Clean ones, obviously.
-
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
Clean ones, obviously.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
bramling
Veteran Member
I did see a woman in my town going round with something which I’m sure was half a bra.
Although snakeskin doesn't work so well, especially when it's still attached to the snake:
Coronavirus: Man told snakeskin isn't a legitimate face covering - 'especially when still attached to the snake'
The man was seen with a light brown serpent wrapped around his mouth and neck, but "no one batted an eyelid".
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
I work in a NHS Trust who have suddenly decided if within 2m of colleagues in the office you must now wear a mask AND...goggles?! (Or, one of those ridiculous visors...not forgetting the mask still!)
Thank goodness I can work the majority of my role from home! (I should point out for clarity this is a support role in an office nowhere near patients...)
Thank goodness I can work the majority of my role from home! (I should point out for clarity this is a support role in an office nowhere near patients...)
birchesgreen
Established Member
Well quite, but they do.
bramling
Veteran Member
Just seen Biden on TV doing a speech with a mask round his chin. Someone else posted a while ago that it seems like we might be replacing one idiot with another.
The media for their part should not be promoting mask misuse. The other night on Sky News there was a piece on Corbyn’s suspension where several people were spoken to on the streets of Islington, and every single one was misusing a mask in one way or other.
It would be funny if it wasn’t causing so many problems.
The media for their part should not be promoting mask misuse. The other night on Sky News there was a piece on Corbyn’s suspension where several people were spoken to on the streets of Islington, and every single one was misusing a mask in one way or other.
It would be funny if it wasn’t causing so many problems.
bengley
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,987
On the street, as in outdoors, where mask wearing isn't required?
bramling
Veteran Member
Yes, though I suspect they were pouncing on people as they had just emerged from shops.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why not? If one is being worn then it should be used properly, whether mandated or not.
bengley
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,987
You can take it off and wear it on your feet, or perhaps around your testicles, Borat style if you so desire, where it's not mandatory to wear one. It might not be how they were intended to be used but it's not important.
If he'd walked through an area with others, gave a speech away from others and then walk back through an area with people then I see no reason why it's an issue, unless in the removal and replacement or results in him touching the inside of the mask and/or his nose, mouth or eyes.
Certainly better than putting it down on a surface and then putting it back on.
trainophile
Established Member
They say a face covering is mandatory in certain places, but they don't say it has to be a clean one. Some people pull up a scarf from round their neck - how many people wear a clean scarf every day? Mine probably get washed once a fortnight if that.
DustyBin
Established Member
Unfortunately I think that’s exactly what the US is likely to do. For all Trump’s many faults, I’d rather have him talking about hydroxychloroquine and disinfectant than have Biden making false claims about masks and virtue signalling to the world about lockdowns and the removal of our freedoms.
I don’t understand the American obsession with masks, they are even worse than the most pro-mask people in the UK - I know a few people who live there and they put up pictures of them wearing them walking in the wilderness, hours from any other humans. Just in case though!
Biden is as detached from reality in Trump to be honest. His website says for example:
joebiden.com
Biden is as detached from reality in Trump to be honest. His website says for example:
COVID Timeline - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website
In the midst of a growing public health crisis, the country is looking for leadership, effectiveness, and trusted experience — and that’s Vice President Joe Biden. Joe Biden has been laser-focused on the threat that COVID-19 has posed to our nation and the decisive public health and economic...
joebiden.com
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,744
I have a bandana, as I hate having string behind my ears. It's great as I can just wear it round my neck all day and put it up when needed with no faffing. Also washable.
I don’t understand the American obsession with masks, they are even worse than the most pro-mask people in the UK - I know a few people who live there and they put up pictures of them wearing them walking in the wilderness, hours from any other humans. Just in case though!
Biden is as detached from reality in Trump to be honest. His website says for example:
COVID Timeline - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website
In the midst of a growing public health crisis, the country is looking for leadership, effectiveness, and trusted experience — and that’s Vice President Joe Biden. Joe Biden has been laser-focused on the threat that COVID-19 has posed to our nation and the decisive public health and economic...
I think it's because masks are so much more politicised over there. The Republicans despise them, so the Democrats seem to have decided to go as far as possible the other way. I've found that a lot of them view masks with an almost religious fervour, and quite a lot want them to become normalised forever.
