UK face coverings discussion

[trainophile]

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

I found out in the vile weather (cold and sideways rain) last week that if I have a hat on with a coat hood pulled over it, I have to dismantle the whole lot to put my mask elastic behind my ears. Only found this out as the bus was approaching, so a bit of a panic! I can see how this happens. Also if your mask elastic breaks, as has happened a couple of times, you don't have much option but to hold it against your face.

 

[The Ham]

And why should we trust some hamsters in a cage over the actual randomised control trials that have shown no statistically significant effect?

Not statistically significant is not the same as none.

If r have a rate of increase of 1.2 but masks reduce that rate by 0.5% and we start at 20 people Then after week one that's almost no difference, however after 15 weeks that's 308 who have been infected vs 286.

Even taking a lower figure and assuming a whole year of mask wearing at a 0.1% difference it's infections of 262,093 Vs 248,807.

If 0.1% die of those infected that's 13 deaths saved.

Hence why it has to be none, and not just not statistically significant. Few would argue that 0.1% is statistically significant yet for the friends and family of those 13 people it's enough of a difference.

That's because it's not just that you have to be protected once, but each and every time you interact with others. That also means that each time you stop one person from getting infected that's then a whole chain of people who aren't infected and therefore can't infect anyone else.

In one study quoted in this article:

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-result

The figures were:
1.3698630136986% N95
3.1185031185031% no protection
1.7486401048045% difference

3.2758620689655% surgical masks
3.9301310043668% no protection
0.6542689354012% difference

2.6422764227642% surgical masks
3.1185031185031% no protection
0.4762266957388% difference

I've used the percentages, as the size of the groups varied to the extent that in one example although more people got infected with masks the sample size was larger so overall there was still a decrease.

I would however add the notes that the group sizes were fairly small so there's likely to be a range (bigger/smaller difference) in the difference calculated as shown on the graphic, likewise it's not on Covid-19 which could result different figures and was within healthcare workers, if that was only whilst at work those being infected could have come from outside of their work settings (i.e. from their child from school), which again may not be the case for Covid-19.

As such the evidence isn't clear either way. Therefore because there might be some limited benefit it's worth trying.

However in saying that it needs to be highlighted that any such benefit is likely to be small and so masks shouldn't be seen as a replacement for other measures (good hygiene, staying 2m apart where possible, not mixing households inside unless well ventilated and for limited period, etc.). Unfortunately too many think that they are and so increase their risk more than would have been the case if they weren't wearing a mask.

 

[43066]

However in saying that it needs to be highlighted that any such benefit is likely to be small and so masks shouldn't be seen as a replacement for other measures (good hygiene, staying 2m apart where possible, not mixing households inside unless well ventilated and for limited period, etc.). Unfortunately too many think that they are and so increase their risk more than would have been the case if they weren't wearing a mask.

Exactly.

It’s clear at this point that masks have failed in terms of the reason they were introduced: we were assured they would be a way to bring back normality, yet here we are about to enter another lockdown!

They very evidently don’t have any significant benefit. Whether that’s because they don’t work at all, or have a small benefit offset by a lack of distancing, doesn’t really matter.

 

[DustyBin]

I was directed to these articles on another Forum. I’ve no idea if they’re peer reviewed or what the authors credentials are, but as the ‘science’ propagated by the government and their advisors has set such a low bar I see no reason not to share them:

https://pdmj.org/Mask_Risks_Part1.pdf

Abstract
There is no biological history of mass masking until the current era. It is important to consider possible outcomes of this society-wide experiment. The consequences to the health of individuals is as yet unknown.
Masked individuals have measurably higher inspiratory flow than non-masked individuals. This study is of new masks removed from manufacturer packaging, as well as a laundered cloth mask, examined microscopically. Loose particulate was seen on each type of mask. Also, tight and loose fibers were seen on each type of mask. If every foreign particle and every fiber in every facemask is always secure and not detachable by airflow, then there should be no risk of inhalation of such particles and fibers. However, if even a small portion of mask fibers is detachable by inspiratory airflow, or if there is debris in mask manufacture or packaging or handling, then there is the possibility of not only entry of foreign material to the airways, but also entry to deep lung tissue, and potential pathological consequences of foreign bodies in the lungs.

