UK face coverings discussion

[Richard Scott]

This is one of them

No, it most definitely isn't. Afraid this virus has been taken out of proportion. A masked society is horrid.

 

[bramling]

I'll try and review what criticisms have been made on these pages. Her writings on critically analysing papers and evidence were essential reading in medical school - so if anyone can make a best judgment on what to do, she can.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Nov 2020 ==


This is one of them

It really isn’t.

If people wish to wear a face covering then feel very free, however don’t expect others to do the same.

Even if we work on the basis that they’re effective in the “fight against Covid”, there’s massive negatives attached to them. Transmission of all manner of germs to the face is one, creation of waste is another, and of course they make detection of crime more difficult. People *really* need to get away from the notion that this virus is the only show in town - it isn’t. Focussing on Covid alone is symptomatic of hysteria.

As a short-term measure they’re already a really bad idea, but as a long term expedient they’re completely out of the question. Any such notion people need to get out of their heads pronto, it’s not going to happen.

 

[HSTEd]

Societal constructs may have evolved over centuries, but every now and then something sudden happens which requires society to adapt. I personally think that masks are one example.

Well its an example of boomers demanding yet another part of society be torn down and replaced with something that exists solely to serve them, to the expense of everyone else.

But that is not really the example the mask proponents would like to present to the world is it?

 

[trebor79]

As a short-term measure they’re already a really bad idea, but as a long term expedient they’re completely out of the question. Any such notion people need to get out of their heads pronto, it’s not going to happen.

Completely agree with the sentiment, but I fear it is already happening.

 

[bramling]

Completely agree with the sentiment, but I fear it is already happening.

I am utterly damned if that’s going to happen.

To be honest I don’t think it will - it’s interesting how many masks find themselves coming off when people see someone else not wearing one. If I had a pound for every time I’ve seen that happen since June. That’s quite telling IMO.

 

[yorkie]

Among other provocations, my Union wants everyone wearing a mask at all times in the workplace, so I am leaving them.

 

[The Ham]

Just to reiterate, that is not a proven fact - some people suggest that they reduce transmission, but I am not aware of any actual evidence of this - and indeed mask mandates in various countries, some of which were not accompanied by any other new restrictions at the same time, show absolutely no benefit in terms of changing the trajectory of a graph of infections - and if they made any difference, the line would be expected to become flatter to at least some exent. This never seems to have happened.

I'm the influensa study on masks it suggested that there would be a 0.5% reduction (see multiple notes and points about small sample sizes, etc, however for the case of argument let's assume that it does provide that much protection).

If we start at 20 cases:
Week +1 - 24 vs 23.88
Week +10 - 124 vs 118
Week +20 - 766 vs 694
Week +52 - 262,093 vs 201,955

As such the overall impact on the curve would be almost unnoticeable (especially for the first 20 weeks) unless you had a known curve to compare against.

However, even with the vast majority adhering to the rest of the guidance (2m distance, good hands washing etc.) you'd only need a small percentage failing to do so due to thinking that masks give full protection (and therefore not carry out the guidance) to reverse most or all of those savings.

The other factor to be mindful of is time, of you're at 2m for 15 minutes your level of risk is low regardless of if you wear a mask or not, conversely on a coach with broken Aircon for 6+ hours and your level of risk is high regardless of if you wear a mask or not.

Given that a lot of people are wearing masks when shopping, the risk to them is fairly low as they are not close to the same person for very long (unless they've gone together).

As such for a lot of the numbers of times when people wear masks the impact of mask or not is unlikely to be very beneficial. However, by getting people used to wearing then in settings where it doesn't matter too much, then for the few times when it does matter then hopefully they would be more used to wearing a mask and so allow it to provide the protection that they may give for those sightly longer but still at a reasonable distance, meeting.

 

[yorkie]

Do any of these studies take into account people getting closer to be able to hear each other, due to the wearing of masks?

I rarely see this issue addressed by the pro-mask lobbyists.

 

[farleigh]

Among other provocations, my Union wants everyone wearing a mask at all times in the workplace, so I am leaving them.

Teaching unions in my experience generally profess to be looking after their members whilst pursuing political agendas. When people genuinely need them they are often nowhere to be seen.

 

[Cbob]

It really isn’t.

If people wish to wear a face covering then feel very free, however don’t expect others to do the same.

