UK face coverings discussion

[trebor79]

Yes, I don't see how you do it either, but then it isn't my job to come up with clever ways of doing experiments!

They're doing something in Denmark, but I don't know the methodology they're using.

You could ask a known infected person to sit in a sterile box for a period of time. Once with and once without a mask. Swab surfaces and PCR to see what, if any difference in virus particle distribution.
Then, for a more real world test, ask volunteer to wander round a mock shop or sit in a train with and without mask, sterile surfaces at strategic points. Again, swab and PCR.
Repeat to build lots of data points.

 

[yorksrob]

I was on one of the new Northern trains today and there was a jovial Geordie announcement welcoming us to the train, followed by a sterner announcement warning that face coverings should be worn at all times. The voice over artist for the face covering announcement sounded a bit like Patrick Allen, who did the voice overs for the "Protect and Survive" cartoons.

 

[35B]

If they reduce the risk of transmission (which you seem to regard as a fact, despite the evidence for it being very weak), there should be a measurable decrease in infections. There isn't. There have also been enough cases of masks being mandated at a time when no other significant changes were made, e.g. masks in shops in England, that the impact should be visible. But no reduction is visible - there is no evidence that the masksare reducing infections at all.

Your logic is undermined by the assumption that the spread of the disease is monocausal, and that you presume that success is defined by a direct fall in the number of cases. As others have pointed out, there are a variety of factors feeding into the prevalence of Covid, while success can be measured (with great difficulty) in terms of the number of cases compared to that without the measure.

I am no "maskivist", and will be delighted when circumstances change and the requirement evaporates; like others, I dislike the way they impact upon my ability to see my fellow citizens' faces, quite apart from preferring my face au naturel. However, I also consider the cost of wearing a mask low, and the evidence sufficient to make it worth wearing a mask, on the basis that my (very) mild discomfort is a very low cost for the benefit I and others may gain from collectively wearing them.

As for those arguing that they should not be used without the benefit of a randomised control trial, and that observational studies are inadequate, I just suggest that the science of vaccination arose out of an observation, and was proven by Jenner without anything as sophisticated as an RCT.

Yes, I don't see how you do it either, but then it isn't my job to come up with clever ways of doing experiments!

Maybe, but some of us tend to have more respect for those who try to propose an alternative rather than saying "it's all rubbish".

 

[MikeWM]

As for those arguing that they should not be used without the benefit of a randomised control trial, and that observational studies are inadequate, I just suggest that the science of vaccination arose out of an observation, and was proven by Jenner without anything as sophisticated as an RCT.

But that still followed the scientific method. His 'experiment' had a way of measuring success, and also could be falsified.

Maybe, but some of us tend to have more respect for those who try to propose an alternative rather than saying "it's all rubbish".

I think observational/behavioural science when applied to virus transmission *is* all rubbish, quite frankly. I'm very much in agreement with the ideas of Karl Popper on how science should be conducted.

 

[35B]

But that still followed the scientific method. His 'experiment' had a way of measuring success, and also could be falsified.

I think observational/behavioural science when applied to virus transmission *is* all rubbish, quite frankly. I'm very much in agreement with the ideas of Karl Popper on how science should be conducted.

Indeed it could be falsified, and Popper's theories centre on the idea that the ability to falsify a theory is vital. But I'm interested that you consider that observational or behavioural science is unfalsifiable. Surely the point of such studies - in this context, I have in mind that from Jena early in the pandemic - is that they provide observations that can help inform action, and that observations that contradict those can falsify such decisions. Yet I frequently read people asserting that masks don't work, or make Covid worse, yet doing so without even the rigour of observational science. And when someone aligning to those views then says "it isn't my job to come up with clever ways of doing experiments", I don't get the impression of Popperian rigour.

 

[MikeWM]

Indeed it could be falsified, and Popper's theories centre on the idea that the ability to falsify a theory is vital. But I'm interested that you consider that observational or behavioural science is unfalsifiable. Surely the point of such studies - in this context, I have in mind that from Jena early in the pandemic - is that they provide observations that can help inform action, and that observations that contradict those can falsify such decisions.

I'm sure you can come up with various hypotheses in various scenarios that can be easily falsified by observational science. I've yet to see anything that I would count remotely rigorous in terms of useful information about transmission of the current virus though.

Yet I frequently read people asserting that masks don't work, or make Covid worse, yet doing so without even the rigour of observational science.

I remind you I said only a few posts ago that my personal opinion on whether masks works or not is a 'gut feeling'. I'm not pretending I've done anything rigorous! My problem is that is seems not many other people have either (and then you get people eg. from the Royal Society on the TV claiming that 'masks work', when their *own research* shows a result that is far too ambivalent to make such a definite statement. I think that sort of thing devalues science immensekly).

