Ten,
This list could go on for a very long time. I'm picking the first few that are returned in my search for "MASKS DON'T WORK", hence, not searching for the alternate outcome of "MASKS WORK". Also, you will not find much under "MASKS DON'T WORK" on Google, which has clearly struck such inquiries from its search engine organic finds. You really have to work for these on Google. Lately, I'm using DuckDuckGo.
What I've seen from looking at this issue is the pro-mask side tends to promote less scientific investigation and more anecdotal. The reason, one would assume, is the science doesn't find the designed outcome. Thus, may comparison with Climate Science, which does the same.
I urge you to look at some of these articles and the hundreds of additional articles you can find on your own with an entirely open mind, free of non-scientific bias. Which I know can be difficult.
===============
Please consider the weak quality of the list you provided. A "hair salon in Springfield, MO" reports there were no Covid infections while a universal mask wearing mandate was in place.
Arizona has a mask mandate and amazingly, the number of cases declined. Couldn't be that it was just time for a decline, right?
In Kansas, after mandates the case rate decreased by 0.08 vs increased by 0.11 when there was no mandate. You don't really think that shows causality, I'm certain.
This is problem with the "masks work" analysis. They struggle to come up with anything substantive.
This article is a list of other articles that seem to support the claim, yet based on poor or nonexistent science.
Contrast that with other research on the other side of the issue:
Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 cmaj.ca (“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk . . .")
Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, academic.oup.com
Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.
Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).
Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.
Masks and respirators do not work Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy | River Cities' Reader (rcreader.com)
=================
A Danish study (RCT) on whether masks prevent Covid-19 from being transmitted has been delayed for months. Now we know why. The study concluded they don’t work. If the study had concluded they do work, it would have been shouted out by the MSM four months ago. No one in the MSM will mention this scientific study because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Results:A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results.
Conclusion:The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 3 (acpjournals.org)
=================
MIT Medical, specific to cloth masks (which many if not most people are still using, if they wear a mask at all):
ResultsThe rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
ConclusionsThis study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers (nih.gov)
=================
Here's Mayo's claim (not a real study, just some comments). So, they know masks help but can't really say to what extent it is the mask and not the handwashing and distancing that matters. Serious science, you know...
Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.
How well do face masks protect against coronavirus? - Mayo Clinic
=================
CDC
Face Masks
 Figure 2. Meta-analysis of risk ratios for the effect of face mask use with or without enhanced hand hygiene on laboratory-confirmed influenza from 10 randomized controlled trials with >6,500 participants. A) Face mask...
In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) ( Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group ( 33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months ( 9, 10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies ( 9, 10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only ( 34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only ( 35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts ( 11– 13, 15, 17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group ( 11– 13, 15, 17, 34, 35). Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group.
Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids ( 36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles ( 37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit.
In lower-income settings, it is more likely that reusable cloth masks will be used rather than disposable medical masks because of cost and availability ( 38). There are still few uncertainties in the practice of face mask use, such as who should wear the mask and how long it should be used for. In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks, but compliance in uninfected close contacts could be a problem ( 12, 34). Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission ( 39). Thus, education on the proper use and disposal of used face masks, including hand hygiene, is also needed.
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures - Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC |
