UK face coverings discussion

[43066]

Yep, that SAGE lot really know their onions...

That explains why they keep stuffing up.

 

[adc82140]

I've heard an awful lot of people on TV today claiming that Donald Trump wouldn't have contracted Covid-19 had he worn a face mask. Presumably they've seen evidence that masks work, and not only protect others as we were initially told, but also protect the wearer. Or are these people talking rubbish?

Could be an interesting study. There is obviously an outbreak in the White House. Is there any correlation between those who have contracted Covid and those who did or didn't wear a face covering?

 

[AM9]

Could be an interesting study. There is obviously an outbreak in the White House. Is there any correlation between those who have contracted Covid and those who did or didn't wear a face covering?

The whole Trump entourage travels around without any face coverings, so it only took one of them to contract the infection to pass it on to others. I assume that their highly visible practice of not wearing them was part of Trump's macho libertarian language that has now bitten him back.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Three pubs in London yesterday and the staff were very good with exception status, I imagine it helps when my two friends are wearing masks.

That said the district line driver gave a rather aggressive sermon about masks which doesn’t help when you are sat there and everyone starts looking around. I ended his sermon by stating to the carriage it was a shame he didn’t mention exemptions

 

[Richard Scott]

Could be an interesting study. There is obviously an outbreak in the White House. Is there any correlation between those who have contracted Covid and those who did or didn't wear a face covering?

I'd be fairly willing to bet the face mask issue is nothing to do with it, many months ago there were many in science fraternity saying that benefits were small at best, now they seem to be being discussed as though they are the main reason for lowering transmission. Don't recall seeing much of a change in figures between them not being mandatory and them being mandated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perfect.

You wear one.

I don't.

Both happy

If they protected the individual that would be fine, but they are believed to protect others from the individual, which makes that go a bit wrong.

 

[Richard Scott]

If they protected the individual that would be fine, but they are believed to protect others from the individual, which makes that go a bit wrong.

It's that belief idea again, when they're is actual proof many sceptics will take it more seriously. I only wear it as it's a requirement, I have yet to be convinced it's doing any good, especially as it's in and out of my pocket numerous times each day (I know that's not how it should be done but practically it's the easiest and it's the same for everyone else at work).

 

[VauxhallandI]

If they protected the individual that would be fine, but they are believed to protect others from the individual, which makes that go a bit wrong.

Do the masks only work one way?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the masks only work one way?

Effectively, yes, at least that's what is believed based on limited science. The reason is that when you exhale, the virus is believed likely to be caught up in relatively large water droplets, which disperse as they move around. Those are stopped (or reduced) by the relatively coarse weave of a fabric mask, whereas once dispersed the smaller droplets and vapour might not be.

 

[trainophile]

Something that really turns my stomach is seeing masks worn just below the nose. It looks so unhygienic, and people will keep touching the top of them right by their nostrils, then returning their hands to their phone or whatever. I've never noticed before how ugly noses are anyway, but seeing them poking out over the top of a mask is just gross.

 

[Yew]

Effectively, yes, at least that's what is believed based on limited science. The reason is that when you exhale, the virus is believed likely to be caught up in relatively large water droplets, which disperse as they move around. Those are stopped (or reduced) by the relatively coarse weave of a fabric mask, whereas once dispersed the smaller droplets and vapour might not be.

Out of interest, what size do you consider relatively large?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest, what size do you consider relatively large?

A size that is blocked by the weave of a fabric mask, in this case. I don't know the numbers.

 

[DB]

The whole Trump entourage travels around without any face coverings, so it only took one of them to contract the infection to pass it on to others. I assume that their highly visible practice of not wearing them was part of Trump's macho libertarian language that has now bitten him back.

And how do you know that they wouldn't have passed it round among them even if they had worn masks?

