A.J. Lovett: Rancourt's opinions were not peer reviewed in any professional way

To The Daily Sun,

In response to Mr. Gallagher’s letter of July 8, I must urge caution on interpretation of results reported by Physicist Dennis Rancourt, PhD. The spread of disease is the specialty of infectious disease and public health experts. Although there are some aspects of mask use that may be related to physics — perhaps particle size and diffusion through a porous material — there are also considerations concerning spread of infection in populations, that are just as relevant.

As one with a background in science would know, we must consider the source of the information before judging the effectiveness of a treatment. Peer reviewed journals are the standard that is generally accepted for obtaining relevant information. Dr. Rancourt’s letter was published in the River Cities Reader; this appears to be a small town newspaper in Kentucky. I think that most people would agree, that a small town newspaper would not be considered peer reviewed, if any review of the information was done at all. Another basic premise for judging the validity of the information offered, is to read the supporting references.

I did just that and read the articles that were cited by Dr. Rancourt.

Here is brief synopsis:

— Cowling, B. et.al. : “there is some evidence to support wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others.”

— Faisal bin-Reza et.al.: “Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection, especially hand hygiene. The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early, consistent and correct usage”.

— Smith, J. et.al. : There is no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of : a. Laboratory confirmed respiratory infection;  b. Influenza -like illness (of the study population); c. Reported workplace absenteeism.

— Balazy, A. et.al. : A comparison of N-95 respirators and surgical masks. N-95 respirators may not provide expected protection level against small virons. Some surgical masks are designed primarily to protect the environment from the wearer (Read: to protect other humans and the environment from the wearer).

— Biggerstaff, M. et.al : Review of past epidemics 1950 – 2013. This review uses the R value to determine the ability of the virus to cause infection. The reviewed studies were done before COVID-19 was known to cause human infection. The R value differs for each virus, so this information is not relevant to the current epidemic.

Shall I go on? There is no real evidence to support Dr. Rancourt’s claim that masks are not effective. They are by no means 100 percent effective, but along with hand hygiene and social distancing, it is the best option we have to fight this virus. We need to do this together, for ourselves, our friends, our parents, our children, our economy and our state.

If you need more information, please read in The Lancet, a systematic review and meta analysis of masks and eye protection to prevent person to person transmission of COVID-19

A.J. Lovett, MSN, CWS

Center Tuftonboro