Maybe the cone of shame should be used instead of fines for people who break lockdown rules
I’m just basing my views on seeing people in shops still not paying attention to spacing
How do you know they were before they started using a mask. If you wish to be treated with the respect you clearly think you deserve on this thread after shouting down the poster on the previous page about mask wearing then you need to have a bit more than a few anecdotes about your weekly shop to hand as evidence to back up your statements.
That has to be far more dangerous than the potential saving by wearing masks
I'll say again, replace has with maybe and you might be right.
I’ve not yet seen anyone say that wearing a mask is more effective than proper social distancing, hand washing and not touching your face. Have you?
No, but I also havent seen any evidence to suggest that the two things are mutually exclusive.
They were not wearing a mask and not paying attention to social distancing.
I didn't see it as shouting down the other poster but if you want to interpret that way it's a free world.
and I don't expect respect on this thread at all, I'm just giving my views like everyone else.
I am sorry if my posts have come across like that and maybe you could provide some constructive feedback on it.
My statements on masks were simple, the mask provides protection for other people rather than the individual, I have not changed on that view.
I am just concerned that by wearing a mask it will change people's behaviour and increase risk.
Ultimately all advice comes from the government and currently it is that masks are not required.
If people take issue with me or the way things have been discussed then please feel free to message me directly or contact the mods to get the posts deleted.
Ultimately all advice comes from the government a
Err, advice certainly comes from elsewhere and is less likely to be politicised. Scottish Government is now recommending face coverings for places like public transport and supermarkets. That's apparently based on advice from SAGE.
However, protection is, as you say, to others, not the wearer. And they are pointing out face covering does not replace social distancing.
If you're an expert but can't back up what you're saying with data and research then you're no more an expert than a layman. I see the UK as the world leader in cases per capita and the world leader in finding reasons not to wear a mask. I can back that observation up with data, ie, how many deaths vs how many people wearing masks.
I'm not saying there's definitely a link between numbers of cases and mask avoidance, but it appears to be what the data is saying.
Those saying a mask wont offer you any individual protection and those advancing the false sense of security idea aren't backing up those points with any data. They are just opinions.
If you’re an expert but can’t back up what you’re saying with data and research then you’re no more an expert than a layman
This x a lot.
Your categoric statements, backed up by you evidence gained on shopping trips are meaningless and show a complete disregard for scientific rigour.
I am just concerned that by wearing a mask it will change people’s behaviour and increase risk.
So you have changed, earlier you said it would, I said it might and asked if you had any evidence, you had none. Now you say you are worried it might. All of which is fine and open to debate, but last page you made out you were some sort of medical science researcher, which if you are frankly leaves me worried.
Sage recommended that there was “weak evidence of a small effect in which a face mask can prevent a source of infection going from somebody who is infected to the people around them”.
Actual scientists.
Transmissions per day is the product of contacts/day times transmission per contact. Social distancing works on the former, masks (may) work on the latter. We need a zero sum game to keep transmission to the level we have now. Because we absolutely know what it looks like if we don't!
We'll be wearing masks. As for evidence, the evidence will be that everyone else is. See lockdown. Sorry, but that is the nature of the game. I think they have an effect, likely on infected not spreading to non-infected. There may be some limited additional protection in the opposite direction, but proper studies will be extremely challenging. We DO know that people are asymptomatically infectious for about five days. Combine that with the weak evidence, and THAT is why we will be wearing masks.
I am just concerned that by wearing a mask it will change people’s behaviour and increase risk.
Seems a valid concern to me. Why are people harassing Graham for voicing it?
Anyway, face coverings will be part of the measures to get public transport functioning more normally, so we should get ready for that… but the emphasis really does have to be that elsewhere face coverings are as well, not instead of, distancing and hygiene measures… or people just hanging out together but excusing their virus spreading behaviour by wearing a mask will pretty obviously become a thing. [IANA human behaviour expert]
So we think that our PM will call us all letterboxes if we cover up?
Seems a valid concern to me. Why are people harassing Graham for voicing it?
Because he said it would cause something and backed his opinion with no evidence and shouted down others saying he was a scientist. It is a valid concern but its not proven it will affect behaviour.
Sage recommended that there was “weak evidence of a small effect in which a face mask can prevent a source of infection going from somebody who is infected to the people around them”.
Actual scientists.
Good, but its not what I was discussing. The poster said it will make people ignore social distancing when clearly the correct thing to say is it may.
Re masks, it doesn't take much of a reduction in R factor to significantly reduce the spread. So surely even a small impact of transmissability from mask wearing would result in a significant reduction in cases?
The poster said it will make people ignore social distancing when clearly the correct thing to say is it may.
I think it will as well. Opinion.
I’ll go further… face coverings will be most used, and advised, where social distancing can’t be used. When we start using them in earnest, it will because we aren’t social distancing in the same way as we currently are. Moving to using face coverings will result in a reduction in social distancing measures for many people. Opinion.