It's the law to wear them in certain situations so I do feel that a certain degree of expectation is appropriate. There are lots of 'infringements' on our liberties in the name of safety: seatbelts, safety rules on building sites and in industrial settings, controlled drugs etc. COVID-19 is frightening because once it gets out of control, the hospital admissions come piling in very rapidly.

Even if we work on the basis that they’re effective in the “fight against Covid”, there’s massive negatives attached to them. Transmission of all manner of germs to the face is one, creation of waste is another, and of course they make detection of crime more difficult. People *really* need to get away from the notion that this virus is the only show in town - it isn’t. Focussing on Covid alone is symptomatic of hysteria.

Criminals figured out about covering their faces long before COVID-19 appeared. Sometimes I feel that people try to focus on the negatives of mask wearing simply because they just don't fancy wearing them. Feels very clutching at straws.

 

[DB]

It's the law to wear them in certain situations so I do feel that a certain degree of expectation is appropriate. There are lots of 'infringements' on our liberties in the name of safety: seatbelts, safety rules on building sites and in industrial settings, controlled drugs etc. COVID-19 is frightening because once it gets out of control, the hospital admissions come piling in very rapidly.



Criminals figured out about covering their faces long before COVID-19 appeared. Sometimes I feel that people try to focus on the negatives of mask wearing simply because they just don't fancy wearing them. Feels very clutching at straws.

Or perhaps the concentration on negatives is because there aren't actually any positives?

 

[Cbob]

Well its an example of boomers demanding yet another part of society be torn down and replaced with something that exists solely to serve them, to the expense of everyone else.

But that is not really the example the mask proponents would like to present to the world is it?

Tell that to my 30- and 40- something colleagues who caught it, 'airborne Malaria' was a term one of them coined, rather apt for the Italian roots of the disease's name!

 

[DB]

Tell that to my 30- and 40- something colleagues who caught it, 'airborne Malaria' was a term one of them coined, rather apt for the Italian roots of the disease's name!

How is that relevant to whether or not masks make any difference?

 

[Cbob]

How is that relevant to whether or not masks make any difference?

Sorry, I guess an off topic response, it was a response to the HSTEd's comment about changing society to suit Boomers, not specifically about mask evidence.

 

[DustyBin]

It's the law to wear them in certain situations so I do feel that a certain degree of expectation is appropriate. There are lots of 'infringements' on our liberties in the name of safety: seatbelts, safety rules on building sites and in industrial settings, controlled drugs etc. COVID-19 is frightening because once it gets out of control, the hospital admissions come piling in very rapidly.

Just because something is the law it doesn’t make it right, especially when laws are being passed without proper scrutiny.

There is a key difference, for me at least, when it comes to seatbelts. When you get in a car you’ve entered an unnatural environment, technology has allowed us to travel at high speed in our cars and in the event of an accident we suffer horrific injuries as we weren’t designed to go from 70 to 0 mph in a second or less. Unnatural danger warrants unnatural mitigation. In contrast, masks interfere with what is surely our most natural and instinctive function, simply breathing the air around us. If we’ve reached the stage where we can’t do this without unnatural safety measures I genuinely fear for our future on this planet. There is also of course indisputable evidence that seatbelts save lives, the same can’t be said of masks....

In regard to your final point, the hospital admission figures due to Covid are questionable, to say the least. For a start, the terms ‘due to’ and ‘with’ are used interchangeably, just as they are when it comes to reporting deaths. If this virus was as dangerous as the government would have us believe we wouldn’t need convincing, but seemingly it isn’t, so we do.

 

[BJames]

It's the law to wear them in certain situations so I do feel that a certain degree of expectation is appropriate. There are lots of 'infringements' on our liberties in the name of safety: seatbelts, safety rules on building sites and in industrial settings, controlled drugs etc. COVID-19 is frightening because once it gets out of control, the hospital admissions come piling in very rapidly.



Criminals figured out about covering their faces long before COVID-19 appeared. Sometimes I feel that people try to focus on the negatives of mask wearing simply because they just don't fancy wearing them. Feels very clutching at straws.

