研究发现口罩会增加医护人员感染的风险

2020年5月29日09:36:09 5 566 9881字阅读32分56秒
摘要

2015年发表的一项研究发现,戴口罩会增加医护人员感染的风险。它还质疑了医用口罩的功效。


事实:2015年发表的一项研究发现,戴口罩会增加医护人员感染的风险。它还质疑了医用口罩的功效。

反思:如果口罩在紧急情况下可能无法保护医护人员,那么它们对公众有什么好处呢?卫生监管机构作出的决定是否始终符合公众的最佳利益?

A lot of places are mandating that people wear a mask.Some grocery stores here in Canada are making it mandatory for people who want to do some shopping,and Los Angeles County recently mandated that all people must wear a mask when going outside.But do these measures really help?We are living in strange times when people like Bill Gates are getting a lot of T.V.time,as he seems to be the world's leading'health'authority on the new coronavirus,what we should do,and how we're going to stop it.On the other hand,there are several doctors and leading epidemiologists around the world who have been studying viruses for decades that have been censored from social media platforms for sharing their research and opinions.Their interviews are being taken down,and some have even been flagged as'fake.'Ask yourself,what's wrong with this picture?Many of them are suggesting that the new coronavirus is not nearly as dangerous as it's being made out to be.There have been multiple studies that have also suggested this based on the data that researchers have accumulated.Mainstream media is trying really hard to shape our perception with regards to everything that surrounds the new coronavirus,from treatment,lockdowns,to social distancing and much more.

许多地方都要求人们戴口罩。加拿大的一些杂货店强制要求想购物的人必须戴口罩,洛杉矶县最近强制要求所有人外出时必须戴口罩。但这些措施真的有用吗?我们生活在一个奇怪的时代,像比尔·盖茨这样的人有很多电视时间,因为他似乎是世界领先的新冠状病毒卫生权威,我们应该做什么,以及我们如何阻止它。另一方面,世界各地有几位医生和顶尖的流行病学家几十年来一直在研究病毒,他们因为分享自己的研究和观点而受到社交媒体平台的审查。他们的采访被撤下,其中一些甚至被标记为"假的"问问你自己,这个图片有什么问题?他们中的许多人认为这种新型冠状病毒并不像人们所认为的那样危险。基于研究人员积累的数据,已经有多项研究表明了这一点。主流媒体正在努力塑造我们对围绕新冠状病毒的一切的看法,从治疗、封锁到社会距离等等。

We've covered a few examples of these experts giving their opinions with regards to how dangerous this virus actually is,what the solution is,treatments and more.If you're interested you can refer to the articles linked at the bottom of this one.At the end of the day,a lot of what these doctors,scientists and epidemiologists have been saying since the beginning of this outbreak,up until now,has completely contradicted the narrative of federal health regulatory agencies and the World Health Organization(WHO).In fact,social media and other platforms are banning content that opposes and contradicts the WHO,no matter how much evidence is behind the information,or even if the sources are some of the leading experts in the world.

我们已经报道了这些专家的一些例子,他们就这种病毒的危险程度、解决方法、治疗方法等问题发表了自己的看法。如果你感兴趣,你可以参考下面链接的文章。到头来,这些医生、科学家和流行病学家从这次疫情爆发开始到现在所说的许多话,与联邦卫生监管机构和世界卫生组织(WHO)的说法完全相反。事实上,社交媒体和其他平台正在禁止反对和反对世界卫生组织的内容,不管这些信息背后有多少证据,或者即使这些信息来源是世界上一些顶尖的专家。

Should there be a digital authoritarian Orwellian'fact checker'going around the internet telling people what is,and what isn't?Or should people have the right to examine information,check sources and evidence and ultimately decide for themselves?

是否应该有一个数字专制的奥威尔式的"事实核查员"在互联网上告诉人们什么是,什么不是?还是说人们应该有权检查信息,核查来源和证据,并最终自己做出决定?

