UK face coverings discussion

[adc82140]

We only have to look back to March to see that the majority of cases then were as a result of superspreading events like conferences and cruise ships, not fleeting encounters in supermarkets. These are events where the same people are in close contact all day. This is where masks may help *if worn correctly*, not going in and out of Sainsbury's

 

[bramling]

I think threads like this just show how selfish westerners are and how much of an ‘I’ culture we live in. Compare that to some Asian countries where they have a ‘we’ culture and face masks are worn out of respect for others and not wanting to pass on coughs, colds or other airway nasties to others. All voluntarily as well. Over here, we have some actively changing their shopping habits to be at supermarkets who refuse to enforce such measures, or flaunting themselves on social media doing so. What an absolute shame.

I don't see this is a selfish thing at all. Coughs and colds are a fact of life, and without getting them from time to time we would never build up immunity. With the attitude of the scientific community having very firmly been that masks are of dubious benefit, one could quite easily build a case to say the Asian mask culture is more symbolic than effective.

I appreciate Covid is more risky than the average cold, however the same principle applies that mask use clearly has disbenefits outside of a controlled medical setting. I've yet to be convinced these disbenefits aren't outweighed by the supposed benefit. I don't see that as being selfish, merely an objective assessment of the situation, devoid of the emotion and hysteria some people seem to be allowing to affect judgements.

It very much isn't a case of just being able to say "let's give masks a go, it's a minor irritant and there's nowt to lose by trying it", when it's well known there *are* potential pitfalls.

 

[Scrotnig]

I don't see this is a selfish thing at all. Coughs and colds are a fact of life, and without getting them from time to time we would never build up immunity. With the attitude of the scientific community having very firmly been that masks are of dubious benefit, one could quite easily build a case to say the Asian mask culture is more symbolic than effective.

I appreciate Covid is more risky than the average cold, however the same principle applies that mask use clearly has disbenefits outside of a controlled medical setting. I've yet to be convinced these disbenefits aren't outweighed by the supposed benefit. I don't see that as being selfish, merely an objective assessment of the situation, devoid of the emotion and hysteria some people seem to be allowing to affect judgements.

It very much isn't a case of just being able to say "let's give masks a go, it's a minor irritant and there's nowt to lose by trying it", when it's well known there *are* potential pitfalls.

I wouldn't be opposed to people choosing to wear masks if they have a cold. I wouldn't want any legal compulsion though.

 

[bramling]

Scotland and Wales appear to have come very close to doing so.

New Zealand has succeeded.

How are these countries going to continue in the longer term? Sturgeon has already talked about having to ban English people from Scotland, so in the absence of a vaccine to continue such a strategy would mean measure like having to build a wall.

I'm open to the idea that a country could go with an elimination strategy if there's broad consensus that the country is happy to shut itself off from the world (assuming that's viably possible) and that they're taking the gamble that if a vaccine *doesn't* appear then ultimately the can is simply being kicked down the road. Does even Scotland have that broad consensus amongst the people?

You could go with an elimination strategy if infection rates across the world were low, however that's certainly not the case at the moment, and doesn't look like it's going to be for some while.

 

[Jozhua]

It's clear social distancing is a garbage, useless policy. It was obvious masks were the most effective way of containing this at least two months ago.

Limiting large gatherings, say 30 plus and the total number of people allowed in enclosed spaces like restaurants or bars. Increasing ventilation across the board, and opening windows on public transport and taxis or making sure ventilation is not running in a closed loop.

 

[DB]

It was obvious masks were the most effective way of containing this at least two months ago.

Can you please provide evidence for this claim?

 

[Yew]

It was obvious masks were the most effective way of containing this at least two months ago.

It was obvious that not fitting electrical sockets in bathrooms would reduce electrocutions in the bathroom. That was not shown to be true when the statistics were examined. Just as every randomised control trial ever conducted has shown that there is not a statistically significant effect from masks in the transmission of influenza style infections, there are no exceptions.