https://pdmj.org/Mask_Risks_Part2.pdf

Abstract
Face masks have come into common use in many countries since mid-2020, for all age groups. Some aspect of this may be voluntary, but certainly much of this use is either accompanied by force, threats, subtle coercion, or a continuum of subtle to fierce societal pressures on the individual to conform to mask-wearing. From widespread fear of COVID-19, associated with the virus named SARS-CoV2, mask-wearing is recently assumed by many to be a prudent measure against contagion. In this paper, the second in our series, we continue our examination of the potential hazards of masks, in which we now turn attention to microbial contamination from masks and mask use, changes in oral and nasal microbiota, and potential risks to the lungs and other organ systems from microbial factors. Because widespread masking is a very new society- wide experiment, the impact of this experiment, the obstruction of airways from free breathing and a typical air exchange interplay with oral microbiota is not yet known. Furthermore, the effects of such changes in the lungs and beyond are not yet known. This paper will explore some considerations of these changes, by examining mask effectiveness against transmission, historical evidence of epidemiology from the 1918-1919 pandemic, microbial contamination, respiratory disease and the role of oral bacteria in systemic disease; and infections involving fungi, yeast, and molds. Compiling statistical and scientific evidence from these subjects alone should help equip any individual with adequate information on risks and benefits when choosing whether to wear a mask.

It looks like they were originally published here:

PDMJ: Primary Doctor Medical Journal

pdmj.org

 

[35B]

I was directed to these articles on another Forum. I’ve no idea if they’re peer reviewed or what the authors credentials are, but as the ‘science’ propagated by the government and their advisors has set such a low bar I see no reason not to share them:

https://pdmj.org/Mask_Risks_Part1.pdf

https://pdmj.org/Mask_Risks_Part2.pdf

It looks like they were originally published here:

PDMJ: Primary Doctor Medical Journal

pdmj.org

I find it interesting that this journal appears only to have one issue, and not to come up on an online search.

 

[bramling]

Exactly.

It’s clear at this point that masks have failed in terms of the reason they were introduced: we were assured they would be a way to bring back normality, yet here we are about to enter another lockdown!

They very evidently don’t have any significant benefit. Whether that’s because they don’t work at all, or have a small benefit offset by a lack of distancing, doesn’t really matter.

Quite so. If they’re not achieving any of what they are allegedly supposed to, then why are we bothering?

Meanwhile some people continue to obsess over them. My place had a handle pulled today, which was rather good as I happened to be on the train concerned. After we quickly established that the maskless person was exempt, the topic of conversation turned to whether a person devoid of a mask was an emergency, especially as there was a poster right there explaining about exemptions. Pleasingly the upshot was one person completed their journey by another means.

 

[DustyBin]

I find it interesting that this journal appears only to have one issue, and not to come up on an online search.

As I said, I’ve no idea how ‘legit’ the papers (or the journal) are, but they’re probably no less-so than many of the ones presented in support of face coverings. There make some interesting points regardless, but feel free to take them with a pinch of salt, I’m not going to try and argue their credibility.

 

[35B]

As I said, I’ve no idea how ‘legit’ the papers (or the journal) are, but they’re probably no less-so than many of the ones presented in support of face coverings. There make some interesting points regardless, but feel free to take them with a pinch of salt, I’m not going to try and argue their credibility.

No such argument inferred, but whenever someone posts a link, I do like to cast a quick eye at what it is!

 

[A Challenge]

Not statistically significant is not the same as none.

It isn't the same, but what not statistically significant means is that the trial has shown so little a difference (either way) that it is probably just random variation in the study not an actual difference made by the change. It doesn't mean (whether you want it to or not) that there has been proved to be a difference, it means that the results are too close to before for any difference to be shown. It is the closest we can get to proving there is no difference, as we can't prove a negative.

 

[Domh245]

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

..

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.