Special note to our followers:Is 5G safe?Learn the unbiased truth and the steps to implement better solutions in your community at the 5G Health Summit.It's a free worldwide call to action from the leading independent experts,scientists and doctors in the field.You can sign up here.

特别提醒我们的追随者:5 g 安全吗?在5G 健康峰会上学习公正的真理和在你的社区实施更好的解决方案的步骤。这是全世界领先的独立专家、科学家和该领域医生发出的一个自由的行动号召。你可以在这里登记。

So the question is,can we really trust these health authorities to guide us into doing what's really best for us?Is this really about our health or is something else going on here?Are there powerful people profiting off of this both politically and financially?Was Edward Snowden correct when he said that the new coronavirus fiasco is no different from 9/11,in that it's simply being used to push more authoritarian measures on the population?Just like they remained after 9/11,will they remain after this coronavirus?Why are there apps tracking people for coronavirus,but not for the pedophiles,murderers and rapists?These are important things to think about.

所以问题是,我们真的能够相信这些健康权威引导我们去做对我们真正最好的事情吗?这真的是关系到我们的健康还是有其他原因?是否有有权势的人从中获得政治和经济利益?爱德华·斯诺登说新型冠状病毒的惨败和9·11事件没有什么不同,只不过是被用来向民众推行更加专制的措施,他说的对吗?就像它们在911之后仍然存在一样,它们在这种冠状病毒之后还会存在吗?为什么有应用程序跟踪人们的冠状病毒,而不是恋童癖,杀人犯和强奸犯?这些都是需要考虑的重要事情。

There is a lot of conflicting information out there and again,if you're interested in going a little deeper you can refer to the articles listed at the end of this one.

这里有很多相互矛盾的信息,如果你有兴趣深入一点,你可以参考本文末尾列出的文章。

But what about masks?Do they really help?How effective are they?According to Dr.Dan Erickson(former emergency-room physician)and Dr.Artin Massihi(emergency medicine specialist affiliated with multiple hospitals)of Accelerated Urgent Care in California,they're not helping at all.

但是面具呢?它们真的有帮助吗?它们的效果如何?根据 Dan Erickson 博士(前急诊室医生) Artin Massihi 博士(多家附属医院的急诊医学专家)的说法,他们根本没有帮助。

When you wear gloves that transfer disease everywhere,those gloves have bacteria all over them."I'm wearing gloves,"not helping you…Your mask that you're wearing for days,you touch the outside of it,COVID,and then touch your mouth,this doesn't make any sense.We wear masks in an acute setting to protect us,we're not wearing masks(right now).Why is that?Because we understand microbiology,we understand immunology and we want strong immune systems.I don't want to hide in my home,develop a weak immune system,and then come out and get disease.We've both been to the ER through swine flu and through bird flu,did we shut down for those?Were they much less dangerous than COVID?Is the flu less dangerous than COVID?Let's look at the death rates,no it's not.They're similar in prevalence and in death rate.(source)

当你戴着手套到处传播疾病时,那些手套上面全是细菌。"我戴着手套,"对你没有帮助...你戴了好几天的面具,你摸了它的外面,然后摸了摸你的嘴,这没有任何意义。我们在紧急情况下戴口罩来保护自己,我们现在没有戴口罩。为什么?因为我们了解微生物学,我们了解免疫学,我们需要强大的免疫系统。我不想躲在家里,发展出一个脆弱的免疫系统,然后出来得病。我们都曾经因为猪流感和禽流感去过急诊室,我们是因为这些而关闭的吗?他们的危险性是否远远低于 COVID?流感的危险性是否低于腹腔积液?让我们看看死亡率,不,不是的。它们的患病率和死亡率相似。(来源)

According to a study published in BMJ Open in 2015,

根据2015年发表在《英国医学杂志》上的一项研究,

This 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.