I think it will as well. Opinion.
Fine, I think it might but an education campaign could well offset that impact and leave us with a slight reduction in transmission.
Likely to increase transmission (because it will result in more lax social distancing), not reduce it, but face covering still an essential part of getting people moving again… so inevitable but should be delayed for now. All opinion.
Getting everyone back to working away from home has to include face covering being the new normal for a while. But ‘till we’re at that point, advice to cover up would be taken by many as a way to break existing, and in the UK still needed, distancing measures.
Likely to increase transmission
I give up!
Scotroutes, sorry I missed the context of your post.
All this arguing discussion is rather a moot point.
We won’t be wearing masks in two weeks. The actual people working at the sharp end of the pointy stick, the NHS staff treating actual people with Covid19, don’t have enough PPE to go round. There is no way on this earth, regardless of what anyone in the Government or “advisors” promise, that enough masks will be available to the general public.
If the answer to getting the country back to work is face masks then how many will Be needed on a daily basis?
Delete masks. Substitute face coverings.
Don’t forget that face coverings and other PPE need to be used correctly or they can increase the chance of infection. My wife watched bemused as a woman in Waitrose with mask & gloves proceeded to do her level best to ensure she exposed herself to maximum contamination risk while removing said PPE. Medical staff are trained how to use this stuff. Regular punters aren’t. Those calling for masks or shrieking about the BBC reporting government guidelines need to be more aware of the law of unintended consequences.
Yep, we will be wearing face coverings when commuting is encouraged again. Not masks. Well, some people will buy some, but most people will understand not to if it’s clearly explained to them why. Until then, we do need treating like children*, and kept away from each other, face coverings or not. Talking up mask use by the public now is the wrong move.
[*untrained as most of us are]
Investigation into fask masks, respirators vs hygiene
Second study
Ok, so based on the above links and others I have seen there does seem to be a reduction in overall infection (interestingly more protection from sars than influenza) from wearing n95 and medical masks compared to none.
No studies on fabric coverings though
Although this seems to show you need to be deliberate in what you use
Fabrics link
The emphasis does still seem to be on fit, but again the studies on medical masks are on trained hcp's rather than the general public so clearly any change in usage would have to go along with education.
I am still concerned that it would result in behavioural changes causing an increase in infection, but I am happy to be wrong on what I said (with some reservations).
Nice to see Tory MP's with their finger on the pulse of the nation and addressing the most pressing issues of the day
Two of them have used PMQ's to huffily demand that garden centres be allowed to open.
Critical stuff!
Face coverings in summer will be interesting across Europe, I already see some facemaskers constantly adjusting the mask so once it's all getting a bit hot and sweaty I'm not sure the hygiene of a mask will be clear cut
Masks do not filter out the virus - see comment about smelling farts above. But by interfering with the airflow, they reduce the distance that the virus can be projected. So if an infected but asymptomatic person wears a mask, they are less likely to pass on the infection. If everyone wore masks (or face coverings), it would probably have some effect in reducing the spread, and would therefore protect the population as a whole.
As part of an unlocking strategy, insisting on face coverings in some situations would probably make sense. But wearing a mask will do very little to protect the wearer from being infected.
My wife watched bemused as a woman in Waitrose with mask & gloves proceeded to do her level best to ensure she exposed herself to maximum contamination risk while removing said PPE.
She could well have still reduced transmission from herself to other whilst wearing the mask however. Or is that one of those unintended consequences you spoke about?
Your use of language like shrieking is not really necessary is it?
Meanwhile across the channel
Masks to go on sale in pharmacies
The other main news from recent days is that “non-sanitary” masks for the general public are to go on sale in French pharmacies. They will cost between €5 and €15 and the government said 15million of these masks will be produced every week.
However, “Half of pharmacies will not have them available” yet, because they have not had time to stock up, warned the Order of Pharmacists.
A note will come with each mask sold, indicating how many times it can be used, said the organisation’s boss Pierre Béguerie. To keep its effectiveness, a fabric mask must be washed after each use for at least 30 minutes at 60° with detergent, according to France’s standardisation association Afnor.
Those french scientists are clearly stupid 🤔🤔🤔🤔
I'm a bit bemused at the response to what seemed like very reasonable comments from graham. At the risk of incurring more, i thought I'd stick my oar in.
I am a scientist with a PhD in Chemistry and Risk Assessment. I often have to use PPE in moderate risk environments where there are hazards - heavy metals, unpleasant chemicals, unknown gases. I've recently had run-ins with phosphine and cadmium for example. I haven't had to deal with biological hazards and don't claim any specific expertise in this area.
Managing your PPE for even routine and straightforward day-to-day tasks can be a real ball-ache even with training. It's really easy to take something off in the wrong order, touch something with your gloves, forget that you were using "clean" pen in dirty environment, absentmindedly drink from a water bottle, use your phone etc etc etc.