 

[43096]

Effectively, yes, at least that's what is believed based on limited science. The reason is that when you exhale, the virus is believed likely to be caught up in relatively large water droplets, which disperse as they move around. Those are stopped (or reduced) by the relatively coarse weave of a fabric mask, whereas once dispersed the smaller droplets and vapour might not be.

Those highlighted words don't inspire any sort of confidence. All the way through this fiasco, the impression has been of scientists making things up as they go along with flimsy evidence to back it up, whilst we are told that because they are scientists we must believe everything they say.

 

[DB]

Those highlighted words don't inspire any sort of confidence. All the way through this fiasco, the impression has been of scientists making things up as they go along with flimsy evidence to back it up, whilst we are told that because they are scientists we must believe everything they say.

And this is borne out by the studies which claim that masks are effective among the general public - normally they have a confident headline and synopsis strongly implying tha it's more or less proven definitively. However, read the actual study itself and it's generally based on studies in medical settings, with the authors then making the unevidenced leap of claiming it also applies in public, ignoring or severely down-playing the massive differences which make such conclusions highly dubious.

 

[Yew]

And this is borne out by the studies which claim that masks are effective among the general public - normally they have a confident headline and synopsis strongly implying tha it's more or less proven definitively. However, read the actual study itself and it's generally based on studies in medical settings, with the authors then making the unevidenced leap of claiming it also applies in public, ignoring or severely down-playing the massive differences which make such conclusions highly dubious.

I've found that lots of "meta analysis" consists of taking heavily caveated statements about effectiveness from papers, and stripping any context away from them to twist them into implying what they are not.

 

[AM9]

And how do you know that they wouldn't have passed it round among them even if they had worn masks?

If Trump survives, just wait and see a change in his attitude, - he's got the Johnson experience as an example as well as a non-infected Biden.

 

[DB]

If Trump survives, just wait and see a change in his attitude, - he's got the Johnson experience as an example as well as a non-infected Biden.

That doesn't answer the question though, does it?

 

[island]

And this is borne out by the studies which claim that masks are effective among the general public - normally they have a confident headline and synopsis strongly implying tha it's more or less proven definitively. However, read the actual study itself and it's generally based on studies in medical settings, with the authors then making the unevidenced leap of claiming it also applies in public, ignoring or severely down-playing the massive differences which make such conclusions highly dubious.

Quite. The studies are looking at medical grade masks being put on, worn, and taken off properly in a clinical setting, and disposed of after use. Not at Steve from Kidderminster who’s been wearing the same bit of chopped up t-shirt since Tuesday during which time it’s been in and out of his pocket, left on the table at Spoons, in the glove compartment of his motor, and goodness knows where else.

 

[trainophile]

A bloke on a radio phone-in last night was bigging up the wearing of masks whenever out of your own home. However he rather spoilt the effect by saying he always has one in his pocket, but sometimes has to rummage around for it because there's so much other c**p in there.

 

[bramling]

A bloke on a radio phone-in last night was bigging up the wearing of masks whenever out of your own home. However he rather spoilt the effect by saying he always has one in his pocket, but sometimes has to rummage around for it because there's so much other c**p in there.

I had a similar one on Facebook. Someone was, quite rightly, moaning about the quantity of discarded masks littering the town centre, including many which had found their way into the river and were thus a risk to ducks.

Needless to say a hysterical Karen appeared, saying how the littering is a small price to pay for saving even one life, and how “it makes my blood boil seeing people without masks”. Later in the same post she said “I always have mine in my pocket ready to put on as soon as I go out”.

I couldn’t resist interjecting that if the very sight of people devoid of masks brings such an extreme reaction then maybe it might be better for all the rest of us if she didn’t go out. Needless to say hornet’s nest unleashed!

 

[DB]

Needless to say hornet’s nest unleashed!

A savage attack by the self-righteous Batallion of Mumsnet?

 

[bramling]

A savage attack by the self-righteous Batallion of Mumsnet?

Yep!