这项研究是第一个 RCT 的布面具,结果告诫使用布面具。这是告知职业健康和安全的一个重要发现。保湿、重复使用布面具和过滤不良可能会增加感染的风险。需要进一步的研究来了解布面具在全球的广泛使用。不过,作为预防措施,医护人员不应建议佩戴口罩,特别是在高危情况下,有关指引需要更新。

We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks,which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection.Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks,and also performed worse than the control arm.The controls were HCWs who observed standard practice,which involved mask use in the majority,albeit with lower compliance than in the intervention arms.The control HCWs also used medical masks more often than cloth masks.When we analysed all mask-wearers including controls,the higher risk of cloth masks was seen for laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection.

我们已经提供了第一批口罩的临床疗效数据,建议医护人员不要使用口罩来预防呼吸道感染。与医用口罩相比,布口罩的感染率要高得多,而且比对照组的感染率更低。对照组的医护人员遵守标准做法,大多数人使用面具,尽管遵守程度低于干预组。医护人员使用医用口罩的频率也比使用布口罩的频率高。当我们分析了所有戴口罩的人,包括对照组,发现经实验室确认的呼吸道病毒感染戴口罩的风险更高。

According to the study,it was unclear if they help at all,and that they probably need to be worn at all times in acute/dangerous settings within the hospital to be effective at all.

根据这项研究,目前还不清楚它们是否有任何帮助,而且它们可能需要在医院内的急性/危险环境中始终佩戴才能发挥作用。

There are also other potential health consequences of wearing not just a cloth mask,but also medical masks.The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance,modified exercise endurance,headaches and dyspnea.The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness,increased irritability,severe dyspnea,headache,dizziness,perspiration,and short-term memory loss.(source)

戴口罩还有其他潜在的健康后果,不仅仅是布口罩,还有医用口罩。呼吸提高的吸入二氧化碳的生理效应可能包括视觉表现的改变,运动耐力的改变,头痛和呼吸困难。心理影响包括推理和警觉性降低,易怒,严重呼吸困难,头痛,头晕,出汗,和短期记忆丧失。(来源)

This study suggests that masks don't really help,and depending on the material,they can actually make things worse.That being said,there are studies suggesting that medical masks are indeed effective,but the studies are referring to health care workers in acute settings,not the general public.

这项研究表明,面具并没有真正起到帮助作用,而且根据材料的不同,它们实际上会使事情变得更糟。也就是说,有研究表明医用口罩确实有效,但这些研究是针对急诊环境中的医护人员,而不是普通大众。

Below is a quote from a very interesting paper published in 2016,titled "The Surgical Mask Is A Bad Fit For Risk Reduction."

以下是2016年发表的一篇非常有趣的论文的引言,题目是"外科口罩不适合降低风险"

As represented by our cinema and other media,Western society expects too much of masks.In the public's mind,the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label;masks are thought to prevent infection.From here,another problem arises:because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting,people wearing masks for legitimate purposes(those who have a cough in a hospital,say)form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it.Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear,especially in Asia,where such fear is high.The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks—that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus—is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.

正如我们的电影和其他媒体所代表的那样,西方社会对面具的期望太高了。在公众心目中,仍然合法使用口罩进行源头控制已经超出了标签的范围;口罩被认为可以防止感染。从这里,另一个问题出现了:因为在社区环境中,外科口罩被认为可以防止感染,所以人们戴口罩是为了合法的目的(比如说,那些在医院里咳嗽的人),构成了更大的误解的一部分,并且加强了误解。即使是这种正确使用外科口罩的做法,也被纳入了大流行恐惧时代的一种更大规模的不当使用中,尤其是在亚洲,那里的恐惧情绪非常高涨。人们对使用医用口罩的普遍误解是德国社会学家乌尔里希贝克(Ulrich Beck)提出的一个理论问题。人们认为戴口罩可以防止病毒传播。

