Face coverings to become mandatory in shops in England (includes poll)

[MikeWM]

Have a read of this CNN article which references this study, which further references this study on mask effectiveness.

The first study is a *model*. Haven't we had enough of those?

The study it references is says this in its abstract

We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.

I can believe that this is true. But we're not talking about surgical face masks, and we're not talking about symptomatic individuals.

In other words, we have a computer model, and a study that is about something entirely different. Not entirely persuasive science...

 

[jtuk]

Clinton News Network supports something favoured by the Democrats, what a surprise

 

[DB]

In other words, we have a computer model, and a study that is about something entirely different. Not entirely persuasive science...

As with the Oxford study yesterday - look at use in a completely different setting, then claim it applies generally despite no actual evidence for this.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The first study is a *model*. Haven't we had enough of those?
In other words, we have a computer model, and a study that is about something entirely different. Not entirely persuasive science...

Give us peer-reviewed papers. Oh no - not those papers. I want a full clinical trial in my local branch of Tesco Metro.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.

 

[westv]

On another forum some people are claiming they will boycott Sainsbury due the company saying they won't enforce masks!

 

[ainsworth74]

Clinton News Network supports something favoured by the Democrats, what a surprise

Trump is now advocating face masks so...

 

[DB]

Give us peer-reviewed papers. Oh no - not those papers. I want a full clinical trial in my local branch of Tesco Metro.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.

We have asked for scientific papers which actually look at how masks reduce transmission in general community settings, such as shops, with relevant data. Nobody has referenced one yet. There are certainly a number which look at evidence from medical settings and claim that the same applies, despite pretty much every variable being completely different. These apples-to-oranges comparisons are not convincing to anyone who actually thinks about what they read, rather than just accepting it.

 

[Huntergreed]

All the shop workers up here in Scotland that I know and have spoken to absolutely hate it and can't wait to see the back of it!

For these workers, they're spending hours at a time masked up, and it's really horrible, I find it tough enough after 20-30 minutes let alone an hour!!

 

[MikeWM]

Give us peer-reviewed papers. Oh no - not those papers.

Not when they are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, no!

I'd quite like to see some proper RCTs on the efficiacy of cloth masks on asymptomatic individuals in non-medical settings. Do you have any to offer? (hint : the Royal Society failed to find any, despite apparently trying really hard).

I want a full clinical trial in my local branch of Tesco Metro.

If you want to setup an RCT and involve your local Tesco Metro, feel free

 

[Puffing Devil]

We have asked for scientific papers which actually look at how masks reduce transmission in general community settings, such as shops, with relevant data. Nobody has referenced one yet. There are certainly a number which look at evidence from medical settings and claim that the same applies, despite pretty much every variable being completely different. These apples-to-oranges comparisons are not convincing to anyone who actually thinks about what they read, rather than just accepting it.

Francis Bacon
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion, draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects

Confirmation bias is also strong in this thread.

 

[Puffing Devil]

All the shop workers up here in Scotland that I know and have spoken to absolutely hate it and can't wait to see the back of it!

For these workers, they're spending hours at a time masked up, and it's really horrible, I find it tough enough after 20-30 minutes let alone an hour!!

I'm not surprised that want to see the back of it. It's not pleasant to wear a mask all day.

There's a difference between not wanting to do it because of comfort issues and accepting the need to wear a mask for the benefit of others and complying, even though it causes personal inconvenience.

 

[Huntergreed]

Confirmation bias is also strong in this thread.

Perhaps so, but I'm still to see a single piece of conclusive evidence that face masks are effective in stopping the spread of Covid-19. Until I do so, my views on masks will not be that they are justifiable by law in any situation.

 

[DB]

Confirmation bias is also strong in this thread.

No, it's really not.

We are asking for some actual hard evidence that masks used in general public, and of the type used by the general public, actually have the benefits which are claimed. Nobody has provided a single example yet.

If you think that the quote from Bacon is relevant, do feel free to provide references to the evidence requested!

 

[Yew]

Confirmation bias is also strong in this thread.

Nope, simply the null hypothesis.

 

[farleigh]

The benefit of you wearing a mask is for them.

That is just nonsense. It has never been stated that the reason we should wear a mask in a shop is to protect the staff. I think you must have made that up yourself.

 

[Puffing Devil]

That is just nonsense. It has never been stated that the reason we should wear a mask in a shop is to protect the staff. I think you must have made that up yourself.