All the hamster experiment (and other experiments on a similar vane of "look, putting a mask between things did x") tells me is that a mask is capable of acting as a barrier of some sort. It's no more useful than if they'd put a brick wall between the cages and shown that there was zero transmission - I don't think anyone disputes that a piece of fabric on its own will serve to block airflow (and whatever is in the air) to some extent, but that's not a valid piece of evidence supporting people using masks

 

[yorkie]

All the hamster experiment (and other experiments on a similar vane of "look, putting a mask between things did x") tells me is that a mask is capable of acting as a barrier of some sort. It's no more useful than if they'd put a brick wall between the cages and shown that there was zero transmission - I don't think anyone disputes that a piece of fabric on its own will serve to block airflow (and whatever is in the air) to some extent, but that's not a valid piece of evidence supporting people using masks

Indeed; and if mask wearing is such a silver bullet, why is it that every time the rules get more onerous on mask wearing, transmission increases?

In my opinion they may reduce transmission by a tiny amount but it's unlikely to be worth the drawbacks to society.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

What gets me annoyed is older teenagers who think they can remove their mask after paying their bus fare, whereas all adults are fully complying with the rules

I would tread very carefully with that narrative. Perhaps it's because teenagers are intelligent enough to realise that wearing a face covering has negligible impact on the transmission of this virus (note that I am not condoning breaking the law)?

Funnily enough I've noticed a significant amount of people in the older generation donning a face covering under their nose or taking it off to have a natter with someone on the phone - but of course they're not nearly as easy to target.

 

[Scotrail12]

My sister just told me that face nappies are now required in schools as of tomorrow. Sorry, they provide 0 protection, can cause a whole host of issues and will be of detriment to education, especially that of primary school kids. And in a school setting, there is no way that they'll be used hygienically.

If they really had to, could visors not suffice? It would be near impossible to effectively teach with any sort of face covering.

On a personal note, I'm finding it increasingly hard when in places like coffee shops to hear what people are saying while wearing aface nappies. My hearing isn't great for someone my age (though I can hear in both ears and am far from being deaf) so it's a bit challenging.

 

[DB]

The railways are at it again - demanding proof of exemptions.

I was on a train today - I had a lanyard because I didn't want the hassle. A woman without a mask took the seat in front, and when the guard came through and asked her about a mask she told him that she was exempt - which should have been the end of the matter. But no, next question was "have you got any proof". She wasn't cowed and told him what the government guidance said (I chipped in and backed her up). The guard told us it was company policy to ask. Really? I find that difficult to believe, but he backed off then so there was no point in pursuing it.

Why can the train operators seemingly not make their staff aware of the actual rules and associated governmenrt guidance?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

My sister just told me that face nappies are now required in schools as of tomorrow. Sorry, they provide 0 protection, can cause a whole host of issues and will be of detriment to education, especially that of primary school kids. And in a school setting, there is no way that they'll be used hygienically.

If they really had to, could visors not suffice? It would be near impossible to effectively teach with any sort of face covering.

On a personal note, I'm finding it increasingly hard when in places like coffee shops to hear what people are saying while wearing aface nappies. My hearing isn't great for someone my age (though I can hear in both ears and am far from being deaf) so it's a bit challenging.

The Government guidance is only for S4-S6 in classrooms in level 3 and level 4 local authorities (all years in communal areas, in all "levels"). However, Dundee have chosen to extend it to all years in classrooms, for the following reasons (outlined in a letter distributed to parents):

• Clarity of message
• This measure further reduces the risk of infection
• Would increase feelings of personal protection and safety
• S1-S3 should have masks with them anyway
• Community solidarity
• We are collectively responsible for protecting one another
• To encourage social responsibility

So a load of brainwashing codswallop, really.

The guard told us it was company policy to ask. Really? I find that difficult to believe, but he backed off then so there was no point in pursuing it.

I would encourage you to contact the operator to clarify their position, and present them the Government guidance regarding proof of exemption at the outset of your correspondence.