 

[sjpowermac]

It was obvious that not fitting electrical sockets in bathrooms would reduce electrocutions in the bathroom. That was not shown to be true when the statistics were examined. Just as every randomised control trial ever conducted has shown that there is not a statistically significant effect from masks in the transmission of influenza style infections, there are no exceptions.

Genuine question: how do you conduct a RCT for the effectiveness of masks in relation to coronavirus? I suspect there might be some ethical problems with getting an infected person to walk round a supermarket with/without a mask and seeing what happens...

I’m not a doctor though, so perhaps I’ve missed something.

 

[Huntergreed]

Genuine question: how do you conduct a RCT for the effectiveness of masks in relation to coronavirus? I suspect there might be some ethical problems with getting an infected person to walk round a supermarket with/without a mask and seeing what happens...

I’m not a doctor though, so perhaps I’ve missed something.

I imagine simulating a supermarket (non-clinical) environment, and asking someone who is infected (or using some form of droplet based substance that spreads very similarly) to walk around first wearing a mask, take results of where the virus ended up, then ask them to follow the same route for the same amount of time without a mask and see whether the spread has been more significant.

Even this isn't perfect, as a lot of the problems with masks is actually in how people use them (and touch their face more often)

 

[Smidster]

It's clear social distancing is a garbage, useless policy. It was obvious masks were the most effective way of containing this at least two months ago.

Limiting large gatherings, say 30 plus and the total number of people allowed in enclosed spaces like restaurants or bars. Increasing ventilation across the board, and opening windows on public transport and taxis or making sure ventilation is not running in a closed loop.

Your first statement is nonsense - Social Distancing, as catastrophic as it is for the economy, is the only sure fire way to reduce transmission of an infectious disease.

We don't yet really know to what extent masks will prove useful in containing Covid - if at the same time we create more interactions between people then it seems probable that infections will increase to some extent. There are so many policy, and societal, changes going on at once that it is impossible to isolate the impact of masks v say the opening of a gym

 

[sjpowermac]

I imagine simulating a supermarket (non-clinical) environment, and asking someone who is infected (or using some form of droplet based substance that spreads very similarly) to walk around first wearing a mask, take results of where the virus ended up, then ask them to follow the same route for the same amount of time without a mask and see whether the spread has been more significant.

Even this isn't perfect, as a lot of the problems with masks is actually in how people use them (and touch their face more often)

Would you suppose there might be some ethical problems with getting someone with the virus to walk round even a ‘simulated’ supermarket and observing the results on people not previously infected?

Would it actually be possible to ‘simulate’ the virus effectively?

The reason that I’m asking is that I’m not medically qualified but there are lots of people on the thread demanding RCT evidence of the effectiveness of masks in relation to the virus. I’m genuinely interested to know if such a test is possible (and ethical)?

Thank you for your answer though

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it actually be possible to ‘simulate’ the virus effectively?

The problem with that is I think that we don't quite know how it spreads other than "on surfaces in some form and through the air in some form". It is possible to model droplets of various sizes[1] but that doesn't tell you if there's going to be spread or not, either in terms of what size of droplet would contain it or in terms of the required viral load for a viable case.

[1] See the (later somewhat discredited) paper about runners and cyclists: https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/b...alk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08

 

[Enthusiast]

The problem with that is I think that we don't quite know how it spreads...

And with that in mind, the government has seen fit to instruct everybody in the country to walk about in face masks in shops, banks, on trains and many other places. What other risky activities are we to be compelled to undertake "just to be on the safe side"?

 

[Jamiescott1]

How long have masks been mandatory in Spain? Didn't do anything to stop them having a spike

 

[Bletchleyite]

How long have masks been mandatory in Spain? Didn't do anything to stop them having a spike

Though of course what we don't really know one way or the other is if they reduced the extent of the spike, or indeed if they (by way of risk compensation, something often used as an argument against cycle helmets) caused it to be worse.

 

[MikeWM]

I recently worked out that on an average weekend last year I spent about £150-£200 - rail tickets, eating out, cinema tickets and buying stuff in shops (that I probably didn’t need!)

