By Vinicius SalesIn a letter sent out to the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) this Monday (13 ), the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) confessed that the masks utilized to avoid covid-19 infection are inadequate against the illness writes Brasil Sem Medo in its latest report.

Finally, there are already research studies of excellent clinical significance that show the inefficiency of such a measure in decreasing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Such investigations present a range of approaches, data sources, and kinds of analysis that need detailed evaluations far beyond the mere reading of titles and abstracts or even making use of automated tools, states the CFM in the file obtained exclusively by Brasil Sem Medo.The letter highlights that the masks can include big covid-19 particles but mentions that there is strong evidence that the finer particles are not avoided by the masks because they tend to stay in the air for a long time and travel relatively cross countries.

The file mentions a meta-analysis released by the largest evidence-based medication center on the world, the Cochrane Library (Photo web recreation)The CFM also explains that the lack of uniformity of masks readily available to the population impacts the eventual efficacy in a really pertinent method due to the various types, products, formats, and quality, in addition to their use, adjustment and cleaning, and the environment included.

The autarchy likewise notes studies beneficial and unfavorable to mask use to support its conclusion.The document cites a meta-analysis released by the largest evidence-based medicine center on the planet, the Cochrane Library.The study took a look at 12 trials, comparing medical/surgical masks with not using masks to avoid the spread of viral respiratory diseases (two trials with healthcare employees and 10 in the neighborhood).

The CFM file citing the study says: Use of masks in the neighborhood likely makes little or no distinction in the outcome of influenza-like health problem (ILI)/ Covid-19-like disease compared with no use of masks (threat ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09 ″; 9 trials, 276,917 individuals; evidence of moderate certainty).

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no distinction in laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV -2 outcomes compared with not using masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; proof of moderate certainty).

Harm was determined seldom and badly reported (evidence of very low certainty).

The autarchy also exposes that the conclusions for inadequacy are based upon a meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCTs).

The masks make practically no distinction; the outcomes have no analytical significance, and the point estimates of efficacy are extremely near to zero.

Furthermore, the research study ratings no difference in effectiveness in between surgical masks and N95-- which dismantles the narrative propagated over the previous two years that this mask would be more effective.

Use of N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks most likely makes little or no difference to the objective, more precise result of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 individuals; proof of moderate certainty).

Restricting aggregation to healthcare employees made no distinction to total outcomes.

Harm was inadequately measured and reported, however discomfort with using medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in a number of research studies (extremely low certainty evidence), the study adds.The CFM likewise criticizes the measures taken by public authorities who utilized the supposed efficacy to make masks compulsory in several places.The autarchy cites Anvisas stance as an example.

Therefore, there is no clinical evidence that making use of masks in a trivialized and prevalent way in the neighborhood has any impact on the transmission of Covid-19 and even the decrease of disease.

This includes procedures such as those of the National Health Surveillance Agency, which has been requiring guests, team, and airport workers to use masks when getting in the so-called airside of the airport.

Besides having no evidence of security, there is evidence of harm to the health of crew members, travelers, and the environment, concludes the CFM.With info from Brasil Sem Medo (BSM)