There's not much I can add to @DustyBin's response above other than to reiterate that seatbelts are a poor example when compared to masks. There is clear evidence to prove that seatbelts reduce deaths and serious injuries in road traffic collisions. There is limited to no evidence to suggest masks do anything to stop the spread of covid and realistically masks stop people social distancing. Mask experiments have been carried out. Covid has spread to high levels once again despite the mandation of masks almost everywhere and a significant reduction in people mixing. I think this in itself is enough to suggest that masks aren't quite the positive some people think they are.

As you're highlighting that people are focusing on the negatives I would be very interested to hear the positives, bearing in mind that we've just had the first day of a second lockdown having had masks mandated across the country?

 

[Cbob]

I agree that it's a natural threat. We are continually at risk of forces of microbiological nature. It doesn't mean that we should let nature take its course. Wouldn't you take antibiotics or painkillers if you needed them? The argument seems bizarre. Besides, masks aren't meant to interfere with your breathing, they filter.

The threat is real, there is no conspiracy regarding hospital admissions and wearing a mask is hardly a difficult thing to do for the majority of adults for hopefully some degree of transmission reduction. Damage to the economy is also real and it's a shame that the threat of COVID-19, masking, case tracing wasn't reacted to earlier and more strongly to avoid the disasterous situation we again find ourselves in. The mathematics of the disease was clear and the UK foolishly thought that we'd be OK but ending up with delay and exponential growth kicking us in the teeth. Because we failed to learn, now it might happen for a second time.

Even if masks prove to be a very small part of transmission reduction, even a small reduction could give benefit due to the mathematics of exponential growth. If it was a choice between masks or lockdown, which would you choose?

I personally think that transmission via aerosols within enclosed spaces is the more severe route of transmission and masks are unlikely to protect in these situations. Presumably there is fairly frequent turnover of air in train carriages and underground stations that public transport is very unlikely to result in transmission by these means

 

[big_rig]

Ah, the classic evolution of the pro-mask narrative. First the ‘they definitely work, just wait I’ll find the evidence I promise,’ then the ‘well they might mostly reduce viral load actually / they definitely work but I can’t quite bring up the evidence paper right now (also I have never heard of France and Spain,)’ then the final stage: ‘they might have a nigh on insignificant benefit and even that is unproven but it isn’t that bad wearing one so just do it.’ Can we circle back to the first step where the evidence was forthcoming?

 

[DustyBin]

I agree that it's a natural threat. We are continually at risk of forces of microbiological nature. It doesn't mean that we should let nature take its course. Wouldn't you take antibiotics or painkillers if you needed them? The argument seems bizarre. Besides, masks aren't meant to interfere with your breathing, they filter.

The threat is real, there is no conspiracy regarding hospital admissions and wearing a mask is hardly a difficult thing to do for the majority of adults for hopefully some degree of transmission reduction. Damage to the economy is also real and it's a shame that the threat of COVID-19, masking, case tracing wasn't reacted to earlier and more strongly to avoid the disasterous situation we again find ourselves in. The mathematics of the disease was clear and the UK foolishly thought that we'd be OK but ending up with delay and exponential growth kicking us in the teeth. Because we failed to learn, now it might happen for a second time.

Even if masks prove to be a very small part of transmission reduction, even a small reduction could give benefit due to the mathematics of exponential growth. If it was a choice between masks or lockdown, which would you choose?

I personally think that transmission via aerosols within enclosed spaces is the more severe route of transmission and masks are unlikely to protect in these situations. Presumably there is fairly frequent turnover of air in train carriages and underground stations that public transport is very unlikely to result in transmission by these means

I don’t see anything bizarre about it. Of course I’d take antibiotics if I needed them. Last time I took a five day course and that was that, job done and back to normal I went. Antibiotics work (in days). What you appear to be suggesting is that as a species we adopt masks in the same way we’ve adopted shoes, for example, even though there’s no evidence they prevent transmission and, worryingly, may actually increase it.

I don’t think anybody is claiming there is a conspiracy regarding hospital admissions, but they don’t (readily) present the full facts.

 

[Cbob]

I found this article from Prof Greenhalgh quite helpful when working around many of the excuses people have for not wearing masks.

Face coverings for the public: Laying straw men to rest

Error - Cookies Turned Off

 

[Yew]

I found this article from Prof Greenhalgh quite helpful when working around many of the excuses people have for not wearing masks.

Face coverings for the public: Laying straw men to rest

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Isn't she the one who recommended them despite acknowledging the lack of evidence? That's the hallmark of a witch-doctor, not a scientist.

