Today the BBC has published a dramatic headline: Covid: Masks upgrade cuts infection risk, research finds

However, closer inspection of the article reveals that the headline is misleading at best. It says:

“… there is a far greater chance of staff wearing standard issue surgical masks catching the virus … The data was (sic) gathered during a programme of regular testing for Covid at the trust… The results are published in a pre-print paper that has not been peer-reviewed.

For most of last year, the hospital followed national guidance which specifies that healthcare workers should wear surgical masks, except in a few limited situations.

Though fluid resistant, these masks are relatively flimsy and loose-fitting and are not meant to screen out infectious aerosols - tiny virus particles that can linger in the air and are now widely accepted as a source of coronavirus infection….

'The only thing left to try that could make a difference was FFP3 respirators, and they did,' Dr Ferris said… 'But given the difference in the results that we've seen, as a sort of precautionary principle effect, what we should be thinking about is changing to use FFP3 masks for anyone caring for a patient with coronavirus.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57636360

There are a number of obvious issues here:

• The BBC has published anecdotal evidence as if it is science
• The ‘study’ has not been peer-reviewed
• There was no control, which is essential for a proper scientific study
• No data are offered about how many ‘red’ and ‘green’ wards there are, or what other factors are different between the wards and the behaviours of the staff. The Trust has 54 in-patient wards over two hospitals (https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/RGT01?referer=widget3) – what are the differences between these and how might they affect the ‘study’?
• Freely available evidence of six Randomised Controlled Trials was simply ignored by David Shukman, the Science editor credited with the story:

'A recent meta-analysis of standard v respirator (N95 or FFP) masks by the Chinese Cochrane Centre included six RCTs with a total of 9171 participants with influenza-like illnesses (including pandemic strains, seasonal influenza A or B viruses and zoonotic viruses such as avian or swine influenza). There were no statistically significant differences in their efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness, but respirators appeared to protect against bacterial colonization.'  https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-efficacy-of-standard-face-masks-compared-to-respirator-masks-in-preventing-covid-type-respiratory-illnesses-in-primary-care-staff/

• Most important, the ‘study’ provides evidence that standard masks – the type that everyone is told to wear while shopping for example – simply don’t work

The evidence reported may offer vague support for the theory that FFP3 respirators may possibly be effective, but there is no scientific evidence in the 'study'. However, it does provide much clearer evidence that most masks are useless.

Why did the BBC choose to frame the story as it did, and should it offer an alternative headline?