The way to avoid these risks is not to put on more PPE, and I don't believe the sensible course of action is even necessarily to teach the general public how to use it. Far better, for everyone for whom it is a viable option, to keep yourself out of the hazardous environment. Keep at least 2m away from people. don't go to the shops etc.
The call to wear masks seems to me to be the product of the natural desire to want to "DO SOMETHING !!", even though there are people telling us that this particular something might be worse than doing nothing in some circumstances and probably no better in many circumstances. The appeal to common sense is often miss-founded.
There is lots of evidence available. You have to decide how much weight you want to give it. Here is an example of a public health body having done a literature review and discussing the benefits:
Among the interesting stuff:
"Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.
Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households."
We probably will be advised/ordered to cover our faces at some point. It will probably be more to assuage the desire to act and to help us feel that we are at least partially in charge of our own fates. Until there is a monumental supply of good quality FFP3 respirators it will probably not be better than keeping away from people where at all possible.
Because on the last page he used his Scientist credentials to shout down someone and then started dressing up his opinion as fact.
Much the opposite from what you have done.
even though there are people telling us that this particular something might be worse than doing nothing
Note the might, not will and then you have followed up with evidence, which I havent looked at yet. The difference is you sound like a scientist, he tried to say he was a scientist but didnt sound like one by being too categorical.
Because on the last page he used his Scientist credentials
Give it a rest. Just because he has more experience and knowledge of PPE doesn’t mean people have to get so chippy and try and take him down if he disagrees with them. He has valid concerns and expressed them. Others tried to over simplify the public mask issue, he made it clear that it’s not so simple. And it isn’t.
Please see my last post aa. If my comments came across as fact then I'm sorry, all things written were my own opinion and once inkster started throwing insults I was not going to listen, as most people wouldn't.
from my lit review (referenced above) there does seem to be a protective factor associated with masks in an hcp setting.
My wife watched bemused as a woman in Waitrose with mask & gloves proceeded to do her level best to ensure she exposed herself to maximum contamination risk while removing said PPE
If you are wearing a mask to protest others from you (assuming you have the disease) then it doesn't matter how you take off the mask.
For those that say masks won't help - if you were standing 2 metres away from someone who has covid19 and was coughing would you feel safer if they had a face covering that they were coughing into?
Mariner.
My other half picked up some of those non sanitary masks for the general public from her local pharmacy back on the 6th April, similar spec I think and usage guidelines. Very well made, as they're designed to last and be washed at high temperatures. She's not in the UK though.
We need a similar production effort to take place here right now. I flagged this up on this thread back on the 6th of April, realising then the need to preserve medical grade masks for health providers by increasing the numbers and availability of non sanitary, fashion style masks.
However, I did get slaughtered for it when I mentioned it back then. And I wasn't even shrieking at the time...😉
Give it a rest. Just because he has more experience and knowledge of PPE doesn’t mean people have to get so chippy and try and take him down if he disagrees with them. He has valid concerns and expressed them. Others tried to over simplify the public mask issue, he made it clear that it’s not so simple. And it isn’t.
You clearly dont get get it do you!
Even the review helpfully posted on the last page said
Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection
Emphasis on the word may not using the word will.
We need a similar production effort to take place here right now.
Agree with that. Commuters will want them as we phase back to more normal working.
You clearly dont get get it do you!
I “might” not be getting what your problem is, that “may” well be true.
If you are still asserting that a switch to advising mask use would not result in reduced social distancing, then I simply can’t agree with you. Sorry. It will.
Thing is, AA, Inkster was provided a link to an article on ars technica the last time he came on here shouting the odds, and his response was ( I paraphrase ) 'what do scientists know?'.
He's just popped back in to do it again, presumably having been doing it somewhere else.
The fact is that the evidence in favour of Joe public wearing masks is equivocal.
Almost grahamt1980, almost.
It's not too late to ... ...'.. .....
The fact is that the evidence in favour of Joe public wearing masks is equivocal.
Do you mean unequivocal? If so could you show me it. The review posted on the last page was certainly not unequivocal. Hence the word "may".
She could well have still reduced transmission from herself to other whilst wearing the mask however. Or is that one of those unintended consequences you spoke about?
But if she makes it more likely to have the disease in the first place then she is more likely to give it to someone else
Your use of language like shrieking is not really necessary is it?
Having looked back at his posts I am at a loss to come up with another more appropriate verb. The fact is inkster started this spat by over-reacting to a BBC piece by making the assumption that the evidence on mask use is simple. It isn't.
What a shame. This was one of the better threads on here. Once again, it's degenerated to petty bickering and name calling. Let's try and get it back on track eh?
Anyway, as predicted on here previoulsy...
Del
Not sure that says what you think it says, although.....
Equivocal
open to more than one interpretation; ambiguous.
Maybe it does because its certainly not an easy yes/no.