 

[DB]

The Government guidance is only for S4-S6 in classrooms in level 3 and level 4 local authorities (all years in communal areas, in all "levels"). However, Dundee have chosen to extend it to all years in classrooms, for the following reasons (outlined in a letter distributed to parents):

• Clarity of message
• This measure further reduces the risk of infection
• Would increase feelings of personal protection and safety
• S1-S3 should have masks with them anyway
• Community solidarity
• We are collectively responsible for protecting one another
• To encourage social responsibility

I would encourage you to contact the operator to clarify their position, and present them the Government guidance regarding proof of exemption at the outset of your correspondence.

Well, the second one remains unproven, and the others are drivel / irrelevant.

Claiming 'community solidarity' is laughable - masks are having the opposite effect and setting people against each other.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

This whole face-covering nonsense will (I sincerely hope) be viewed by future generations and we will be laughed at for our compliance.
I saw police officers giving a statement to tv reporters after the terrorist incidents in Nice, France the other day.
The spokesman and two others appeared on camera, side-by-side, all dutifully wearing the obligatory blue face masks... while stood less than 2 centimetres apart

 

[sheff1]

I’ve been verbally abused several times now by “concerned citizens” because I don’t wear a mask, the latest happened on TfL transport whilst wearing a TfL uniform. I had two badges on my jacket stating I am exempt and a lanyard (all fully on display) yet I still got a torrent of abuse and told that I am the cause of all the problems.

On the train yesterday the guard announced "Thank you to everyone wearing a mask. And to those who are not, thanks for the new lockdown which is coming our way from next week".

 

[DB]

On the train yesterday the guard announced "Thank you to everyone wearing a mask. And to those who are not, thanks for the new lockdown which is coming our way from next week".

I think that justifies a complaint to the TOC.

 

[43066]

The railways are at it again - demanding proof of exemptions.

I was on a train today - I had a lanyard because I didn't want the hassle. A woman without a mask took the seat in front, and when the guard came through and asked her about a mask she told him that she was exempt - which should have been the end of the matter. But no, next question was "have you got any proof". She wasn't cowed and told him what the government guidance said (I chipped in and backed her up). The guard told us it was company policy to ask. Really? I find that difficult to believe, but he backed off then so there was no point in pursuing it.

Why can the train operators seemingly not make their staff aware of the actual rules and associated governmenrt guidance?

Difficult to know but most TOCs are instructing staff to make announcements and positively but politely ask if passengers need masks. Interrogating passengers about exemptions is not acceptable.

There quite a few rogue staff out there which brings me on to...

On the train yesterday the guard announced "Thank you to everyone wearing a mask. And to those who are not, thanks for the new lockdown which is coming our way from next week".

Wow.

As someone who is exempt if I heard that on a train I was travelling on I’d go and find him and give him an absolute piece of my mind. That definitely justifies a formal complaint to the TOC.

It’s actively insighting passengers to bully those who might be exempt. Utterly disgusting

 

[sheff1]

I think that justifies a complaint to the TOC.

As someone who is exempt if I heard that on a train I was travelling on I’d go and find him and give him an absolute piece of my mind. That definitely justifies a formal complaint to the TOC.

After I heard it, I made sure I had my phone ready to record him at the next (and final) stop to support a complaint. However, he did not repeat the announcement - I do wonder if another passenger had said something.

 

[Richard Scott]

Had a conductor constantly going on about masks on a GW train on Friday, no mention of exemptions nor did the poster within the train. Complaint made.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

As someone who is exempt if I heard that on a train I was travelling on I’d go and find him and give him an absolute piece of my mind.

Me too. Though I think I would say something even if I wasn’t exempt. There’s already people on Twitter making the same bogus argument that non-compliance has forced a second lockdown.

 

[bramling]

On the train yesterday the guard announced "Thank you to everyone wearing a mask. And to those who are not, thanks for the new lockdown which is coming our way from next week".

It really is like some people have been brainwashed.

I’d be tempted to make a little complaint to the TOC about that one. The PA system isn’t a mouthpiece for personal beliefs.

The government would no doubt be proud of themselves with that one, that some prat *actually* blames the lockdown on non-mask-wearers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2020 ==

This whole face-covering nonsense will (I sincerely hope) be viewed by future generations and we will be laughed at for our compliance.
I saw police officers giving a statement to tv reporters after the terrorist incidents in Nice, France the other day.
The spokesman and two others appeared on camera, side-by-side, all dutifully wearing the obligatory blue face masks... while stood less than 2 centimetres apart

Unfortunately the types that are dim enough to be brainwashed in the first place aren’t the most likely to admit to being misguided.

