UK face coverings discussion

[AdamWW]

I wasn't trying to make an argument in any direction. I was specifically stating the feedback I'd heard from Scottish store staff on the sudden imposition of masks, mostly to point out that they weren't all that happy and grateful that Stephen Reicher, Professor of Social Psychology at the University of St Andrews, had put a mask on.

OK fair enough.

I completely understand shop staff not wanting to wear the things.

Incidentally from my anecdotal evidence of grocery shopping in Wales this week, very few people are wearing masks.

It feels strange to have something coronavirus related that's less strict in Wales than England. (I don't think we even have a timescale here for legally being allowed to visit friends and family in their homes...)

 

[Enthusiast]

The game at present is to try to keep transmission down.

But surely that should have been an aim from Day One (or at least from the day that the government decided it would try to supress the virus rather than allowing it to spread). If face coverings are so effective (and seemingly vital) in preventing spread why did it take more than three months to introduce the measure and ten days from the announcement of the requirement until it came into force? Compare this to the four hours notice people had who were either in Spain or about to set off there, telling them they needed to take a fortnight off work when they returned and there is little wonder that the public's confidence in the government's handling of the crisis is not very great. There doesn't seem to be much joined up thinking.

 

[AdamWW]

But surely that should have been an aim from Day One (or at least from the day that the government decided it would try to supress the virus rather than allowing it to spread). If face coverings are so effective (and seemingly vital) in preventing spread why did it take more than three months to introduce the measure and ten days from the announcement of the requirement until it came into force? Compare this to the four hours notice people had who were either in Spain or about to set off there, telling them they needed to take a fortnight off work when they returned and there is little wonder that the public's confidence in the government's handling of the crisis is not very great. There doesn't seem to be much joined up thinking.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. There are some possible reasons for not bringing in masks earlier:
1) The evidence for how useful masks are is weak, and the view has shifted from "not worth it" to "worth it"
2) The more people interact closely the more useful they are, so they are more useful now than before (not really the case in a grocery shop though)
3) There is now little concern that people will divert PPE from where it's really needed unlike a few months ago
4) The government really, really, didn't want to have to make people do this but now they think it's necesary

There's also a difference between bringing in a new law to mandate masks, and adding Spain to a 'black-list' using an existing law.

And if they had brought a mask rule in at zero notice it would have left people without access to a mask a bit stuck.

So far as I know they didn't tell people that they shouldn't wear masks for another 10 days and then start wearing them once the law came in, though clearly many people did so.

I think there are things to criticise about the way the government has handled things. If not bringing in masks in on day 1 of the lockdown is one, then they need to share the cricitism with many other countries.

 

[Kendalian]

I think the actual daily rate of late has been between 600 and 800 but I would argue that new infections aren't really that important any more. People don't fear catching coronavirus, they fear dying from it, so the fact the death rate is now down to single figures should be a much better guide as how the pandemic is fading.

119 dead confirmed today. Monday's figures are always lower due to delays in reporting deaths over the weekend.

By comparison Monday 20/7 there were 12 deaths and Tuesday 21/7 there were 110.

So 4 more deaths Mon/Tues this week than last. Is this fading?

 

[AdamWW]

119 dead confirmed today. Monday's figures are always lower due to delays in reporting deaths over the weekend.

By comparison Monday 20/7 there were 12 deaths and Tuesday 21/7 there were 110.

So 4 more deaths Mon/Tues this week than last. Is this fading?

I disagree anyway that death figures are a better guide than infections.

What matters in terms of whether the pandemic is fading or not is whether every day more or fewer people are being infected. Death rates have a delay and behave in a less obvious way.

(E.g. shut everyone up in a room on their own tomorrow - infection rates will drop to zero over the incubation period, but death rates will likely carry on for much longer. If you then let people out, infection rates will start going up, but for a while the death figures will still drop making everything look fine as exponential growth in infections picks up again but you can't see that in the death figures for a while).

Of course if for whatever reason, the chance of dying when infected does down that is clearly relevant, but doesn't alter the view of how you can tell if an epidemic is under control or not.

Likewise if you want to try to see if face coverings are having an effect, it's going to be hard to decouple from other changes going on, but it will be much easier to see in infections than death figures.

(Here I'm talking about infection rates from random sampling, not figures for people who get a test because they have symptoms).

 

[MikeWM]

119 dead confirmed today.

Only 12 in hospitals. If we really have under 100 a week dying in hospitals, and 300 or 400 'elsewhere', there is something badly wrong (why are people not being treated in the hospital?)

Alternatively, as we already know, the PHE figures are statistical nonsense and we'd be wise to ignore them entirely going forwards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only 12 in hospitals. If we really have under 100 a week dying in hospitals, and 300 or 400 'elsewhere', there is something badly wrong (why are people not being treated in the hospital?)

