The new theory asks: could the mask be a crude ‘vaccine’?

As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come up with a provocative new theory: that the mask will help some people be brutally vaccinated against the virus.

This insecure idea, described in a commentary published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is inspired by the age-old notion of intentional exposure to a pathogenic disease to produce a protected immune response. Attempted first against smallpox, the dangerous practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the emergence of a modern vaccine.

Masked exposure is not an alternative to the Bona feed vaccine. But data from animals infected with coronavirus, as well as insights gained from other diseases, suggest that masks reduce the likelihood of getting sick, by cutting down on the number of viruses found in a person’s airways. And if a small number of pathogens still slip, the researchers argue, this will ask the body to produce immune cells that remember the virus and revolve around fighting it again.

The infectious disease physician at the University of San Francisco, Dr. “You may have the virus, but it may be asymptomatic,” said Monica Gandhi. “So if you can run the rate of asymptomatic infection from the mask, maybe it will become a way to diversify the population.”

This does not mean that people should not donate masks to inoculate themselves with the virus. This. “This is not a recommendation,” Gandhi said. “Neither are pox parties,” he added, referring to social gatherings that bring together the healthy and the sick.

The theory cannot be proven directly without clinical trials that compare the results of people who are unmaxed with those masked in the presence of coronavirus – an unethical experimental setup. And while outside experts were interested by the theory, they were reluctant to accept it without further data, and advised to interpret it carefully.

“It sounds like a leap,” said Saskia Popescu, an Arizona-based infectious disease epidemiologist who was not involved in the comments. “We don’t have much to support him.”

Incorrectly, this idea can be dispelled in the false sense of scattering through the nucleus, potentially endangering them more than before, or perhaps even reinforcing the misconception that facial ingots are completely useless against coronavirus, as they can render the wearer. No. Impervious to infection.

“We still want people to follow all other prevention strategies,” he said. Popescu said. That means being vigilant about avoiding crowds, physical distance, and hand hygiene – behaviors that overlap in their effect, but can’t replace one another.

Coronavirus variology theory rests on two assumptions that are difficult to prove: low doses of the virus lead to less serious disease, and that mild or asymptomatic infections may stimulate long-term protection against subsequent stages of the disease. Although other pathogens offer some precedent for both concepts, the evidence for coronavirus is scattered, in part because scientists have had the opportunity to study the virus for only a few months.

Hamster experiments have indicated a link between dose and disease. Earlier this year, a team of researchers in China found that hamsters behind a barrier made of surgical masks were less likely to be infected with the coronavirus. And those who contracted the virus became less sick than other animals without masks to protect them.

Some observations in humans also support this tendency. In dense settings where masks are widely used, the rate of infection is reduced. And while facial ingots may not block all infectious virus particles for all people, they do seem to be less likely to be associated with the disease. Researchers have uncovered mostly quiet, asymptomatic rages in places ranging from cruise ships to food processing plants, filled with mostly hidden people.

Data have been collected for other microorganisms combining doses with symptoms that invade the human airways, including influenza viruses and tuberculosis-causing pathogens.

But despite decades of research, the mechanics of aerated transmission remain largely a “black box,” said Jyoti Rangrajan, a vaccine and infectious disease specialist at Emory University, who was not involved in the comments.

This is partly because it is difficult to pinpoint the amount of infection a person needs to get sick, says Dr. Said Rangraj. Even after the researchers finally settled on the average dose, the results could vary from person to person, as heredity, a person’s immune status and the architecture of his nasal passages, all affect how the virus can colonize the respiratory tract.

And confirming the second part of the verification theory – that the mask enters the virus enough to induce immunity – can also be difficult. Although some recent studies have pointed to the possibility that mild cases of Covid-19 may induce strong immunity to the coronavirus, sustainable defense cannot be proven until researchers collect data on the infections months or years after this accumulation.

Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, said she was not involved in the comment. “But I’m still very skeptical.”

“It’s important to remember that vaccines are inherently less dangerous than the actual infection, which is why methods like inoculation have finally become obsolete,” he said. Before vaccines are discovered, doctors rub smallpox scabs or bits of pus into the skin of healthy people. The resulting infections were usually less severe than smallpox cases, but “people definitely contracted smallpox and died from contraindications,” Dr. Ras said. Said Ramses. And unlike vaccination violations can make people contagious to others.

Dr. Gandhi. Gandhi recognized these limitations, that there should be nothing but doctrine. Still, she said, “Why not run the prospect of not getting sick and having a little immunity while we wait for the vaccine?”