“I want to apologize for advocating for the use of masks” – Spread of respiratory illnesses not slowed down by mask use

Duane Rolheiser

Published

3 years ago

7 minute read

The study examines the effectiveness of masks and of following a hand hygiene program in reducing the likelihood of acquiring respiratory virus infections such as COVID-19.

British Health Researcher Dr. John Campbell shares the disappointing results in this presentation:

From the Cochrane Library

What did we do?
We searched for randomised controlled studies that looked at physical measures to stop people acquiring a respiratory virus infection.

We were interested in how many people in the studies caught a respiratory virus infection, and whether the physical measures had any unwanted effects.

What did we find?
We identified 78 relevant studies. They took place in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non‐epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID‐19. Five trials were funded by government and pharmaceutical companies, and nine trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

We assessed the effects of:

· medical or surgical masks;

· N95/P2 respirators (close‐fitting masks that filter the air breathed in, more commonly used by healthcare workers than the general public); and

· hand hygiene (hand‐washing and using hand sanitiser).

We obtained the following results:

Medical or surgical masks

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.

N95/P2 respirators

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well‐reported; discomfort was mentioned.

Hand hygiene

Following a hand hygiene programme may reduce the number of people who catch a respiratory or flu‐like illness, or have confirmed flu, compared with people not following such a programme (19 studies; 71,210 people), although this effect was not confirmed as statistically significant reduction when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed ILI were analysed separately. Few studies measured unwanted effects; skin irritation in people using hand sanitiser was mentioned.

Dr. John Campbells presentation notes with links:

RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.

There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers, when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/…

Evidence published up to October 2022.

Background Influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.

We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Main results 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs n = 610,872

Bringing the total number of RCTs to 78

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness

wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness

Risk ratio (RR) 0.95, (0.84 to 1.09) 9 trials, n = 276,917 participants

Moderate-certainty evidence.

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 RR 1.01, (CI 0.72 to 1.42)

6 trials, n = 13,919 Moderate-certainty evidence

Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence).

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks

We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness

Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness, or respiratory illness.

Confirmed influenza RR 0.70, (0.45 to 1.10) N = 7,779 Very low-certainty evidence

Influenza like illness N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI RR 0.82 N= 8,407 Low-certainty evidence

The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks

Probably makes little or no difference for laboratory-confirmed influenza infection RR 1.10 N = 8,407 Moderate-certainty evidence

Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings.

Harms were poorly measured and reported

Discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies

Very low-certainty evidence

One new RCT Medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators N = 1,009 healthcare workers in four countries, providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.

Duane Rolheiser

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

How Classic Slots Features Are Evolving

Environment / 6 days ago

The era of Climate Change Alarmism is over

Business / 6 days ago

You Won’t Believe What Canada’s Embassy in Brazil Has Been Up To

COVID-19

Crown still working to put Lich and Barber in jail

Published on November 6, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Crown’s appeal claims the judge made a mistake in her verdict on the intimidation charges, and also in how she treated aggravating and mitigating factors regarding sentencing.

Government lawyers for the Crown have filed an appeal the acquittals of Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber on intimidation charges.

The Crown also wants their recent 18-month conditional sentence on mischief charges replaced with harsher penalties, which could include possible jail time.

According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), it is “asking the Ontario Court of Appeal to enter a conviction on the intimidation charge or order a new trial on that count,” for Barber’s charges.

Specifically, the Crown’s appeal claims that the judge made a mistake in her verdict on the intimidation charges, and also in how she treated aggravating and mitigating factors regarding sentencing.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber have filed appeals of their own against their house arrest sentences, arguing that the trial judge did not correctly apply the law on their mischief charges.

Barber’s lawyer, Diane Magas, said that her client “relied in good faith on police and court direction during the protest. The principles of fairness and justice require that citizens not be punished for following the advice of authorities. We look forward to presenting our arguments before the Court.”

On October 7, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced Lich and Chris Barber to 18 months’ house arrest after being convicted earlier in the year of “mischief.”

Lich was given 18 months less time already spent in custody, amounting to 15 1/2 months.

The Lich and Barber trial concluded in September 2024, more than a year after it began. It was originally scheduled to last 16 days.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government was hoping to put Lich in jail for no less than seven years and Barber for eight years.

LifeSiteNews recently reported that Lich detailed her restrictive house arrest conditions, revealing she is “not” able to leave her house or even pick up her grandchildren from school without permission from the state.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich, reflecting on her recent house arrest verdict, said she has no “remorse” and will not “apologize” for leading a movement that demanded an end to all COVID mandates.

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to appeal her recent conviction

Published on November 5, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Lawyers will argue that there is no evidence linking Tamara Lich ‘to the misdeeds of others.’

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich said she will appeal her recent mischief conviction in an Ontario court, with her lawyers saying “there was no evidence linking her to the misdeeds of others.”

In a press release late yesterday, Lich’s legal team, headed by Lawrence Greenspon, Eric Granger, and Hannah Drennan, made the announcement.

“Lawyers for Tamara Lich filed Notice of Appeal in the Ontario Court of Appeal of the conviction for mischief arising out of the Freedom Convoy,” the release stated.

Lich’s legal team noted that there are two reasons for the principal grounds of appeal.

“While there was substantial evidence that Tamara encouraged the protesters to be peaceful, lawful and safe, there was no evidence linking her to the misdeeds of others,” they said.

The second reason for the appeal, according to Lich’s lawyers, is that the “trial judge failed to give effect to the principle that communication that would otherwise be mischief is protected by section 2(b) of the Charter, freedom of expression.”

On October 7, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced Lich and Chris Barber to 18 months’ house arrest after being convicted earlier in the year of “mischief.”

Lich was given 18 months less time already spent in custody, amounting to 15 1/2 months.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government was hoping to put Lich in jail for no less than seven years and Barber for eight years for their roles in the 2022 protests against COVID mandates.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich, reflecting on her recent sentencing of over a year’s house arrest for her role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy, laid bare the fact that when all is said in done, seven years of her life will have been spent in a government-imposed “lockdown” in one form or another.

LifeSiteNews recently reported that Lich detailed her restrictive house arrest conditions, revealing she is “not” able to leave her house or even pick up her grandkids from school without permission from the state.