UK face coverings discussion

[Richard Scott]

Well you've misinterpreted my point. My point is that to try to reduce infections and the resulting restrictions and thus improve people's well being, people should comply with the face covering guidelines. People are saying that face coverings aren't working because of the number of people infected now, but perhaps without them that number would be much much higher.

And we're not being asked to wear them all the time, just in public areas. To me lockdowns are a hardship, face coverings aren't. I trust the scientists and doctors and so should a lot of other people; the scientists know a lot more about epidemiology than joe public does.

Where is your evidence for face coverings? There are 199 pages in this thread now, which I have followed from the start and I don't remember seeing a shred of decent scientific evidence for them. To you they may not be a hardship but they are to others especially if their business suffers because fewer people go in as they don't want to or can't wear them. We've had people who are exempt being abused by others so yes they are causing hardship.
May I also point out that a number of people on here do have a science background and also plenty who don't who are still able to question the validity of face coverings. Just blatantly following something because a few people say do isn't a good way to conduct things. Remember the scientific community itself can't agree on many of the issues, face coverings included.

 

[Yew]

Well you've misinterpreted my point. My point is that to try to reduce infections and the resulting restrictions and thus improve people's well being, people should comply with the face covering guidelines. People are saying that face coverings aren't working because of the number of people infected now, but perhaps without them that number would be much much higher.

No people are saying that they don't work due to the results of every randomised control trial ever.

 

[Darandio]

I trust the scientists and doctors and so should a lot of other people; the scientists know a lot more about epidemiology than joe public does.

The same scientists that appear on in a live press conference to support a lockdown decision for us based on old and incorrect data? The same scientists that give out gems such as 'hospital admissions are now near to or exceeding the levels seen earlier in the year' when a look at the data doesn't support that?

Trust who you want, I don't, especially not when their information is based on false data and certainly not when you view their reaction to being caught out on this data.

 

[initiation]

but perhaps without them that number would be much much higher.

And perhaps the number would be exactly the same or lower. We can all take part in conjecture but that shouldn't shape Government policy.

And we're not being asked to wear them all the time, just in public areas.

Just in public transport, then just in shops, just in places of worship, just in pubs and restaurants, just in schools. I hope you can see why people disregard arguments like yours when you say it's just one more area that is needed.

To me lockdowns are a hardship, face coverings aren't.

Great for you. However for many people they are.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Perhaps you should try not resorting to making personal comments. Getting drunk lowers the inhibitions meaning people are more likely to flout social distancing and so more likely to infect someone else. That's why people should be responsible.

Restricting pub opening hours or, worse, closing them completely just means people go mad in the few opportunities that they are able to drink and socialise. That’s just human nature; we are not robots. I would say the policy is making things worse than if pubs were just allowed to trade normally (with covid secure measures in place, of course)

 

[Philip]

On a more general point about face coverings, in some of the far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them in public settings for some time, well before the pandemic started. The face covering rules have tightened because of the pandemic, but compliance is very very high there. So why should it be different here? This argument about humans being social creatures...well so are people in China and Japan, but they don't seem to have a problem with wearing face coverings in general. Why do us westerners have a problem with it?

 

[Darandio]

On a more general point about face coverings, in some of the far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them in public settings for some time, well before the pandemic started. The face covering rules have tightened because of the pandemic, but compliance is very very high there. So why should it be different here? This argument about humans being social creatures...well so are people in China and Japan, but they don't seem to have a problem with wearing face coverings in general. Why do us westerners have a problem with it?

How about we just look at it in a more simplistic way. Anyone on this forum opposed to wearing face masks and indeed anyone in the wider population wouldn't have that issue if there was clear evidence showing they were effective. You have been asked multiple times and cannot provide it. Others have been asked for months and cannot provide it. So where is it?

 

[Richard Scott]

On a more general point about face coverings, in some of the far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them in public settings for some time, well before the pandemic started. The face covering rules have tightened because of the pandemic, but compliance is very very high there. So why should it be different here? This argument about humans being social creatures...well so are people in China and Japan, but they don't seem to have a problem with wearing face coverings in general. Why do us westerners have a problem with it?