There has also been more immigration to the US than the UK from countries where mask wearing was already normal, so this may have also had an effect.
I am not greatly bothered either way by masks, but one thing occurred to me while using the tube this morning (and I'm fully prepared to be told I'm misunderstanding the science here!):
Masks are supposedly most effective in face-to-face situations where people are talking. This is because this situation has the most droplets being expelled forwards and masks are supposed to catch those.
It is also known that masks leak aerosols profusely through the unsealed parts - in particular the tops, bottoms and sides. It seems that aerosols are at least one potential transmission factor, and anyone sitting directly to the side of someone wearing a mask would therefore intuitively be getting an increased concentration of 'projected' aerosols.
So how does the risk calculation apply to side-by-side seating situations such as the London Underground? Are we stopping droplets that are minimal anyway (because nobody talks on the tube), with the effect that masks directly project aerosols onto the passenger directly to the side (likely to be the nearest other person)?
I know this may not apply where tubes are so busy that people have to stand, but I can't recall the last one of those I travelled on recently.
I had the same thought on buses by the way, with projection of aerosols onto the passenger immediately behind (since seats are typically shorter than people on buses).
As I say, fully prepared to be pointed to the science that those risks are minimal or misconceived and outweighed by the other benefits.
Masks are supposedly most effective in face-to-face situations where people are talking. This is because this situation has the most droplets being expelled forwards and masks are supposed to catch those.
It is also known that masks leak aerosols profusely through the unsealed parts - in particular the tops, bottoms and sides. It seems that aerosols are at least one potential transmission factor, and anyone sitting directly to the side of someone wearing a mask would therefore intuitively be getting an increased concentration of 'projected' aerosols.
So how does the risk calculation apply to side-by-side seating situations such as the London Underground? Are we stopping droplets that are minimal anyway (because nobody talks on the tube), with the effect that masks directly project aerosols onto the passenger directly to the side (likely to be the nearest other person)?
I know this may not apply where tubes are so busy that people have to stand, but I can't recall the last one of those I travelled on recently.
I had the same thought on buses by the way, with projection of aerosols onto the passenger immediately behind (since seats are typically shorter than people on buses).
As I say, fully prepared to be pointed to the science that those risks are minimal or misconceived and outweighed by the other benefits.
DustyBin
Established Member
To be honest, I think you’ve simply identified yet another reason why masks don’t work in the real world....
Even though there’s a wide range of increasing evidence that face coverings are effective in preventing the spread of COVID in close quarters?
Please do share this evidence with us, I've not seen anything convincing thus far.
Only with a great many unrealistic assumptions, including proper medical face coverings, worn properly, stored properly, put on and taken off with clean hands, not touched during use, properly disposed of afterwards, not pulled up or down, etc. etc.
Claims that the "evidence" is applicable to Big Dave from Grays wearing a bit of cut up t-shirt that's been in and out of his pocket, glove compartment, shopping bag, etc. since Monday and that he pulls down onto his chin between shops do not deserve the time of day.
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,582
I would like to see the evidence, please. Can guarantee you can't spread COVID-19, you can spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus, thought, that may lead someone to developing COVID-19.
There really isn't! The "evidence" pretty much all takes the form of syntheses of previous studies, which were nearly all in healthcare settings where the type of masks and how they are used is so different that it's in no way comparable.
Frequently the press releases for such studies will make grandiose claims about what they demonstrate with regard to use of masks among the general public, but if you actually read the study the claims are not backed up by the evidence.
Is there? Because thus far people supporting the use of masks have wholeheartedly failed to provide any of this "increasing evidence".
bramling
Veteran Member
Care to share this with us? The way things are panning out seems to suggest otherwise.
Here's the link to the full paper on the hamster experiment which showed promise talked about in the Nature article:
Surgical Mask Partition Reduces the Risk of Noncontact Transmission in a Golden Syrian Hamster Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Noncontact transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in a Syrian hamster model. Surgical mask partition significantly reduced the transmission of SARS-Co
academic.oup.com
It also referred to another experiment a TB ward where it showed that on the days the patients wore a mask it infected fewer guinea pigs than on the days that they didn't:
This was in a setting where the concern is about the viral load in the air is of concern rather than direct spray, this article highlights how this can be of concern and how the amount/volume of talking can have an impact on it (even if you disagree with the impact that masks may have on the infection rates cited):
A room, a bar and a classroom: how the coronavirus is spread through the air
The risk of contagion is highest in indoor spaces but can be reduced by applying all available measures to combat infection via aerosols. Here is an overview of the likelihood of infection in three everyday scenarios, based on the safety measures used and the length of exposure
english.elpais.com
Whilst clearly there's limits on the effectiveness of masks compared to these experiments (which are highlighted in the text), that's a long way away from zero benefits.