Alternatively, as we already know, the PHE figures are statistical nonsense and we'd be wise to ignore them entirely going forwards.

I would like to see it confirmed what the basis of the figures is. If they'd really include someone who died in a car crash on the way home from testing positive at the test centre, they really need a rethink.

 

[talldave]

Only 12 in hospitals. If we really have under 100 a week dying in hospitals, and 300 or 400 'elsewhere', there is something badly wrong (why are people not being treated in the hospital?)

Alternatively, as we already know, the PHE figures are statistical nonsense and we'd be wise to ignore them entirely going forwards.

Because they didn't die of Covid?

 

[AdamWW]

I would like to see it confirmed what the basis of the figures is. If they'd really include someone who died in a car crash on the way home from testing positive at the test centre, they really need a rethink.

At least until recently, yes the PHE figures would include that.

My understanding is that they are intended as rough-and-ready figures that can be released quickly, with the ONS doing a more thorough job.

I believe in Scotland and Wales they have a 28 day cut-off.

So still a bit crude - if you get run over 27 days after a positive test you still go into the figures.

It's clearly not always trivial to decide if someone has died from or with Covid-19, which is why excess death figures are probably a lot more use in my opinion.

 

[Domh245]

I thought it was discussed here not that long ago that the PHE announced figures were not particularly reliable as they counted a COVID death as anyone who died at any point following a positive test, regardless of circumstance. This is then 'corrected' later down the line by the ONS figures which only show deaths from COVID (recorded on the death certificate at least!)

 

[talldave]

At least until recently, yes the PHE figures would include that.

My understanding is that they are intended as rough-and-ready figures that can be released quickly, with the ONS doing a more thorough job.

I believe in Scotland and Wales they have a 28 day cut-off.

So still a bit crude - if you get run over 27 days after a positive test you still go into the figures.

It's clearly not always trivial to decide if someone has died from or with Covid-19, which is why excess death figures are probably a lot more use in my opinion.

There aren't any excess deaths at the moment are there?

 

[AdamWW]

There aren't any excess deaths at the moment are there?

I believe not.

Which is good news.

But unfortunately this doesn't prove that we can abandon all restrictions and infections won't start to increase again to the point where we start having an excess of excess deaths again.

 

[talldave]

I believe not.

So not a lot of use in determining which way things are going? Perhaps look at Covid deaths?

 

[MikeWM]

I thought it was discussed here not that long ago that the PHE announced figures were not particularly reliable as they counted a COVID death as anyone who died at any point following a positive test, regardless of circumstance. This is then 'corrected' later down the line by the ONS figures which only show deaths from COVID (recorded on the death certificate at least!)

The PHE are still 'investigating' and said they would pause reporting until they had completed the investigation. For some reason no-one seems clear on, they've carried on anyway.

Here's a graph comparing PHE, ONS and hospital data. (Source : https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1288037737799380992, who I believe to be a reliable unbiased commentator).

 

[talldave]

The delta's quite stunning. Must have been a stack of car crashes in early July.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I believe not.

Which is good news.

But unfortunately this doesn't prove that we can abandon all restrictions and infections won't start to increase again to the point where we start having an excess of excess deaths again.

The common sense solution would be to abandon all restrictions for the whole population whilst still shielding the vulnerable. Try that for a three week period and if, as I'd expect, new infections don't increase we could lift all the restrictions permanently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The common sense solution would be to abandon all restrictions for the whole population whilst still shielding the vulnerable. Try that for a three week period and if, as I'd expect, new infections don't increase we could lift all the restrictions permanently.

I would be absolutely and totally astonished if that did not cause a return to exponential growth of infections to such an extent that trying that would result in the need for a full lockdown of at least that long.

I would love what you say to be true, but if the present measures are causing a constant level of cases (i.e. R=1 approx) then it is inconceivable that removing them would not return us to what we had in March.

 

[Yew]

The common sense solution would be to abandon all restrictions for the whole population whilst still shielding the vulnerable. Try that for a three week period and if, as I'd expect, new infections don't increase we could lift all the restrictions permanently.

I think it's entirely possible that it could work, but I'd want some Serology and T-cell studies beforehand, as it's a risky stratergy.

 

[MikeWM]

The common sense solution would be to abandon all restrictions for the whole population whilst still shielding the vulnerable. Try that for a three week period and if, as I'd expect, new infections don't increase we could lift all the restrictions permanently.

My gut feeling is that we probably have herd immunity in some part of the country but pockets that don't yet. So I think infections would rise somewhat for a bit, but it would get us through to herd immunity more-or-less everywhere while the summer is still here, which is better than waiting until the winter.

