Vi som är kritiska till Sveriges handhavande av pandemin
Det är ju inte ovanligt, det problemet. Finns mycket forskning där man sen undrar: Okej, så här blev det i ett laboratorium. Men hur skulle det se ut i verkligheten? Helt annorlunda.
De har alltså t.ex. analyserat forskning i miljöer där människor varit nära varandra i samhällen och haft munskydd. Menar du att alla dessa undersökningar är gjorda under omständigheter som är olika de i Sverige?
Two studies assessed the effectiveness of school closures on transmission of SARS-CoV-2, incidence of covid-19, or covid-19 mortality (table 2).4448 A US population based longitudinal study reported on the effectiveness of state-wide closure of primary and secondary schools and observed a 62% decrease (95% confidence interval ?49% to ?71%) in incidence of covid-19 and a 58% decrease (?46% to?68%) in covid-19 mortality.48 Conversely, a natural experiment from Japan reported no effect of school closures on incidence of covid-19 (? coefficient 0.08, 95% confidence interval ?0.36 to 0.65).44 Both studies were rated at moderate risk of bias (fig 2).
Mask wearing and covid-19 incidence?Six studies with a total of 2627 people with covid-19 and 389?228 participants were included in the analysis examining the effect of mask wearing on incidence of covid-19 (table 1).364357606366 Overall pooled analysis showed a 53% reduction in covid-19 incidence (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75), although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=84%) (fig 5). Risk of bias across the six studies ranged from moderate36576066 to serious or critical4363 (fig 2).
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302
Results 72 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 evaluated individual public health measures and 37 assessed multiple public health measures as a ?package of interventions.? Eight of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated a reduction in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.12, I2=12%), mask wearing (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75, I2=84%), and physical distancing (0.75, 0.59 to 0.95, I2=87%). Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of quarantine and isolation, universal lockdowns, and closures of borders, schools, and workplaces. The effects of these interventions were synthesised descriptively.
Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19. Public health efforts to implement public health measures should consider community health and sociocultural needs, and future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of public health measures in the context of covid-19 vaccination.