According to this article, there were tests in a lab, for individuals and for general population… all studies so far are flawed but to me, the results encourage mask-wearing, at least when rates are high in our community. The Cochrane report unfortunately took off in social media.
A couple of excerpts, by necessity taken out of context but still helpful:
For example, surgical masks work best against droplets. They can have aerosol impact but leak a lot. Cloth masks work for droplets too, but really don’t do much for aerosols. N95s are best, curbing spread via droplets and aerosols.
and
Don’t use an inconclusive Cochrane review to reject the value of masks, or any other intervention for that matter.
The other thing that I have noticed is that a certain model of N95 mask (found through Aaron Collins’ mask testing for both high filtration and high airflow) is more comfortable to wear and better fitting than any other mask that I have tried (including cloth, surgical-like, and KF94).
But one has to search for such masks. Someone who only has used uncomfortable masks may be less likely to wear them correctly, or use masks at all in higher risk situations or when requested.
I used Project N95 to avoid fakes, and discovered Powecom kn95 masks which fit well and are comfortable. They also don’t have any smell, which some masks have. I wear these a lot and they also help with allergies, asthma, and lung troubles in very cold weather.
I have been a fan of the Powecom kn95 masks since I first discovered them. Tying knots in the ear loops allows a better fit. My adult sons also preferred them, although the masks fit them w/o adjustment.
Phase 1 trials of a nasal vaccine against COVID-19 (using a viral vector bearing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) suggest that it is more effective as a booster than existing injected boosters. The idea is to stimulate immune response in the parts of the body where the virus typically enters.
But could the bivalent booster effectiveness be confounded by the bivalent booster being more recent than vaccination with the last dose less recently?
One thing that seems to be lacking in data collection and research in the US is how those who initially got the J&J vaccine compare to those who got Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
On one hand, those who initially got the J&J vaccine have been one dose behind those who got the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. However, this may be less of a concern once one reaches three doses (i.e. after two boosters if one’s primary series was one dose of J&J).
On the other hand, there is some evidence from a VHA study that a mix of mRNA (Pfizer or Moderna) and J&J vaccines gives a bit stronger protection than having the same number of doses of just one type of vaccine.
Some clinical trials of booster candidates (e.g. a nasal spray booster) only accept those who have had only mRNA vaccines.
But it would be nice to have some more data collection and research on the matter, though perhaps it is understandable that researchers in the US ignore what is probably only 10% or less of the vaccinated population in the US who got the J&J vaccine.
Gifted article. Still “low confidence”, but there you go. My husband has been convinced by actually going and looking for any matches in the gene sequences. Viruses aren’t his specialty, (cancer is) , but I trust him on why the science makes more sense to him.
First time when this idea was brought up at the beginning of pandemic it was ruled out as nonsense. It’s interesting that now the same news sources made complete turn around
Here is an interesting opinion on the virology research (hypothesis, methodology) that might have led to the pandemic and a call to end this specific research.