The birth of the mask came from the realization that surgical wounds need protection from the droplets released in the breath of surgeons.The technology was applied outside the operating room in an effort to control the spread of infectious epidemics.In the 1919 influenza pandemic,masks were available and were dispensed to populations,but they had no impact on the epidemic curve.At the time,it was unknown that the influenza organism is nanoscopic and can theoretically penetrate the surgical mask barrier.As recently as 2010,the US National Academy of Sciences declared that,in the community setting,"face masks are not designed or certified to protect the wearer from exposure to respiratory hazards."A number of studies have shown the inefficacy of the surgical mask in household settings to prevent transmission of the influenza virus…

口罩的诞生是因为人们意识到外科手术的伤口需要保护,以防止外科医生呼出的飞沫。这项技术应用于手术室外,以控制传染病的传播。在1919年的流感大流行,口罩是可以获得的,并且分发给人们,但是它们对流行曲线没有影响。当时,还不知道流感病毒是纳米级的,理论上可以穿透外科口罩屏障。就在2010年,美国国家科学院宣布,在社区环境中,"口罩的设计和认证都不能保护佩戴者免受呼吸道危害。"许多研究表明,外科口罩在家庭环境中防止流感病毒传播的作用不大。

来源:

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/05/15/study-cautions-against-use-of-cloth-masks-because-they-can-increase-your-risk-of-infection/

  • 本文由 发表于 2020年5月29日09:36:09
  • 除非特殊声明,本站文章均来自网络,转载请务必保留本文链接

评论已关闭!

评论:5   其中:访客  4   博主  1
    • avatar safag 1

      你们的网站一直在不负责任的散布各种虚假新闻,医护人员不戴口罩让病毒直接进到身体里去吗,病毒是纳米级,但是现在的病毒在飞沫里传播,飞沫不是纳米级,所以才有一定用处,在这种时期,放出这种明显有问题的东西,完全误导。

        • avatar zhunbeizhuanbian

          回复 safag 去好好研究下,再去下结论,放下批判的思想,独立思考。见证真理的时候就要到了,你会看到哪些是假新闻的,感恩您。

          • avatar 123 5

            回复 safag 亲,别用自己的认为去理解,这世界的背后有着你不知道的很多事情,有些都是你无法理解,

            • avatar 宇宙骑士 9

              回复 safag 医护人员用口罩阻挡病毒本身就是错误,你知道病毒是纳米级,是通过飞沫传播,你有没有思考过,积累病毒的潮湿口罩是不是病毒传播源?医护人员是活人,人要呼吸,呼吸让口罩潮湿,医护人员接触病人过程中需要和病人对话,即使病人戴口罩也会咳嗽,咳嗽过程中病毒或多或少会喷散在空气中,医护人员近距离接触,病毒被积累在医疗人员那湿润的口罩上,如果是干燥的环境,传染力越强的病毒越容易死亡,但是湿润的口罩有利于病毒长期存活,因此,医护人员的口罩会成为病毒的传播源,研究问题才有可能改善问题,外国新闻并不是要让医护人员放弃防护,他们的观点是认为口罩没有实际作用,应该改变医护人员的防护工具,医护人员应该有属于医护人员专用的防护设备,而不应该是一片纸或一块布作的口罩,或许外国的医生们有可能让官方同意将隐藏的高级医疗科技拿出来,这也有助于将来要进行的全面揭露;

              口罩挡不住病毒,你我都明白,你们总是要等到生死存亡的时候才愿意改革,曾经提醒你们进行全面揭露,畏惧邪恶势力的人不愿意揭露,当权者为了利益纵容罪恶与狼共舞,现在全人类被邪恶势力投放的病毒残杀,面对这次遍布全球的病毒袭击,难道你们还不愿意反抗幕后组织?还不肯进行全面揭露公开那些被长期隐藏着的高科技?在你们的时间结束之前,你们还有机会,你们即将错过最后的时机……

              • avatar 茉儿 1

                回复 safag 别在这个社会和主流媒体塑造和灌输的”常识”里陷得太深了。跳出”常识”思维的圈子,弄清病毒的真实面目是什么,人类的真实能力是什么,社会的真实样子是什么,然后才能理解文章的内容。
                基于一些错误的知识储备去判断和下定义是错误/没有意义的。