This weekend - £2.20, to pop to Cambridge, and only because I didn’t want to spend the entire weekend at home doing nothing.

Why? Well, because I can’t wear a mask for any length of time, I don’t want to have to explain continually why I’m not, and even more than that I find myself uneasy and on-edge around a lot of masked people. I want to go out and have an enjoyable experience, not feel nervous and uncomfortable.

It is good for paying off the mortgage (!) but my contribution to the wider economy is rapidly shrinking to effectively zero.

And I don’t see it improving any time soon. Now there are an increasing number of masked people wandering the streets in the open air, on their bikes, etc. Almost every shop in Cambridge had managed to find room for yet another sign pointing out you have to wear a mask. The number of such signs pointing out there may be exceptions were in low single digits.

As an aside, it was interesting (or alarming) to seen how many restaurants/pubs are yet to reopen, and indeed how quiet the whole place is. I’ve been avoiding it in July for some years as the crowding has been insane - no more.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I wonder if Bozza would have mandated face coverings in shops etc. if Nippy Sweetie up here didn't?

 

[45107]

An interesting observation but can you clarify please; what percentage of forum members are covered by an exemption, and what proportion of society are covered by an exemption?

I don’t know the figure. I don’t think that any has been mentioned for the general population as a whole (think it was somewhere in the region of 10%, but I cant recall the origin of that figure - it’s may be more, it may be less. If it is more, then there are some health problems within the UK that need to be tackled).
A non-scientific (ie gut feelling) opinion is that approx 75% of posters on this sub forum are opposed to masks and a not insignificant number are claiming some form of exemption. (The others are blatantly saying that they will disregard it)
This is probably not representative of the forum as a whole, but as with any opinion poll or survey, it is based on the views expressed.

I am not going to read every thread and record the views of every member who has posted to provide a definitive figure.

As I say, it a gut-feeling based on reading comments within the sub-forum.

 

[DB]

I wonder if Bozza would have mandated face coverings in shops etc. if Nippy Sweetie up here didn't?

It definitely seems that they may well be an element of not wanting to be seen to be out-done by her when it comes to making rules!

A non-scientific (ie gut feelling) opinion is that approx 75% of posters on this sub forum are opposed to masks and a not insignificant number are claiming some form of exemption. (The others are blatantly saying that they will disregard it)

So are you implying that there are people on here who are falsely claiming an exemption?

 

[Scrotnig]

I recently worked out that on an average weekend last year I spent about £150-£200 - rail tickets, eating out, cinema tickets and buying stuff in shops (that I probably didn’t need!)

This weekend - £2.20, to pop to Cambridge, and only because I didn’t want to spend the entire weekend at home doing nothing.

Why? Well, because I can’t wear a mask for any length of time, I don’t want to have to explain continually why I’m not, and even more than that I find myself uneasy and on-edge around a lot of masked people. I want to go out and have an enjoyable experience, not feel nervous and uncomfortable.

It is good for paying off the mortgage (!) but my contribution to the wider economy is rapidly shrinking to effectively zero.

I'm much the same. The government have made it clear through legislation that they don't want me in shops etc, so I'm not going to any.
There's not a chance I'll put up with eating out or cinemas or any other hospitality activity while I'm forced to be treated as an infection vector everywhere I go. And I'm certainly not handing over my details to any pub or restaurant so I can be handed a 14 day prison sentence on a whim.

i can't wear masks it's as simple as that. Since the legal exemptions are being ignored and people are being attacked and abused, I'll keep my money in my pocket. As that is what the government wants.

 

[talldave]

And with that in mind, the government has seen fit to instruct everybody in the country to walk about in face masks in shops, banks, on trains and many other places. What other risky activities are we to be compelled to undertake "just to be on the safe side"?

See my post #344 in this thread.

You could have understood the rationale for masks in March, but there would have been widespread shock and rejection.

Four months of hardcore brainwashing later (did that really include running empty ambulances around on blues & twos??), people are complying without being able to explain why they didn't need a mask on Thursday but did on Friday.