 

[Cbob]

Isn't she the one who recommended them despite acknowledging the lack of evidence? That's the hallmark of a witch-doctor, not a scientist.

I don't think you quite understand how evidence works in Medicine and how long it takes to build up the case often through various modalities. Look how long it took to work out that smoking causes lung cancer, now this is undisputed (though still entirely legal to produce cancer-causing ciggies)

 

[trebor79]

Even if masks prove to be a very small part of transmission reduction, even a small reduction could give benefit due to the mathematics of exponential growth. If it was a choice between masks or lockdown, which would you choose?

Well, given we have masks AND lockdown anyway, I'd have zero qualms about ditching masks

I personally think that transmission via aerosols within enclosed spaces is the more severe route of transmission and masks are unlikely to protect in these situations. Presumably there is fairly frequent turnover of air in train carriages and underground stations that public transport is very unlikely to result in transmission by these means

Seems there is little chance of catching covid on the tube or bus...

London's transport network tests negative for Covid-19

Imperial College London scientists checked the Underground and buses for evidence of coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

There are no traces of Covid-19 on surfaces and in the air on London Underground or the city's buses, scientists say.

 

[Cbob]

Seems there is little chance of catching covid on the tube or bus...

London's transport network tests negative for Covid-19

Imperial College London scientists checked the Underground and buses for evidence of coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yeah this is quite reassuring.

 

[Yew]

I don't think you quite understand how evidence works in Medicine and how long it takes to build up the case often through various modalities. Look how long it took to work out that smoking causes lung cancer, now this is undisputed (though still entirely legal to produce cancer-causing ciggies)

If it cannot be shown to work, then we cannot assume it does, and therefore we cannot base our approach on it.

 

[Domh245]

Well, given we have masks AND lockdown anyway, I'd have zero qualms about ditching masks

Seems there is little chance of catching covid on the tube or bus...

London's transport network tests negative for Covid-19

Imperial College London scientists checked the Underground and buses for evidence of coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

That makes my 45 minutes yesterday with mask on a hot, muggy northern line train all the more frustrating. The opposite journey in the morning was far better as I was constantly dropping my mask down to sip a coffee (as were most of the car)

 

[Cbob]

If it cannot be shown to work, then we cannot assume it does, and therefore we cannot base our approach on it.

No, what I mean is that evidence comes in different forms, a randomised controlled trial of masks is unlikely to happen, so the evidence has been built up through observational studies, epidemiology etc. You can very much base your initial approach on it if the intervention has minimal harm

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2020 ==

That makes my 45 minutes yesterday with mask on a hot, muggy northern line train all the more frustrating. The opposite journey in the morning was far better as I was constantly dropping my mask down to sip a coffee (as were most of the car)

I had no trouble wearing my mask for my 12 and a half hour shift (though it was a lot colder and draughtier in the NHS building compared to the hot muggy northern line train!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2020 ==

Seems there is little chance of catching covid on the tube or bus...

London's transport network tests negative for Covid-19

Imperial College London scientists checked the Underground and buses for evidence of coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

I guess I would personally take from this: no need for gloves, hand washing /alcohol gel would benefit only to prevent you from spreading it (or everyone's being good with handwashing) and if airflow is good then being maskless is safe, as long as you're not too close to someone else where risk of direct droplet spread between others might occur.

 

[Yew]

No, what I mean is that evidence comes in different forms, a randomised controlled trial of masks is unlikely to happen, so the evidence has been built up through observational studies, epidemiology etc. You can very much base your initial approach on it if the intervention has minimal harm

But there have been randomised control trials, and they've shown no statistically significant effect. Yet these seem to be ignored in favour of pipes in mannequins, and hamsters in cages.

 

[Cbob]

But there have been randomised control trials, and they've shown no statistically significant effect. Yet these seem to be ignored in favour of pipes in mannequins, and hamsters in cages.

Please feel free to direct me to the relevant papers

 

[big_rig]

Please feel free to direct me to the relevant papers

Your opening post here was that you had lots and lots of evidence you were going to pass on to make the case for mask wearing reducing covid spread.

Can you pass that on please, in a format that is not 'observational studies, epidemiology etc'? NB literature reviews and reviews of literature reviews do not count. Thanks!