Posts mislead by stating that WHO recognized ‘ineffectiveness’ in the use of masks

Posts mislead by stating that WHO recognized ‘ineffectiveness’ in the use of masks
Posts mislead by stating that WHO recognized ‘ineffectiveness’ in the use of masks
-

What they are sharing: that the World Health Organization (WHO) admitted, in a new update, the ineffectiveness of masks during the pandemic.

Estadão Verifica investigated and concluded that: is misleading. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO stated that the use of masks reduces the spread of respiratory diseases. This recommendation has never been changed. The misleading posts distort a report published by the organization on April 18 this year.

The document explains that major health agencies have introduced updated terminology for airborne pathogens (disease-causing organisms such as viruses). The report makes no mention of the supposed ineffectiveness of using masks as protection against the coronavirus.

To the Estadão Verificathe WHO stated that all of the agency’s current guidelines should continue to be applied until new recommendations are announced.

WHO did not admit the ineffectiveness of masks during the pandemic Photograph: Reproduction/Facebook

Know more: The WHO update is the result of a consultation carried out between 2021 and 2023. The objective was to resolve the “lack of common terminology to describe the transmission of pathogenic agents through the air”. This problem, according to the organization, became evident during the covid-19 pandemic.

According to the report, the transmission of pathogens through the air occurs when individuals infected with the pathogen generate and expel “infectious respiratory particles” (IRPs) in a variety of ways, such as when breathing, speaking, coughing or sneezing. .

IRPs, the note explains, exist in a “continuous spectrum of sizes, and no single cutoff point should be applied to distinguish smaller particles from larger particles.” This description solves a problem generated by two previously used terms: “aerosols”, which generally described smaller particles, and “droplets”, larger particles.

The explanation has been distorted on social media to claim that the WHO had “admitted” the ineffectiveness of masks. In the full report, however, it is possible to see that the use of masks is mentioned as a measure to mitigate the risk of transmission of pathogenic agents through the air (read on page 11, topic 3.4).

To the Estadão Verifica, the WHO stated that all current guidelines should continue to be applied until new recommendations are announced. Currently, the agency understands that the use of a mask reduces the spread of respiratory diseases and is part of a package of measures to prevent and control Covid-19.

Regarding the updated terminology, the WHO stated that the new feature “is not without consequences”. The organization highlighted that the update should be seen as “a starting point for a more in-depth analysis of the evidence”.

In this sense, updating terminology should be followed by further investigations and exploration of possible implications. Only upon completion will it be possible to consider updating the current WHO guidance on infection prevention and control. To date, however, the agency continues to classify the use of masks as a component of preventing and controlling the spread of the coronavirus.

Pediatrician and infectious disease specialist Renato Kfouri, vice-president of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations (SBIm), highlights the effectiveness of so-called barrier methods, such as masks. “If you tie a cloth, a mask, anything that is a barrier between the emitter of the virus and the receiver of the virus, you reduce transmission,” he said.

The infectious disease specialist reminds us that it is necessary to analyze the particularities of each case. According to the expert, masks with a more open weave can prevent the passage of larger and heavier viruses. Smaller viruses require masks with a tighter weave. Kfouri explains that, in cases like Covid-19, for example, a simple mask does not play as effective a role as an N95 type mask.

As a verification by Projeto Comprova explained, the effectiveness of using masks also depends on the type of material and the way the protection is placed on the face. PFF2 or N95 type masks, for example, guarantee a degree of filtration of external particles of up to 95%.

Current WHO recommendations on masks

The WHO’s current understanding of masks is that their use can provide protection to the wearer and those around them. This is because the mask reduces the spread of respiratory diseases by reducing the number of infectious particles that can be inhaled or exhaled. It is worth noting that just wearing a mask is not enough to provide an adequate level of protection against Covid-19. The measure should be part of a more comprehensive strategy to contain the transmission of the disease.

For the health agency, masks must be used in the following scenarios:

  • In a crowded, closed or poorly ventilated area;
  • In cases of suspicion or diagnosis of covid-19, when sharing a space with other people;
  • When sharing space with someone who has symptoms of Covid-19 or who has tested positive for the virus;
  • In a public space, with a high risk of becoming seriously ill from Covid-19 (for example, in cases of underlying health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, asthma, among others, or if you are 60 years of age or older).

In addition to the scenarios mentioned, the WHO also highlights individual risk assessment. When deciding whether or not to wear a mask, the agency defines that it is important to consider the number of covid-19 infections in the region, low levels of population immunity (such as low vaccination coverage), and the general state of your health.

How to deal with posts like this: It is possible to consult the WHO website itself to check the guidelines on the use of masks. It is worth mentioning that new information from the agency is usually reported by the national and international press. In the case analyzed here, it is important to read reports in full to understand the full context of the new WHO report. When consulting an article on the subject, check whether the text is news (factual and objective report) or an opinion article (expression of the author’s personal point of view on a topic).

divider

This rumor was checked because it appears among the main suspicious content circulating on Facebook. Estadão Verifica has access to a list of potentially false posts and data on their virality due to a partnership with the social network. When our checks find that information is misleading, Facebook reduces the scope of its circulation. Social network users and page administrators receive notifications if they have published or shared posts marked as false. A warning is also sent to anyone who wishes to post content that has previously been flagged as untrue.

A prerequisite for participating in the partnership with Facebook is obtaining certification from International Fact Checking Network (IFCN)which, in the case of Estadão Verifica, occurred in January 2019. The international association of fact checkers requires certified entities to sign a code of principles and make commitments in five areas: non-partisanship and impartiality; transparency of sources; transparency of financing and organization; transparency of methodology; and open and honest corrections policy. Commitment to these practices promotes more balance and precision in work.

The article is in Portuguese

Tags: Posts mislead stating recognized ineffectiveness masks

-

-

PREV Quantum startup develops random number generator used in lottery: Revista Pesquisa Fapesp
NEXT Senate approves Perse PL in symbolic vote and text goes to presidential sanction