling, a dish towel still 70 percent, and a scarf 49 percent. Another study showed that surgical masks could also contain the flu, rhinoceros, and coronaviruses closely related to Sars-CoV-2 that can make people sick.
“The mask has an effect, yes. Period.”
Each individual study may have its weaknesses, but collectively they have a scientific streak, which is why experts now agree: Everyday masks can reduce the risk of infection, but they are not a substitute for keeping your distance, washing your hands well. , ventilation and other corona restrictions.
By the way, the president of the Reinhardt Medical Association sees it that way too. In the course of the discussion with Lanz he relativized his previous statements and said: “The mask has an effect, yes. Period.” However, it depends on how they are used: as an everyday mask or half wet and not washed for a week, it is something different. (You can read here how to properly care for masks.) He also considers mandatory outdoor masks, for example in markets, to be “medical nonsense”.
In fact, infection outdoors is much less likely than in closed rooms. However, the RKI generally recommends wearing mouth and nose protection outdoors if the minimum distance cannot be maintained. Reinhardt also made it clear in a statement with the rest of the cameras of the main doctors: wearing oral and nasal protection makes sense if the minimum distance cannot be maintained.