We have a problem with it as it's uncomfortable but my biggest issue is communication, I can't see anyone smile and that's very unpleasant. It's also difficult to identify people.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

On a more general point about face coverings, in some of the far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them in public settings for some time, well before the pandemic started. The face covering rules have tightened because of the pandemic, but compliance is very very high there. So why should it be different here? This argument about humans being social creatures...well so are people in China and Japan, but they don't seem to have a problem with wearing face coverings in general. Why do us westerners have a problem with it?

1. People were wearing voluntarily
2. They are worn mostly because pollution in big cities there is an issue
3. The state apparatus in China wants to dictate every minute detail of an individual’s life, telling them who they can meet with, where, and in how many numbers. They can dictate to businesses whether or not they can open, when, and for how long. No, wait... that’s the UK

 

[HSTEd]

On a more general point about face coverings, in some of the far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them in public settings for some time, well before the pandemic started. The face covering rules have tightened because of the pandemic, but compliance is very very high there. So why should it be different here? This argument about humans being social creatures...well so are people in China and Japan, but they don't seem to have a problem with wearing face coverings in general. Why do us westerners have a problem with it?

Because people in China and Japan are essentially brought up to believe in eternal service to the state above all else.

You might as well ask why women in the Middle East wear headscarves, when western women tend not to.

 

[35B]

1. People were wearing voluntarily
2. They are worn mostly because pollution in big cities there is an issue
3. The state apparatus in China wants to dictate every minute detail of an individual’s life, telling them who they can meet with, where, and in how many numbers. They can dictate to businesses whether or not they can open, when, and for how long. No, wait... that’s the UK

...and Sweden. Now, and for many years past.

 

[Philip]

How about we just look at it in a more simplistic way. Anyone on this forum opposed to wearing face masks and indeed anyone in the wider population wouldn't have that issue if there was clear evidence showing they were effective. You have been asked multiple times and cannot provide it. Others have been asked for months and cannot provide it. So where is it?

I've already given my own evidence, that is that many particles end up on the inside of the covering when people talk or cough, rather than on someone else. I'm sure they don't stop all particles getting through the material, but a lot are stopped and so that ties in with viral load.

 

[Yew]

I've already given my own evidence, that is that many particles end up on the inside of the covering when people talk or cough, rather than on someone else. I'm sure they don't stop all particles getting through the material, but a lot are stopped and so that ties in with viral load.

Filtration efficiency isn't what we care about though, you've baited and switched the difficult question of "what effect do masks have on transmission" with "what filtration effectiveness do masks have". Ultimately, in every day respiratory activity, there just simply isn't a large mass of droplet material emitted.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

We have a problem with it as it's uncomfortable but my biggest issue is communication, I can't see anyone smile and that's very unpleasant. It's also difficult to identify people.

Absolutely. My workplace brought in compulsory face masks in all indoor areas this week, and I find it extremely weird. I hope I never ‘get used to it’, because we should strive to abandon this sad lunacy as soon as possible.
One of the young female agency workers has a lovely, radiant smile, and in a monotonous working environment, small things like that can pierce the gloom and brighten the day.
To see her turn around today and be deprived of the full effect of that smile was, frankly, upsetting. I got almost tearful at the prospect of this deprivation of human communication going on for months on end. Up to now, work has been my sanctuary from seeing masked faces all around; now, even that aspect of my life has this psychological assault at every turn.

 

[Philip]

Filtration efficiency isn't what we care about though, you've baited and switched the difficult question of "what effect do masks have on transmission" with "what filtration effectiveness do masks have". Ultimately, in every day respiratory activity, there just simply isn't a large mass of droplet material emitted.

There was research done about this in Spring about the number of droplets emitted. And coughing transmitted a huge number, talking for more than 15 minutes or something to someone close by inside was deemed enough to potentially infect someone without any kind of face protection. I don't know exactly how effective masks are, but filtration efficiency is important because it ties in with viral load. Viral load ties in with hospital admissions, which is the whole point in social distancing.