Does wearing a mask benefit the wearer or those around them?

 

[jtuk]

Does wearing a mask benefit the wearer or those around them?

No

 

[Huntergreed]

Does wearing a mask benefit the wearer or those around them?

Unless I see evidence suggesting otherwise, I have no reason to believe they protect or benefit either party.

 

[Puffing Devil]

For me, posting in this thread feels like a Clinical Pharmacologist delivering the keynote at the world Homeopathy Conference.

 

[Bantamzen]

Have a read of this CNN article which references this study, which further references this study on mask effectiveness.

Can I give you a bit of advice? Read your sources before presenting them. In this case note the use of the words "surgical" & "medical" in the latter study. Then consider this, are masks being used by the general public to strict medical or surgical standards?

Next!

 

[DB]

For me, posting in this thread feels like a Clinical Pharmacologist delivering the keynote at the world Homeopathy Conference.

Think you've got it the wrong way round! A clinical pharmacologist would expect hard, relevant evidence to back up any assertion.

A homeopath, on the other hand...

 

[Ashley Hill]

Apologies as it's probably already been said, but it's a bit late. If it was going to become compulsory it should have been introduced months ago!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apologies as it's probably already been said, but it's a bit late. If it was going to become compulsory it should have been introduced months ago!

Better late than never.

 

[AdamWW]

We have asked for scientific papers which actually look at how masks reduce transmission in general community settings, such as shops, with relevant data. Nobody has referenced one yet. There are certainly a number which look at evidence from medical settings and claim that the same applies, despite pretty much every variable being completely different. These apples-to-oranges comparisons are not convincing to anyone who actually thinks about what they read, rather than just accepting it.

OK try this - with the caveat that I don't know how reputable the journal it's in is, and I haven't looked into their methodology (just because it's complex doesn't mean it's right).

But it attempts to examine the impact of requiring face coverings in public - so it refers to whatever people actually wear not medical masks or respirators, and to whatever contacts in public actually take place.

Clearly it is a very difficult thing to try to work out as there are potentially so many confounding variables, but their conclusion is that yes, they do have a significant effect.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Indeed,but why announce it and then wait over a week to enforce it. It would be more professional to have said "Wear masks from tomorrow!"

 

[birchesgreen]

Indeed,but why announce it and then wait over a week to enforce it. It would be more professional to have said "Wear masks from tomorrow!"

Tough doodoo if you haven't got a mask and need to do your food shop eh? They needed to give some notice.

 

[DB]

OK try this - with the caveat that I don't know how reputable the journal it's in is, and I haven't looked into their methodology (just because it's complex doesn't mean it's right).

But it attempts to examine the impact of requiring face coverings in public - so it refers to whatever people actually wear not medical masks or respirators, and to whatever contacts in public actually take place.

Clearly it is a very difficult thing to try to work out as there are potentially so many confounding variables, but their conclusion is that yes, they do have a significant effect.

Thanks. Will read through it all later. It does look on an initial read to have credibility, although it's not clear what other measures were taken at the same time as mandating mask use.

 

[trebor79]

Indeed,but why announce it and then wait over a week to enforce it. It would be more professional to have said "Wear masks from tomorrow!"

Tough doodoo if you haven't got a mask and need to do your food shop eh? They needed to give some notice.

Except they still haven't told us what will be deemed acceptable. There will be no practical notice.

 

[AdamWW]

Tough doodoo if you haven't got a mask and need to do your food shop eh? They needed to give some notice.

I would have thought the best way would be to say that with immediate effect they want everyone to wear face coverings, but it won't actually be a legal requirement until whenever.

Thanks. Will read through it all later. It does look on an initial read to have credibility, although it's not clear what other measures were taken at the same time as mandating mask use.

No but it's fairly clear that they did their best to control for other measures - and since it looks separately at many states, that should average out the effect of other measures coinciding with the requirement for face coverings.

The nice thing about this sort of study is that it is a real-world one so it includes effects such as people reducing distancing because they feel they can with a mask on.

The downside of course is that it's not in any way a controlled trial.

 

[AdamWW]

Except they still haven't told us what will be deemed acceptable. There will be no practical notice.

Yes. not so helpful.

But in practise, apart from perhaps the odd moment of daft officialness (likely to be blown up by the media), some kind of sense usually prevails in this sort of thing.

As an aside, it amused me at an eye test today that the staff kept reassuring me that they were disinfecting their equipment between uses. I must confess I did rather take that for granted.