 

[Yew]

That was be as meaningless as saying how many cases of HIV or pregnancy condom use has prevented.
You can not measure an unmeasurable

No, but you can measure if a campaign to increase wearing causes a measurable decrease in such conditions. (Perhaps not for pregnancy, as that can still be intentional, but I think it stands for HIV or similar STD's)

You could ask a known infected person to sit in a sterile box for a period of time. Once with and once without a mask. Swab surfaces and PCR to see what, if any difference in virus particle distribution.
Then, for a more real world test, ask volunteer to wander round a mock shop or sit in a train with and without mask, sterile surfaces at strategic points. Again, swab and PCR.
Repeat to build lots of data points.

That's droplet mass transfer, not confirmed covid transmission. Whilst droplets are an indicator that something might work; measuring the thing we care about, the effect on transmission, is the only way to tell conclusively.

 

[Nicholas43]

Regulation 13 of the Scottish regulations coming into effect on 14 September (warning: a very long and complex read)
SSI 2020 / 279
require you to wear a face covering in a pub or restaurant, unless you are seated at a table.

 

[mmh]

No, but you can measure if a campaign to increase wearing causes a measurable decrease in such conditions. (Perhaps not for pregnancy, as that can still be intentional, but I think it stands for HIV or similar STD's)

Indeed. It's completely incorrect that anti-HIV measures are without any idea of their efficacy. There's been decades of studies and statistical analysis. A few months ago I suggested that quarantining and targeting the healthy an limiting their interaction via laws was a bizarre approach given it was never seriously proposed for HIV. I was roundly ridiculed by some on here. I stand by my opinion that it's a valid question. Why the difference in approach?

 

[AdamWW]

Indeed. It's completely incorrect that anti-HIV measures are without any idea of their efficacy. There's been decades of studies and statistical analysis. A few months ago I suggested that quarantining and targeting the healthy an limiting their interaction via laws was a bizarre approach given it was never seriously proposed for HIV. I was roundly ridiculed by some on here. I stand by my opinion that it's a valid question. Why the difference in approach?

Because HIV never threatened to overwhelm the health system?

 

[Huntergreed]

My father works in the ambulance service as a patient transport driver/assistant. He's been told today that he must wear a mask for his whole shift, regardless of whether he has a patient in the back or not, and if he's caught without one (even if he's in the vehicle alone) it'll be straight to disciplinary action.

I can't be the only one that thinks this is ridiculous. Their reasoning is that it demonstrates 'good practice' to the public who see them as they are driving around (apparently they've had some complaints from drivers who saw ambulance drivers without masks)

What is the world coming to

 

[scotrail158713]

My father works in the ambulance service as a patient transport driver/assistant. He's been told today that he must wear a mask for his whole shift, regardless of whether he has a patient in the back or not, and if he's caught without one (even if he's in the vehicle alone) it'll be straight to disciplinary action.

I can't be the only one that thinks this is ridiculous. Their reasoning is that it demonstrates 'good practice' to the public who see them as they are driving around (apparently they've had some complaints from drivers who saw ambulance drivers without masks)

What is the world coming to

What is it coming to indeed? That’s shocking.
For me it’s the bit I’ve made bold that’s the worst part. Surely if there’s no patient it’s personal choice?
It’s all very worrying.

 

[43066]

My father works in the ambulance service as a patient transport driver/assistant. He's been told today that he must wear a mask for his whole shift, regardless of whether he has a patient in the back or not, and if he's caught without one (even if he's in the vehicle alone) it'll be straight to disciplinary action.

I can't be the only one that thinks this is ridiculous. Their reasoning is that it demonstrates 'good practice' to the public who see them as they are driving around (apparently they've had some complaints from drivers who saw ambulance drivers without masks)

What is the world coming to

I’d be willing to bet that’s an overzealous individual stating their own view as fact, rather than official policy. There will certainly be NHS staff who are exempt for various reasons, but I fully accept that puts him into a difficult position.

I reckon the ludicrous masks requirement, and the division and resentment it is causing, is by far and away the most unpleasant aspect of the Covid 19 pandemic so far.

 

[adc82140]

I work for the NHS. It's been made clear to us that masks are compulsory only if we have either a patient or colleague in the room with us. It's plain common sense.

 

[AdamWW]

What is it coming to indeed? That’s shocking.
For me it’s the bit I’ve made bold that’s the worst part. Surely if there’s no patient it’s personal choice?
It’s all very worrying.

I suppose it depends how long infectious particles might hang around - in principle it could be justified.

(This is not an endorsement of the policy).

 

[mmh]

I’d be willing to bet that’s an overzealous individual stating their own view as fact, rather than official policy. There will certainly be NHS staff who are exempt for various reasons, but I fully accept that puts him into a difficult position.