 

[big_rig]

I've already given my own evidence, that is that many particles end up on the inside of the covering when people talk or cough, rather than on someone else. I'm sure they don't stop all particles getting through the material, but a lot are stopped and so that ties in with viral load.

Do you know the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘opinion?’ You are stating an opinion. Not a fact. Why don’t you go find us some evidence, provide a link to it, and see how it stands up? I’m sure it won’t be too much trouble as you have put quite a lot of time into providing opinion so far

 

[Darandio]

I've already given my own evidence, that is that many particles end up on the inside of the covering when people talk or cough, rather than on someone else. I'm sure they don't stop all particles getting through the material, but a lot are stopped and so that ties in with viral load.

I'm sorry, but that is not evidence. Given the amount of times you have been asked I can only assume you haven't got any. It's for the same reason everyone else who is asked hasn't got any because there isn't any evidence out there to give.

 

[Yew]

There was research done about this in Spring about the number of droplets emitted. And coughing transmitted a huge number, talking for more than 15 minutes or something to someone close by inside was deemed enough to potentially infect someone without any kind of face protection. I don't know exactly how effective masks are, but filtration efficiency is important because it ties in with viral load. Viral load ties in with hospital admissions, which is the whole point in social distancing.

Again, non of which are actual studies into real infections. I've got a Ph.D. in droplet mass transfer, and I am familiar with and interested in the techniques. But we don't care about droplets themselves, we care about actual infections. Theoretical mechanistic studies into droplets do not outweight high-quality trials, no matter how much we might want an easy solution to this situation.

 

[Philip]

I'm sorry, but that is not evidence. Given the amount of times you have been asked I can only assume you haven't got any. It's for the same reason everyone else who is asked hasn't got any because there isn't any evidence out there to give.

Well I don't know what you define as evidence, but I feel my reasoning is very logical. More importantly the scientists believe face coverings help prevent the spread and that is enough for me.

 

[Bantamzen]

On a more general point about face coverings, in some of the far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them in public settings for some time, well before the pandemic started. The face covering rules have tightened because of the pandemic, but compliance is very very high there. So why should it be different here? This argument about humans being social creatures...well so are people in China and Japan, but they don't seem to have a problem with wearing face coverings in general. Why do us westerners have a problem with it?

Incorrect, in many far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them when suffering from the symptoms of cold or flu. Strangely even with this custom in place, respiratory diseases continue to circulate, almost as if masks didn't actually work that well. Of course if you dug a little deeper into those cultures you might discover the real reason for wearing masks when ill.

 

[Philip]

Incorrect, in many far eastern countries it has been customary to wear them when suffering from the symptoms of cold or flu. Strangely even with this custom in place, respiratory diseases continue to circulate, almost as if masks didn't actually work that well. Of course if you dug a little deeper into those cultures you might discover the real reason for wearing masks when ill.

No, it is customary to wear them on public transport whether feeling ill or not. I don't need to dig deeper, I have a friend who is Chinese and he's very knowledgeable about both far eastern and world culture and customs. I believe him.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, it is customary to wear them on public transport whether feeling ill or not. I don't need to dig deeper, I have a friend who is Chinese and he's very knowledgeable about both far eastern and world culture and customs. I believe him.

Sorry but that is incorrect.

 

[35B]

No, it is customary to wear them on public transport whether feeling ill or not. I don't need to dig deeper, I have a friend who is Chinese and he's very knowledgeable about both far eastern and world culture and customs. I believe him.

I am content to wear a mask as a low cost, low risk intervention, and accept the validity of observational studies despite their less than conclusive results, but my own observations in Hong Kong don’t support your contention. When there in 2014, mask wearing was the exception and not the rule.

 

[island]

I've already given my own evidence unsupported assertion, that is that many particles end up on the inside of the covering when people talk or cough, rather than on someone else. I'm sure they don't stop all particles getting through the material, but a lot are stopped and so that ties in with viral load.

Fixed that for you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2020 ==

Well you've misinterpreted my point. My point is that to try to reduce infections and the resulting restrictions and thus improve people's well being, people should comply with the face covering guidelines. People are saying that face coverings aren't working because of the number of people infected now, but perhaps without them that number would be much much higher.