 

[Bantamzen]

A bloke on a radio phone-in last night was bigging up the wearing of masks whenever out of your own home. However he rather spoilt the effect by saying he always has one in his pocket, but sometimes has to rummage around for it because there's so much other c**p in there.

What a numpty! Another to add to the "do masks really work for Joe Public?" collection.

 

[43066]

I had a similar one on Facebook. Someone was, quite rightly, moaning about the quantity of discarded masks littering the town centre, including many which had found their way into the river and were thus a risk to ducks.

Needless to say a hysterical Karen appeared, saying how the littering is a small price to pay for saving even one life, and how “it makes my blood boil seeing people without masks”. Later in the same post she said “I always have mine in my pocket ready to put on as soon as I go out”.

I couldn’t resist interjecting that if the very sight of people devoid of masks brings such an extreme reaction then maybe it might be better for all the rest of us if she didn’t go out. Needless to say hornet’s nest unleashed!

There’s definitely an element of Dominic Cummings style “divide and conquer” to the face coverings policy. I suppose it’s double pronged:

1. Bamboozle a load of gullible, easily triggered Facebook Karens with pseudoscience around masks, to pretend the government is doing something meaningful;

2. Stand back and watch as the ensuing arguments take the focus off the government’s general incompetence, and the fact they overreacted in the first place.

Best of all, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Nobody can prove a negative, so the solution to higher case numbers will only ever be calls for “MORE MASKS”.

It’s quite ingenious, when you think about it, and it’s working like a charm!

 

[Bantamzen]

There’s definitely an element of Dominic Cummings style “divide and conquer” to the face coverings policy. I suppose it’s double pronged:

1. Bamboozle a load of gullible, easily triggered Facebook Karens with pseudoscience around masks, to pretend the government is doing something meaningful;

2. Stand back and watch as the ensuing arguments take the focus off the government’s general incompetence, and the fact they overreacted in the first place.

Best of all, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Nobody can prove a negative, so the solution to higher case numbers will only ever be calls for “MORE MASKS”.

It’s quite ingenious, when you think about it, and it’s working like a charm!

Well when you say its working like a charm, maybe for now. But there's going to come a point, hopefully not too far into the future where enough people tell Karen to sod off and ask why the hell despite slapping bits of cloth over our faces whenever we risk getting anywhere near to other people indoors infections continue to rise. Surely if they worked, we'd see some evidence? Hell even the media are attributing the recent slow-down to the "Rule of 6". That should be really telling.

 

[Scotrail12]

A savage attack by the self-righteous Batallion of Mumsnet?

No surprise that Mumsnet is very pro-lockdown!

 

[bramling]

There’s definitely an element of Dominic Cummings style “divide and conquer” to the face coverings policy. I suppose it’s double pronged:

1. Bamboozle a load of gullible, easily triggered Facebook Karens with pseudoscience around masks, to pretend the government is doing something meaningful;

2. Stand back and watch as the ensuing arguments take the focus off the government’s general incompetence, and the fact they overreacted in the first place.

Best of all, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Nobody can prove a negative, so the solution to higher case numbers will only ever be calls for “MORE MASKS”.

It’s quite ingenious, when you think about it, and it’s working like a charm!

About right. And it "empowers" the Karen types, and some bully-boy types too, to go round with a bee in their bonnet about masks. I suppose it stops them doing other undesirable things like panic buying!

 

[DB]

About right. And it "empowers" the Karen types, and some bully-boy types too, to go round with a bee in their bonnet about masks. I suppose it stops them doing other undesirable things like panic buying!

They'll do the panic buying as well. And of course, when they are buying 200 toilet rolls, if they see a person without a mask in the shop they will quickly post their outrage on Twitter!

 

[43066]

About right. And it "empowers" the Karen types, and some bully-boy types too, to go round with a bee in their bonnet about masks. I suppose it stops them doing other undesirable things like panic buying!

Treat them like mushrooms: keep them in the dark and feed them dung.