In the hamsters experiment even if real world reduced it from 2/3 to 1/2 rather than the 1/4 in the higher level of exposure most would be happier with that lower rate.
There's two things which are of note, whilst the barrier is likely to be better fitted across the air flow than would be the case in the community there was only one layer of mask, whilst for many it would be two layers. The second is that the mask was used for the whole period of the experiment (minimum of 4 days) with air being blown from infected to uninfected all the time for a minimum of 4 days.
Unless at work or on a train most interactions are for periods for significantly less time than this.
What's the evidence that masks have ZERO impact (note that's not reduced impact from what the experiments show, I accept that, but rather actually have no impact what so ever)?
This is too easy, but I will focus on just one thing. The El Pais article contains a link to something called the ‘COVID 19 Airborne Transmission Tool.’ If you click on the link for that you get the following quote.
Evidence is not somebody saying ‘oh I think they’re probably X level of effectiveness, job’s a goodun.’ That is speculation, which is all there is to masks. I have not seen one single piece of advocacy for masks which falls down as soon as you click a few links and see what is actually meant by ‘evidence says’ - it is always nonsense.
COVID-19 Airborne Transmission Tool Available
New model estimates COVID-19 transmission in classrooms, buses, protests, more
cires.colorado.edu
Evidence is not somebody saying ‘oh I think they’re probably X level of effectiveness, job’s a goodun.’ That is speculation, which is all there is to masks. I have not seen one single piece of advocacy for masks which falls down as soon as you click a few links and see what is actually meant by ‘evidence says’ - it is always nonsense.
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
I witnessed a woman on the tube yesterday who was holding her mask to her face, i.e. it was cupped in her hand, and only over her nose and mouth when her hand was raised to her face !!!
The misuse of masks is not only laughable, it probably means people such as her are at more risk than if she was bare-faced
The misuse of masks is not only laughable, it probably means people such as her are at more risk than if she was bare-faced
Here's the link to the full paper on the hamster experiment which showed promise talked about in the Nature article:
Surgical Mask Partition Reduces the Risk of Noncontact Transmission in a Golden Syrian Hamster Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Noncontact transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in a Syrian hamster model. Surgical mask partition significantly reduced the transmission of SARS-Co
It also referred to another experiment a TB ward where it showed that on the days the patients wore a mask it infected fewer guinea pigs than on the days that they didn't:
This was in a setting where the concern is about the viral load in the air is of concern rather than direct spray, this article highlights how this can be of concern and how the amount/volume of talking can have an impact on it (even if you disagree with the impact that masks may have on the infection rates cited):
A room, a bar and a classroom: how the coronavirus is spread through the air
The risk of contagion is highest in indoor spaces but can be reduced by applying all available measures to combat infection via aerosols. Here is an overview of the likelihood of infection in three everyday scenarios, based on the safety measures used and the length of exposure
Whilst clearly there's limits on the effectiveness of masks compared to these experiments (which are highlighted in the text), that's a long way away from zero benefits.
In the hamsters experiment even if real world reduced it from 2/3 to 1/2 rather than the 1/4 in the higher level of exposure most would be happier with that lower rate.
There's two things which are of note, whilst the barrier is likely to be better fitted across the air flow than would be the case in the community there was only one layer of mask, whilst for many it would be two layers. The second is that the mask was used for the whole period of the experiment (minimum of 4 days) with air being blown from infected to uninfected all the time for a minimum of 4 days.
Unless at work or on a train most interactions are for periods for significantly less time than this.
What's the evidence that masks have ZERO impact (note that's not reduced impact from what the experiments show, I accept that, but rather actually have no impact what so ever)?
And why should we trust some hamsters in a cage over the actual randomised control trials that have shown no statistically significant effect?
- Status