Photo by Anna Shvets from Pexels
Time to Clear the Air about Wearing Masks by Lance J. Morris
T
hroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of wearing masks has become the symbol for the line drawn in the sand between those who believe masks are essential and critical for protecting themselves and others, versus those who believe that masks are a farce, protecting no one—and are even harmful. This has also become the symbol between those who believe it is their civic, moral and ethical responsibility to wear masks and those who believe that wearing masks represents an affront to their fundamental freedom and autonomy. These are radically different view-
points. Is one right and the other wrong? Both camps seem convinced they are in the right. Opposing perspectives are adamantly proclaimed with supporting evidence. Let’s look at both sides of the story and try to offer a rational compromise. Part of the public’s confusion has been exacerbated by a lack of clear guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relative to mask wearing. At the very beginning of the pandemic, their guidance was to wash hands and engage in social distancing only. In February, the CDC added wearing masks for symptomatic patients. It was not
until April that the CDC recommended masks for the general public. This change occurred due to the previously unrecognized reality of asymptomatic people being vectors for COVID-19 infection transmission. In July, 31 states mandated the wearing of masks in public venues where social distancing is not possible. To be clear, at no time has any physician or agency, medical or governmental, stated or even suggested that the addition of masks is some kind of panacea against COVID-19. What has been evident from the beginning is a dominant consensus among health professionals that the appropriate wearing of masks, combined with hand washing, wiping of surfaces and social distancing, decreases the probability of COVID-19 transmission and infection. Both camps site several cogent arguments both against and for mask-wearing. AGAINST: Viral particles pass through any masks, including N-95s, as readily as the air we breathe. This is a function of particle size. Masks are excellent for blocking bacteria, but not viruses. FOR: Although true, masks are effective in reducing the spray of viral containing droplets primarily from coughing, sneezing and any form of vocal exuberance. This does not eliminate, but reduces the “infectious dose” exposure. There is a direct correlation with the “viral load at diagnosis” as an “independent predictor of mortality”. Therefore, low initial exposure increases the probability of being asymptomatic or having only modest symptoms and increasing natural immunity. AGAINST: Masks may decrease available cellular oxygen, while increasing carbon dioxide. This may lead to a decrease in functional immunity, as well as creating other metabolic complications. FOR: This may be true, but much more with wet or contaminated masks, physical exertion or in hot climates like Arizona. In one local holistic office, when using a pulse oximeter to test oxygen levels of all patients wearing masks (including cardiac, asthma and COPD patients), all were found to have normal oxygen levels.
24
Tucson Edition
NaturalTucson.com