This is partly why we have this unsatisfactory situation of seeing measures which clearly aren’t effective, yet rather then ditching them and trying something else the solution is to keep doing more and more of the same.

 

[43066]

The government would no doubt be proud of themselves with that one, that some prat *actually* blames the lockdown on non-mask-wearers.

Absolutely. There are a lot of half wits out there who simply believe everything they’re told at face value and that plays perfectly into the government’s hands. The masks strategy is more about “divide and conquer”, with Cumming’s fingerprints all over it.

Compliance with masks has been pretty high since they were introduced and yet they’ve made no appreciable difference. But there was no political downside to introducing them, just as there’s no political upside now to removing them!

 

[DustyBin]

Absolutely. There are a lot of half wits out there who simply believe everything they’re told at face value and that plays perfectly into the government’s hands. The masks strategy is more about “divide and conquer”, with Cumming’s fingerprints all over it.

Compliance with masks has been pretty high since they were introduced and yet they’ve made no appreciable difference. But there was no political downside to introducing them, just as there’s no political upside now to removing them!

I agree, and this doesn’t only apply to masks. There’s a critical mass of people out there who are, shall we say, rather lacking when it comes to critical thinking (I’m trying to refrain from insults here!). As a result, the government can introduce whatever restrictions they want, it’s a no lose situation for them. Restrictions ineffective = (cov)idiots not complying. Restrictions effective = well done government, let’s have more. I honestly believe even the government are shocked at how easily the population can be manipulated....

 

[yorkie]

On the train yesterday the guard announced "Thank you to everyone wearing a mask. And to those who are not, thanks for the new lockdown which is coming our way from next week".

Definitely warrants a complaint.

My guess would be Northern. Though some XC Guards are obnoxious too.

How does someone this stupid and obnoxious become a Train Guard?!

 

[Scotrail12]

Why does Kamala Harris feel the need to wear masks in every interview she does? Taking away arguments about their effectiveness, they're simply not needed when you're keeping a 2m or more distance and when you're outside!

Is she trying to politicise masks or what?

 

[SamYeager]

Is she trying to politicise masks or what?

Of course she is - it's a very unsubtle dig at Trump however this is very much off-topic so I'll leave it there.

 

[The Ham]

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.

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.

Even within that quote it cites that there is a reduction in airborne virus from someone wearing a mask.

How ill you get is linked to how much viral load that you receive, which is why good ventilation of indoor settings is important, so if the amount of virus being left in the air is reduced after that person has left will impact on the likely outcomes from anyone sharing that space with them.

As such, even if there's the same number of cases then chances are those cases wouldn't be as extreme as if there was no mask wearing.

Again, I'd highlight

Exactly.

It’s clear at this point that masks have failed in terms of the reason they were introduced: we were assured they would be a way to bring back normality, yet here we are about to enter another lockdown!

They very evidently don’t have any significant benefit. Whether that’s because they don’t work at all, or have a small benefit offset by a lack of distancing, doesn’t really matter.

There's a few points that I would highlight:
- that data was on influenza viruses, as such Covid-19 might be different.
- that data was for healthcare workers, as such I assume that it was for their work setting and so likely to be where they are in an environment with high levels of virus (i.e. presumably treating those with it, otherwise they would have had to wear them a lot), was only them wearing a mask (so levels in the air would likely be higher than otherwise be the case, as others have cited masks can fairly easily reduce the level of virus by 50%) and for up to 12 hour shifts. The last point is fairly important as time is a major factor in the risk of exposure.
- likewise it's a virus which is very widespread in the community, as such there's not way of being sure where they were infected from (e.g. they could have caught from their kids or on public transport rather than at work)

Is there any data for Covid-19 which shows a similar situation, if so can you provide links?

As although colds are caused by other covid viruses, that doesn't mean that they are infectious in the same way. For instance there appears to be limited evidence for surface contact infections.