 

[PaulMc7]

My birthday was the 30th of May and I think I've yet to physically use any of the cash I got. I may have gave cash to my sister or girlfriend if I've owed them it or wanted something from a shop but I've not physically spent any of it. It's helping me greatly with saving money

 

[bramling]

See my post #344 in this thread.

You could have understood the rationale for masks in March, but there would have been widespread shock and rejection.

Four months of hardcore brainwashing later (did that really include running empty ambulances around on blues & twos??), people are complying without being able to explain why they didn't need a mask on Thursday but did on Friday.

A lot of people will simply comply in order to avoid either hassle or the prospect of a fine. A proportion of this group will then take the "it's not fair I'm complying so why isn't he?" line, even if they're not particularly bothered about the matter in hand.

 

[Trackman]

Been out shopping today, the main people not wearing masks were early 30s 'Ten Men', I say early 30s but you know the type, hard case (they think) sort of guys who probably don't wear seat belts and use mobile phones whilst driving because they think the law doesn't apply to them.

 

[Bayum]

I take it you haven't actually read that paper?

It looks at four studies in a medical setting, three of which showed a positive impact. It then claims that this demonstrates that it works among the general public, for which the evidence given is completely insufficient.

Masks in hospitals are used against a wide range of pathogens - in situations involving close contact, high risk of infection, and people particularly susceptible. They are also used with strict hygiene controls, and changed every half an hour - and must not be touched while being worn.

In contrast, among the public pretty much none of the above apply, there are no hygiene controls at all and people constantly fiddle with them. Therefore conlusions from a medical setting cannot just be claimed to apply to the general public.

If you think it's 'proven' that they work in public, I suggest that you watch this interview with an Oxford professor who is an expert in this: https://unherd.com/thepost/oxford-epidemiologists-suppression-strategy-is-not-viable/

I've not yet seen any study (and I've read a lot of research papers on it over the past few months) which demonstrates that they work. There is one study from the USA which may show a correltation, but it is too unclear on what other measures were taken, and seems to also show a geographical element, for it to be convincing on its own.

Wearing a face covering, frankly, is not the most difficult thing to do, and there are easy ways of accessing and identifying how to don and doff face coverings properly and effectively.

The study linked shows that, in most cases, COVID-19 transmission is less with staff and patients wearing face masks/coverings. You don’t need to be particularly well trained in their use - wash your hands before and after putting on your face, resist temptation to adjust your covering when it is fitted correctly and off you go.

There is a wealth of information out there using past studies and modelling, combined with newer modelling that show positive effects with face coverings around the world.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

(PDF) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update June 15, 2020).

PDF | Background. Wide variation between countries has been noted in per-capita mortality from the disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Widespread facemask use could shrink the ‘R’ number and prevent a second COVID-19 wave – study

Even basic homemade masks can significantly reduce transmission if enough people wear them when in public, according to latest modelling. Researchers call for information campaigns that encourage the making and wearing of facemasks.

www.cam.ac.uk

 

[43066]

Been out shopping today, the main people not wearing masks were early 30s 'Ten Men', I say early 30s but you know the type, hard case (they think) sort of guys who probably don't wear seat belts and use mobile phones whilst driving because they think the law doesn't apply to them.

Some rather worrying (ageist, sexist) stereotyping going on there. Did it occur to you that these people might be exempt?

I saw quite a few OAPs out and about today; I didn’t sit in judgement over them because “they should be shielding” etc.

 

[DB]

Wearing a face covering, frankly, is not the most difficult thing to do, and there are easy ways of accessing and identifying how to don and doff face coverings properly and effectively.

Not difficult for you, clearly - but that doesn't apply to everyone

The study linked shows that, in most cases, COVID-19 transmission is less with staff and patients wearing face masks/coverings. You don’t need to be particularly well trained in their use - wash your hands before and after putting on your face, resist temptation to adjust your covering when it is fitted correctly and off you go.

OK - now go out and look at how people actually use masks in reality, and how often they fiddle with them!

(PDF) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update June 15, 2020).

