The new theory asks: could the mask be a crude ‘vaccine’?

As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come up with a provocative new theory: that the mask will help some people be brutally vaccinated against the virus.

Unauthentic thought, described In a commentary Published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Tuesday, inspired by the concept of a variety of violations, it is a deliberate exposure to a pathogen that produces protective immunity. Attempted first against smallpox, the dangerous practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the emergence of modern vaccines.

Masked exposure is not an alternative to the Bona feed vaccine. But data from animals infected with the coronavirus, as well as insights gained from other diseases, suggest that masks, by cutting the number of viruses that enter a person’s airways, reduce the likelihood of getting sick. And if a small number of pathogens still slip, the researchers argue, this will ask the body to produce immune cells that can remember the virus and fight around it again.

The infectious disease physician at the University of San Francisco, Dr. “You may have the virus, but it may be asymptomatic,” said Monica Gandhi. “So if you can run the rate of asymptomatic infection from the mask, maybe it will become a way to diversify the population.”

This does not mean that people should not donate masks to inoculate themselves with the virus. This. “This is not a recommendation,” Gandhi said. “Neither are pox parties,” he added, referring to social gatherings that bring together the healthy and the sick.

The theory cannot be proven directly without clinical trials that compare the results of people who are unmasked with those who are masked in the presence of coronavirus – unethical experimental setup. And while outside experts were interested by the theory, they were reluctant to accept it without further data, and advised careful interpretation.

“It sounds like a leap,” said Saskia Popescu, an Arizona-based infectious disease epidemiologist who was not involved in the comments. “We don’t have much to support him.”

Incorrectly, this idea can be dispelled in the false sense of scattering through the nucleus, potentially endangering them more than before, or perhaps even reinforcing the misconception that facial ingots are completely useless against coronavirus, as they can render the wearer. No. Impervious to infection.

“We still want people to follow all other prevention strategies,” he said. Popescu said. That means being vigilant about avoiding crowds, physical distance, and hand hygiene – behaviors that overlap in their effect, but can’t replace one another.

Coronavirus antagonism theory rests on two assumptions that are difficult to prove: it Low doses of the virus can lead to less serious disease, And it can stimulate mild or asymptomatic infections for long-term protection against subsequent stages of the disease. Although other pathogens offer some precedent for both concepts, the evidence for coronavirus is scattered, in part because scientists have had the opportunity to study the virus for only a few months.

Hamster experiments have indicated a link between dose and disease. Earlier this year, a team of researchers in China found that hamsters behind a barrier made of surgical masks were less likely to be infected with the coronavirus. And who contracted the virus Became less ill To protect other animals without masks.

Some observations in humans also support this tendency. In crowded settings where masks are widely used, The infection rate seems to plum. And while facial ingots may not block infectious virus particles for all people, they do seem to be less likely to be associated with the disease. Researchers have unearthed a large number of silent, asymptomatic outbreaks in places. From cruise ships to food processing plants, Full of all seemingly masked people.

Data have been collected for other microbes combining doses with symptoms that attack the human airways, Influenza viruses and bacteria that cause tuberculosis.

But despite decades of research, the mechanics of aerated transmission remain largely “black boxes,” said Jyoti Rangrajan, a vaccine and infectious disease specialist at Emory University, who was not involved in the comments.

This is partly because it is difficult to pinpoint the amount of infectious disease a person needs, said Dr. Said Rangraj. Even after the researchers finally settled on the average dose, the results can vary from person to person, as heredity, a person’s immune status and the architecture of his nasal passages, all affect how the virus can colonize the respiratory tract.

And confirming in another part of the verification theory – that the mask enters the virus enough to induce immunity – can also be difficult. although Some recent studies Given the possibility that mild cases of Covid-19 may trigger a strong immune response to coronavirus, sustainable defense cannot be proven until researchers collect data on the infection months or years after the crisis.

Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, said she was not involved in the comment. “But I’m still very skeptical.”

That said, it’s important to remember that vaccines are inherently less dangerous than actual infections, which is why methods like antivirals (sometimes called inoculation) have eventually become obsolete. Before vaccines are discovered, doctors rub smallpox scabs or bits of pus into the skin of healthy people. The resulting infections were usually less severe than smallpox cases, but “people definitely contracted smallpox and died from contraindications,” said Dr. Said Ramses. And unlike vaccination violations can make people contagious to others.

Dr. Gandhi. Gandhi recognized these limitations, that the doctrine should not be as anything other than the doctrine. Still, she said, “Why not run the prospect of not getting sick and having a little immunity while we wait for the vaccine?”