Can masks create IMMUNITY for Govit-19? Scientists theory

Scientists say the widespread use of masks and masks could act as a crude ‘vaccine’ against the corona virus.

People are asked to wear masks to catch droplets from their breath, and to reduce the risk of spreading the virus if they are unaware of it, not to protect themselves from catching it – however this can be done to a small extent.

Masks, especially those worn in populations such as surgery and clothing, are not perfect and allow some virus particles to slip into the wearer’s airway.

Experts say that repeated exposure to small amounts of Covit-19 in this way will train their bodies to recognize and fight, effectively boosting the immune system.

The unproven theory was described by scientists at the University of California in an editorial New England Journal of Medicine.

The hypothesis is unlikely to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because it is necessary to expose individuals with and without masks to the virus in clinical trials, which is unethical.

But the theory may partially explain why fewer people die or become infected with the corona virus in the later stages of the disease and in East Asia, where masks are common.

The scientists behind the commentary insisted that people should not be complacent or deliberately try to catch the virus to build immunity.

Excessive use of masks could act as a ‘vaccine’ against the corona virus, scientists say (Image: Passengers wearing masks in the London Underground yesterday)

‘This is not a recommendation at all,’ they wrote, urging people to stay socially isolated from others and to avoid indoor spaces with little ventilation.

The idea that masks may provide some immunity against Govt-19 hinges is based on the centuries-old immunization variant theory.

Variation is the practice of deliberately infecting people with low levels of a pathogen to develop a protective immune response that prevents recurrence.

The controversial technique used to protect people against smallpox has been used throughout history, but was eventually replaced by modern vaccines that are much safer using weaker forms of the virus.

University of California experts Dr. Monica Gandhi, an epidemiologist and epidemiologist Professor George Rutherford, believe that masks can work just as well.

Dr. Gandhi wrote in the study: ‘You may have the virus, but be asymptomatic. So, if you can increase the rate of asymptomatic infection with masks, it will become a way to differentiate people. ‘

U.S. researchers agree that their theory makes two broad assumptions about Govt-19, which have not yet been proven.

Their argument is based on the notion that exposure to small amounts of the virus leads to less severe disease and that mild or asymptomatic people enjoy long-term protection.

The UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Emergencies (SAGE) has previously stated that the ‘virus burden’ plays a major role in a person’s illness.

This explains why so many health workers who come in direct contact with many sick patients have been affected and died of the disease.

Having a high virus load – the number of virus particles they are first infected with – gives a ‘jump start’ to the error.

It also raises the risk of overloading a patient’s immune system in the fight against COVID-19.

Touching a door handle can indirectly affect a person with milder symptoms than someone who inhales the affected person’s cough.

Experts at the University of California, Berkeley believe that wearing a mass mask has greatly reduced the amount of viral loads that can affect the average person.

This may partly explain why the mortality rate in intensive care units has dropped. According to the University of Bristol, the number of patients dying from COVID-19 in ICU wards around the world has dropped by a third since March.

But improving survival rates is often thought to be driven by the fact that doctors are better at treating the disease, which they knew nothing about earlier this year.

Critics have rejected the mask immunization theory, warning that it would be dangerous if the public became overly complacent and took unnecessary risks.

Arizona-based epidemiologist Saskia Bobesku told the New York Times that she was not involved in the editorial.: ‘It sounds like a leap. We don’t have a lot to support it. ‘

‘We still want people to follow all other prevention strategies. That means avoiding crowds, physical distance and hand hygiene – their consequences are interrelated behaviors, but not mutually exclusive.