From first study: "The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks. ... The control arm was ‘standard practice’, which comprised mask use in a high proportion of participants [NOT "mask free"]." -- this means "increase relative to surgical masks", not relative to no mask.

Second study is only N95s. Just don't wear an N95 if you need more air for aerobic capacity. The OP study shows that they're not _that_ much better than surgical masks anyway.

But hey believe what you want to believe.

not sure what your are getting at with the null hypothesis.

Look at the results. Mandatory cloth masks were associated with 3 times as many ILIs (Influenza Like Illnesses). So it is not some tiny statistical variation. It is a huge effect size.

As for the second study, it concludes:"The observed mechanisms may lead to more severe symptoms in individuals with impaired capacity for myocardial compensation."

I am talking about how the all sources of information systematically downplay the negative effects and serious side effects of masks.

Masks do have side effects. The relentless propaganda tells you that is a "mere inconvenience".

> 3 times as many ILIs

Compared to surgical masks. There was no study of unmasked people. I expect it would be 10x.

> The observed mechanisms may lead to more severe symptoms in individuals with impaired capacity for myocardial compensation.

The study was only on N95 masks! Most people are wearing surgical or cloth, it's irrelevant.

> I am talking about how the all sources of information systematically downplay the negative effects and serious side effects of masks.

There appear to be very few, similar to how all sources downplay the negative effects of walking on the sidewalk vs walking in the road.

I would be a lot more sympathetic if you targeted your ire at "washing down surfaces", because that seems irrelevant with respect to spread. But masks work, and that's the long and short of it.

You should give the paper a more careful read, it discusses all that.

The control group was typical use, whatever the staff chose to do, which included not using masks at all.

The use of masks in the control group was about 23%! And that included medical, N95 and possibly cloth masks as well. Whatever they would typically use.

Here is their conclusion:

"Given the obligations to HCW (Healthcare Workers) occupational health and safety, it is important to consider the potential risk of using cloth masks."

This is a bad faith post intentionally spreading misinformation.

Ignoring the quality of these studies, the first concluded that cloth masks were less effective than medical masks, not that the are worse than no mask. It also evaluated and discussed the use of cloth masks to protect health care workers, not to slow the spread of sars-cov-2 via respiratory droplets.

The second, tiny, study says nothing about damage. Their results suggested that surgical masks reduce cardiopulmonary function slightly with surgical masks and a little more with N95 masks.

That is not what the paper found, all you need is to read the abstract:

"Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm"

As for the second paper here is the summarry:

"The increased breathing resistance is especially problematic for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Patients with diffusion disorders have reduced capacity to compensate due to the reduced tidal volume. Another example of a population at risk is patients with heart failure. The observed mechanisms may lead to more severe symptoms in individuals with impaired capacity for myocardial compensation."

All I am pointing out is that masks are likely to have serious side effects, all which are completely disregarded and downplayed.

The control arm included mask usage.

Indeed, the paper is so valuable exactly because it looks at what happens when you force people to use the masks all the time.

it turns out it might be making the problem worse

The question is whether I trust your "survey" or the CDC's recommendation.

But also, in both cases based on a quick skim it seems to me like you're misrepresenting the studies. In the first study, the control was "normal practice" which included mask use. In the second study, I see no claims about cardiac damage; I understand it to say that masks make it harder to breathe, which is useful information but not very surprising.

That is exactly right! What the paper says is that masks should be used when necessary and according to the case presented to the medical staff. Not all the time.

When you force people to use the masks all the time you are making the problem worse.

When people are violently objecting to wearing a mask for 10 minutes in the store, I’m less worried about studies focusing on long-term mask usage and more worried about the impact of those spreading doubt.

I am concerned because they are about to force children wear masks 8 hours a day in school. What do you think it will happen when it comes out this was damaging to their health?

I think students with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases or heart failure should not be in school at all right now with a deadly virus floating around.

The title of the first study is:

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Not only is your presentation of its results in bad faith, you rely on people not reading the article.

We’ve also had studies which claim something along the line of ”Apples cause cancer” and the truth is that it happens only under some certain rare conditions and even then one might have 0.01% chance of increasing their chance to get a cancer by 0.1%. But hey, that’s an increase in possibility nevertheless!

the paper shows a tripling of cases when masks are used though, it is not about tiny percentages.