Again, evidence please. The alternative hypothesis, that increased use of masks has contributed to infection levels, is equally possible. This could be directly, or could be because people wearing masks treat them as invincibility shields and forget about distancing and more effective interventions.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Absolutely. My workplace brought in compulsory face masks in all indoor areas this week, and I find it extremely weird. I hope I never ‘get used to it’, because we should strive to abandon this sad lunacy as soon as possible.
One of the young female agency workers has a lovely, radiant smile, and in a monotonous working environment, small things like that can pierce the gloom and brighten the day.
To see her turn around today and be deprived of the full effect of that smile was, frankly, upsetting. I got almost tearful at the prospect of this deprivation of human communication going on for months on end. Up to now, work has been my sanctuary from seeing masked faces all around; now, even that aspect of my life has this psychological assault at every turn.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like this. I hate seeing people wearing masks, especially outdoors. In Oxford it's particularly bad and getting to the point where more people wear them outside than don't. I find that totally dispiriting.

What terrifies me is that there seem to be some people keen on keeping these around forever because it might reduce the spread of flu. And after all, that's "what they do in Asia". Luckily that seems to be more of an American thing, but the idea that anyone would want us to live in a faceless dystopia forever just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Domh245]

Well I don't know what you define as evidence, but I feel my reasoning is very logical. More importantly the scientists believe face coverings help prevent the spread and that is enough for me.

Actual scientific studies would be nice. self-perceived "logical reasoning" really doesn't cut it, especially as it fails to consider the whole 'system' - masks will have some sort of filtration effect, but does that actually still play out in the real world?

 

[yorkie]

Well I don't know what you define as evidence, but I feel my reasoning is very logical. More importantly the scientists believe face coverings help prevent the spread and that is enough for me.

The scientists? What do you mean by that?

If they help "prevent" the spread, why have cases increased so dramatically in places where they are enforced e.g. France, Spain and Italy?

If all scientists said what you say they do (which they don't) Sweden would be mandating masks.

If face coverings made a big difference, Sweden would surely be seeing more cases, and places like Italy which are going mask crazy would surely not be seeing such a dramatic increase in cases right now?

I feel sorry for a colleague who is obviously struggling to wear a mask, and would clearly be covered by an exemption, yet feels compelled to wear one as the authoritarians have created a initiation where it is deemed antisocial not to wear one.. It's not right.

I also notice people are much more inclined to abandon social distancing when wearing masks; have any studies taken all the factors into account? Wear I work hardly anyone complies with the guidance for putting masks on or off either, because it would be impractical to do so.

 

[Richard Scott]

Actual scientific studies would be nice. self-perceived "logical reasoning" really doesn't cut it, especially as it fails to consider the whole 'system' - masks will have some sort of filtration effect, but does that actually still play out in the real world?

It would be good. Some keep going on about filtration but the filters clog up, so in this case the viral load in the mask potentially could be quite significant meaning if handled this will transfer to the hands and onto a surface meaning anyone who touches that could potentially get a large viral dosage. In the real world people don't wash or sanitise their hands every few minutes.

 

[Philip]

The scientists? What do you mean by that?

If they help "prevent" the spread, why have cases increased so dramatically in places where they are enforced e.g. France, Spain and Italy?

The scientists who have advised the government that face coverings should be worn in public places. A lot more testing is being done than earlier in the year, so the figures will be higher and as I keep saying, it is quite possible the figures would be much higher without wearing them.

 

[yorkie]

The scientists who have advised the government that face coverings should be worn in public places. A lot more testing is being done than earlier in the year, so the figures will be higher and as I keep saying, it is quite possible the figures would be much higher without wearing them.

Who are they and what are their credentials?

The scientists advising Sweden are far better than the ones advising our Government.

Just look at the likes of Ferguson et al.; they're incompetent!

And saying the figures could be higher without masks, how do you take into account the differing approaches in other countries and the total lack of correlation between mandatory masks and case rate increases?