We've really got to stop worrying about asymptomatic or mild infections. As long as the vulnerable as shielded as much as possible while we burn through those, we've then solved the problem.

 

[Huntergreed]

Travelled on a train for the first time in 4 months today, without exaggeration the experience was pretty awful.

Got to the station, there was a member of staff at the entrance checking tickets and masks, anyone without a ticket had to follow a very long one way system to buy one. Got onto the platform and there was a constant announcement “you must wear a mask on stations and when travelling on trains”, no mentions of exemptions, no wonder those with a genuine exemption feel left out!!

Got to my destination and once again staff checking masks and tickets, no ticket it was a case of details taken, no mask and it was a case of speak to the 2 BTP officers who seemed to be dealing with this (whether exemptions were allowed or not, I’m actually not sure).

Same on way back, they seem to be making very little tolerance and/or effort to make those who have a genuine exemption to feel welcome, it’s really not nice

 

[MikeWM]

Travelled on a train for the first time in 4 months today, without exaggeration the experience was pretty awful.

Not good to hear on a rail enthusiasts forum, is it?

My first 'post-lockdown' rail trips (in late May) were fine. But things are definitely getting more unpleasant as time goes on.

 

[AdamWW]

So not a lot of use in determining which way things are going? Perhaps look at Covid deaths?

Sigh.

No.

You continue to monitor a random sample of the population and see whether infections in that sample are going up or down.

The common sense solution would be to abandon all restrictions for the whole population whilst still shielding the vulnerable. Try that for a three week period and if, as I'd expect, new infections don't increase we could lift all the restrictions permanently.

I don't think that is the common sense solution for anybody who understands what exponential growth means.

Anyway, we don't have to do that. If you're right and infections wouldn't increase if we did that, then we're about to watch the daily estimated infection rate plummet.

My gut feeling is that we probably have herd immunity in some part of the country but pockets that don't yet. So I think infections would rise somewhat for a bit, but it would get us through to herd immunity more-or-less everywhere while the summer is still here, which is better than waiting until the winter.

We've really got to stop worrying about asymptomatic or mild infections. As long as the vulnerable as shielded as much as possible while we burn through those, we've then solved the problem.

Fortunately we aren't basing policy on "gut feelings" or at least I hope we aren't.

If we really have reached herd immunity (and I don't think the evidence is good) then soon the estimated daily infection rate should start to drop enough that it is unambigious that it's happening.

 

[MikeWM]

Fortunately we aren't basing policy on "gut feelings" or at least I hope we aren't.

That's what those in charge have been doing all along! Apart from the advice to 'wash your hands' and 'stay home if you're sick', there's been no good evidence base for anything we've had foisted upon us.

My 'gut feeling' is based upon listing to lots of people and going with those who, in my opinion, are making the most sense. They don't seem to be the people the Government is listening to, but then what's new about that?

If we really have reached herd immunity (and I don't think the evidence is good) then soon the estimated daily infection rate should start to drop enough that it is unambigious that it's happening.

There will always be a background noise of infections for the rest of time (though the question is what that number is - I suppose it is fair to say it should probably be lower than current when we're done).

And all things aren't equal over time - the tests can give false positives, testing may be more or less targeted, and numbers of tests undergone can go up, or down.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I don't think that is the common sense solution for anybody who understands what exponential growth means.

Anyway, we don't have to do that. If you're right and infections wouldn't increase if we did that, then we're about to watch the daily estimated infection rate plummet.

Well none of the measures taken to ease the restrictions have had any effect on the constantly falling number of deaths so therefore it logically follows that we can continue to ease the restrictions still further with a view to getting rid of them altogether in a few weeks.

And as I said earlier in the thread the infection rate doesn't really matter because we now know the vast majority of them are no more serious than having a cold and I think most people would accept the risk of catching the virus if all it meant was a bit of a sore throat and a couple of weeks off work!

 

[Smidster]

My gut feeling is that we probably have herd immunity in some part of the country but pockets that don't yet. So I think infections would rise somewhat for a bit, but it would get us through to herd immunity more-or-less everywhere while the summer is still here, which is better than waiting until the winter.

We've really got to stop worrying about asymptomatic or mild infections. As long as the vulnerable as shielded as much as possible while we burn through those, we've then solved the problem.

If Herd Immunity is even possible, which we don't know for sure, then we are nowhere near the kind of infection rates that would have been required to achieve it.

Effective Herd Immunity needs a pretty high proportion of people to have immunity. Even in the parts of the country that have been hardest hit it is still a minority of the population who have had Covid (as seen through the antibody studies)

The idea of scrapping everything and going to "business as usual" tomorrow is madness - We are running with a relatively high number of infections and so if you were to have more interactions between people then it would take off again very quickly. As for the comment about "shielding the vulnerable" - This disease can be dangerous for everyone and have long lasting impacts. Look at what is happening elsewhere - if you open things up too quickly then the thing circulates again as it hasn't gone away!