PDF | Background. Wide variation between countries has been noted in per-capita mortality from the disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Widespread facemask use could shrink the ‘R’ number and prevent a second COVID-19 wave – study

Even basic homemade masks can significantly reduce transmission if enough people wear them when in public, according to latest modelling. Researchers call for information campaigns that encourage the making and wearing of facemasks.

www.cam.ac.uk

So far as I can see from a quick look, the first one takes a wide range of data and tries to draw conclusions, but there are too many variables to conclude what is down to masks and what isn't. The second one is a theoretical model - and it claims that:

We have little to lose from the widespread adoption of facemasks

Which is quite obviously not the case as they have many potential down-sides.

Afraid neither looks convincing - but I will read them in more detail.

 

[Richard Scott]

Wearing a face covering, frankly, is not the most difficult thing to do, and there are easy ways of accessing and identifying how to don and doff face coverings properly and effectively.

The study linked shows that, in most cases, COVID-19 transmission is less with staff and patients wearing face masks/coverings. You don’t need to be particularly well trained in their use - wash your hands before and after putting on your face, resist temptation to adjust your covering when it is fitted correctly and off you go.

There is a wealth of information out there using past studies and modelling, combined with newer modelling that show positive effects with face coverings around the world.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

(PDF) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update June 15, 2020).

PDF | Background. Wide variation between countries has been noted in per-capita mortality from the disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Widespread facemask use could shrink the ‘R’ number and prevent a second COVID-19 wave – study

Even basic homemade masks can significantly reduce transmission if enough people wear them when in public, according to latest modelling. Researchers call for information campaigns that encourage the making and wearing of facemasks.

www.cam.ac.uk

No, it isn't too hard unless you suffer breathing difficulties like I do. So I'm exempt but is it worth the hassle explaining to mini Hitler's, busy bodies and those who feel it's their duty to verbally abuse those who aren't wearing masks (we've got evidence this is happening)? No it isn't so I'm not bothering unless it's really necessary. So thanks to some dubious, at best, evidence some of us now have less freedom than we did. If there was really supportive evidence of masks I'd accept it but because there isn't it's just unfair.

 

[Bayum]

No, it isn't too hard unless you suffer breathing difficulties like I do. So I'm exempt but is it worth the hassle explaining to mini Hitler's, busy bodies and those who feel it's their duty to verbally abuse those who aren't wearing masks (we've got evidence this is happening)? No it isn't so I'm not bothering unless it's really necessary. So thanks to some dubious, at best, evidence some of us now have less freedom than we did. If there was really supportive evidence of masks I'd accept it but because there isn't it's just unfair.

I completely agree with your position. I don’t think you should have to have the hassle of explaining to people that you’re exempt from wearing a mask. However, my initial point stands, that if we lived in a culture where this was seen to be benefitting the greater good for EVERYONE, whilst recognising that there will be those not wearing masks as they are exempt, then I would question whether those exempt from wearing masks would have the issues we’ve seen over the past few days.

 

[Bayum]

Not difficult for you, clearly - but that doesn't apply to everyone



OK - now go out and look at how people actually use masks in reality, and how often they fiddle with them!

(PDF) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update June 15, 2020).

PDF | Background. Wide variation between countries has been noted in per-capita mortality from the disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Widespread facemask use could shrink the ‘R’ number and prevent a second COVID-19 wave – study

Even basic homemade masks can significantly reduce transmission if enough people wear them when in public, according to latest modelling. Researchers call for information campaigns that encourage the making and wearing of facemasks.

www.cam.ac.uk

So far as I can see from a quick look, the first one takes a wide range of data and tries to draw conclusions, but there are too many variables to conclude what is down to masks and what isn't. The second one is a theoretical model - and it claims that:



Which is quite obviously not the case as they have many potential down-sides.

Afraid neither looks convincing - but I will read them in more detail.

The point is, the introduction of face coverings has been to clear benefit in numerous cases. Indeed, one of the OxBridge studies were the ones to sway the government and SAGE that masks are the way forward.