You have posted nothing which is remotely convincing.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
UK face coverings discussion
- Thread starter Mag_seven
- Start date
- Status
You have posted nothing which is remotely convincing.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
Absolutely. Nothing is perfect. But it was way better than the crappy new normal. Well back in 2019 at least you could travel abroad without worrying about quarantine, for example
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
I mean, many people on this forum don't like masks, so hardly surprising. But there's nothing wrong with that, as people are, rightly so, entitled to their own opinion.
I was hoping for a less flippant answer, bearing in mind the inconveniences you want to impose on us all.
If we go back to 2019 normal, we're just ready for infections to increase again, albeit that there won't be quite as many potential infectees. It's just a slow repeat until it's worked its way through the population. Why do that at slow speed when we could do it at full speed and get it over and done with faster?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If we are going to do that yes it makes sense (with regard to NHS capacity, so some mitigation needed) to do it as quickly as possible.
That is not the policy currently being followed, though.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It appears to be following the "hammer and the dance", the dance being a roughly constant case rate until a vaccine.
Please don't dodge the issue. You have posted no links to clear scientific evidence showing that there is any appreciable transmission risk in shops, nor that masks of the type used (or rather, mostly misused) by the general public actually improve this.
I'm glad we agree that there is no policy defined.
I'd say it appears to be to keep project fear cranked up to maximum whilst slowly ramping up the irrational measures until the vaccine is available and we rush to get it in order to get our freedom back.
I'd say it appears to be to keep project fear cranked up to maximum whilst slowly ramping up the irrational measures until the vaccine is available and we rush to get it in order to get our freedom back.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
I'm sorry but what? Even the WHO recommends masks in areas where social distancing isn't possible!
Unless there is no vaccine, or it's of limited effectiveness.
In which case we've trashed the economy, health service, education, employment, etc to no gain whatsoever.
And the NHS has come nowhere near to being overwhelmed. Despite the fact that the virus is now known to pose much less risk that originally thought, it's still being treated as if it's exceptionally dangerous.
And of course we have to assume on what the policy is, because our wonderful leaders don't see fit to tell us (they may of course have no idea themselves as to what the policy is).
You really need to read back through the threads on here.
The WHO is very lukewarm on the idea and the recommendation is far from wholehearted. The BBC discovered that the reluctant endorsement which the WHO has given was as a result of political pressure rather than evidence.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
So here is some more "useless" evidence then:
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
We talked to UCSF epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.
So here is some more "useless" evidence then:
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
We talked to UCSF epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.www.ucsf.edu
I'll raise your "useless" evidence with evidence they're not only useless, but potentially counterproductive
Coronavirus: Which face covering works best? Scientists test 14 masks - and find one actually increases risk of infection
Scientists have tested 14 different types of face-covering and found that one of them actually increases the risk of coronavirus infection.
That article cites examples where you are in close contact for extended periods, like on aircraft. It has nothing to do with fleeting contact in Sainsbury's. I favour masks on public transport, because it allows the capacity to increase. Social distancing worked in supermarkets, and mask wearing has caused this to collapse.
So here is some more "useless" evidence then:
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
We talked to UCSF epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.
That's an opinion piece based on the usual ragtag collection of studies along the lines of correlation equalling causation - and not taking sufficient account of what other meaures were taken at the same time, or of the fact that peaks occur anyway in infection rates.
Along the same lines, it could equally be argued that masks make things worse, as rates have gone up in this country since masks have been mandated (and no other restrictions have changed). That may well be going beyond what can strictly be attributed, but at the very least it can certainly be said that there is no evidence from what's happening in the UK that introducing masks has caused any appreciable reduction.
I would suggest you read the various articles on the excellent CEBM website for a more balanced view of the whole subject: https://www.cebm.net
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,578
No they are not. Only two ways back to normal one is pin your hope on a vaccine or second allow it to spread so people have it and develop an immunity (whilst allowing vulnerable to shield). Suppressing it is just making the process longer not shorter. And use of masks suppressing it is of dubious value as stated by many people on here.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
Why everybody in my opinion should wear N95s if possible to reduce the spread.
"The most effective face-covering in the study was a fitted N95 mask without valves which had a droplet transmission fraction of 0.1%."
According to the same article that @jtuk quoted
"The most effective face-covering in the study was a fitted N95 mask without valves which had a droplet transmission fraction of 0.1%."
According to the same article that @jtuk quoted
So here is some more "useless" evidence then:
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
We talked to UCSF epidemiologist George Rutherford, MD, and infectious disease specialist Peter Chin-Hong, MD, about the CDC’s reversal on mask-wearing, the current science on how masks work, and what to consider when choosing a mask.
One day I'll have to do a thorough rebuttal of these "We put some vapour through a smooth pipe to test masks" papers. Their rigs are usually so awful that they should be thoroughly ignored.
But there aren't enough of them available, and even if there were they are pretty useless unless used according to proper clinical practice - which hardly anyone will be doing.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
I'd say the only reason why in my opinion cases have increased is because so many people have been wearing the wrong type of mask. I mean, a cloth covering? That type of mask is useless in reducing the infection rate, compared to N95s and Surgical masks that are really effective.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
At least they aren't as dangerous as a cloth face covering though.
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,578
I'm willing to bet most infections at the moment are not due to strangers passing in Tescos, sat near each other on a train but possibly families passing it on through close contact so your masks idea is going to make next to no difference. At current rate of infections (around 1000 per day) it'll take best part of 200 years for everyone to get this virus.
But the rule is a 'face covering'. So you agree that the mask law as it stands is actually useless, then?
As regards clinical-grade masks, it's been pointed out to you numerous times that these should not be used by people without proper training, and unless they are used according to proper clinical standards they are not effective.
A cloth face covering is, for most people, not 'dangerous' - it is merely completely pointless.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
Only cloth coverings are useless. N95s and FPPN3 are the most useful ones.
Btw, there's one airline in France (if I remember correctly it's Air France) that only allows passengers with N95s and FPPN3 to board their planes.
SouthEastBuses
On Moderation
Indeed, hence why surgical and n95s are the only ones that really work.
py_megapixel
Established Member
if, and only if, they are used correctly. You need only look at some N95s to see warnings about danger of injury/death from incorrect use.
In addition, these continue to be in short supply, and are needed for those who work in close proximity to vulnerable people - most notably NHS workers. This, in addition to the truly dreadful environmental impact of thousands of face masks per day being thrown away, makes it in my opinion unethical to mandate the wearing of such masks.
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,578
So why are we bothering with all this nonsense about covering our faces then?
- Status