 

[jtuk]

Well none of the measures taken to ease the restrictions have had any effect on the constantly falling number of deaths so therefore it logically follows that we can continue to ease the restrictions still further with a view to getting rid of them altogether in a few weeks.

And as I said earlier in the thread the infection rate doesn't really matter because we now know the vast majority of them are no more serious than having a cold and I think most people would accept the risk of catching the virus if all it meant was a bit of a sore throat and a couple of weeks off work!

Exactly. Not even time off work unless it's a two sigma event on the wrong end of the scale. Would pay for a hotel room for two weeks and deliberately infect myself if I could do away with all the rubbish there after

 

[AdamWW]

That's what those in charge have been doing all along! Apart from the advice to 'wash your hands' and 'stay home if you're sick', there's been no good evidence base for anything we've had foisted upon us.

I disagree with that strongly.

If you think there is no evidence that telling people to stay at home reduces transmission, then I don't know what to say. I really don't.

My 'gut feeling' is based upon listing to lots of people and going with those who, in my opinion, are making the most sense. They don't seem to be the people the Government is listening to, but then what's new about that?

Well I for one am very grateful that the government aren't listening to them.

There will always be a background noise of infections for the rest of time (though the question is what that number is - I suppose it is fair to say it should probably be lower than current when we're done).

And all things aren't equal over time - the tests can give false positives, testing may be more or less targeted, and numbers of tests undergone can go up, or down.

Yes of course the above are true. Which is why you need to look at the calculations for daily infections based on random sampling not people who come and get a test because they are showing symptoms.

So the way this is targeted doesn't change.

Yes even then the numbers of people tested will change, and there may be false positives and negatives.

But of course this is included and allowed for in the calculations.

 

[takno]

If Herd Immunity is even possible, which we don't know for sure, then we are nowhere near the kind of infection rates that would have been required to achieve it.

Effective Herd Immunity needs a pretty high proportion of people to have immunity. Even in the parts of the country that have been hardest hit it is still a minority of the population who have had Covid (as seen through the antibody studies)

The idea of scrapping everything and going to "business as usual" tomorrow is madness - We are running with a relatively high number of infections and so if you were to have more interactions between people then it would take off again very quickly. As for the comment about "shielding the vulnerable" - This disease can be dangerous for everyone and have long lasting impacts. Look at what is happening elsewhere - if you open things up too quickly then the thing circulates again as it hasn't gone away!

The antibody studies show the number of people who are showing a detectable level of some of the antibodies which we know that a subset of Coronavirus patients tend to generate. They don't show patients who recovered without the particular antibody response being generated, through other types of immune response. There are indications that maybr three times as many patients have detectably had the disease and developed some kind of immune response, as well as some level of reason for believing that a significant proportion of the population have a decent degree of pre-existing immunity from other sources.

No idea what any of this has to do with facemasks mind

 

[AdamWW]

Well none of the measures taken to ease the restrictions have had any effect on the constantly falling number of deaths so therefore it logically follows that we can continue to ease the restrictions still further with a view to getting rid of them altogether in a few weeks.

And as I said earlier in the thread the infection rate doesn't really matter because we now know the vast majority of them are no more serious than having a cold and I think most people would accept the risk of catching the virus if all it meant was a bit of a sore throat and a couple of weeks off work!

No - I don't think you should look at falling death figures to work out how to relax restrictions, because it takes too long between someone being exposed and dying. You can see falling death figures while infections are starting to rise rapidly because the deaths haven't caught up yet.

The infection rate does matter because it's what tells you whether infections are rising or falling and you only have to wait for the incubation time.

You ease restrictions and watch infection rates (not positive tests from those with symptoms, but from random sampling). If those keep falling, then you keep on relaxing restrictions. Which is what we've been doing.

The easing of restrictions seems to have caused infections to stop falling and level off (possibly now rising but too early to say).

It seems to be a niche opinion here, but I think it's unlikely that ending all restrictions in a few week wouldn't lead to a rapid rise in infections and - in due course - actual deaths.

 

[AdamWW]

The antibody studies show the number of people who are showing a detectable level of some of the antibodies which we know that a subset of Coronavirus patients tend to generate. They don't show patients who recovered without the particular antibody response being generated, through other types of immune response. There are indications that maybr three times as many patients have detectably had the disease and developed some kind of immune response, as well as some level of reason for believing that a significant proportion of the population have a decent degree of pre-existing immunity from other sources.

No idea what any of this has to do with facemasks mind

Well if the people who think that we have herd immunity are right, then we can stop using them now?