I reckon the ludicrous masks requirement, and the division and resentment it is causing, is by far and away the most unpleasant aspect of the Covid 19 pandemic so far.

My anecdotal experience of people's opinions here is that most will ignore the mask edict from Monday. I hope that ends up being the case. I won't be wearing one.

 

[Mojo]

My anecdotal experience of people's opinions here is that most will ignore the mask edict from Monday. I hope that ends up being the case. I won't be wearing one.

Most people already seem to be ignoring the rule in takeaways (England), so I don’t see why restaurants will be any different.

 

[mmh]

I suppose it depends how long infectious particles might hang around - in principle it could be justified.

(This is not an endorsement of the policy).

Early on there were many people claiming that we had such a deadly virus it could survive for days on inanimate surfaces. Some suggested deliveries should be left outside your house for three days before risking touching them.

Most people thought this was nonsense, but the fear was spread.

Now, we're in a position where some cling on to us all being in danger, and we should all be tested.

Tests. Postal tests. Give a sample of your saliva and walk to a post box and put it amongst other letters going all across Britain and the world.

It is utter nonsense. Here in Wales we have pillar boxes labelled as NHS priority boxes (the ones which they'll empty each day, many aren't)

But wear your mask, isolate etc. This no longer has anything to do with public health.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

They never give numbers where masks are concerned - it would be measurable and that would never do!

£50 says mandatory masks in shops in Wales will, like England, result in people standing closer together in queues ...

 

[AdamWW]

£50 says mandatory masks in shops in Wales will, like England, result in people standing closer together in queues ...

Interesting one that.

Logically I know that I shouldn't get closer to people just because I have a face covering.

Yet instinctively I do act differently.

 

[trebor79]

I reckon the ludicrous masks requirement, and the division and resentment it is causing, is by far and away the most unpleasant aspect of the Covid 19 pandemic so far.

I agree. The rest of it I don't mind too much, I guess it's easier to accept that distancing and working from home will lessen the spread (even if I don't necessarily agree with the extent to which that has been done).
Masks are unproven, probably counter productive, dehumanising, not used properly in the real world, people have the wrong thing (ie a respirator with outlet valve). And just alien to our society and way of life. Sadly I suspect one of the enduring effects of this pandemic will be that a proportion of people continue to wear them and advocate for the rest of us to be forced to follow suite.

 

[Huntergreed]

I agree. The rest of it I don't mind too much, I guess it's easier to accept that distancing and working from home will lessen the spread (even if I don't necessarily agree with the extent to which that has been done).
Masks are unproven, probably counter productive, dehumanising, not used properly in the real world, people have the wrong thing (ie a respirator with outlet valve). And just alien to our society and way of life. Sadly I suspect one of the enduring effects of this pandemic will be that a proportion of people continue to wear them and advocate for the rest of us to be forced to follow suite.

I could see some rogue businesses insisting on mandatory masks during winter months from now on, which I’ll be boycotting, and I can see a general societal expectation to wear one if you have a cold/flu/COVID symptoms for the long term, but aside from that I can’t see them staying.

If the mandation in hospitality causes a rise in Scotland, that’s as close as we’ll get to proof that they don’t work.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Interesting one that.

Logically I know that I shouldn't get closer to people just because I have a face covering.

Yet instinctively I do act differently.

I reported on observing this phenomenon (at close quarters, in several shops) the first weekend after mandation in England.
Have governments across the world never heard the adage ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ ?
Which is better, a person standing 2 metres away, unmasked, or right behind you, with a face covering?
It is no surprise to me that face coverings are not only less than effective, they may actually be making things worse.

(awaits Karen on Facebook demanding masks AND 2m Social Distancing)

 

[bramling]

My father works in the ambulance service as a patient transport driver/assistant. He's been told today that he must wear a mask for his whole shift, regardless of whether he has a patient in the back or not, and if he's caught without one (even if he's in the vehicle alone) it'll be straight to disciplinary action.

I can't be the only one that thinks this is ridiculous. Their reasoning is that it demonstrates 'good practice' to the public who see them as they are driving around (apparently they've had some complaints from drivers who saw ambulance drivers without masks)

What is the world coming to

This is something the powers that be need to be very careful with. A lot of the people who never stopped working, especially in the “key” roles, are already becoming increasingly sick of the whole affair; nonsense like this will simply lead to people walking out. Indeed that’s already happened a few times at my place for one reason or another, and being honest I’ve come close a couple of times.

I reckon the ludicrous masks requirement, and the division and resentment it is causing, is by far and away the most unpleasant aspect of the Covid 19 pandemic so far.

Though there’s some competition for that title:

* People willing to commit assault in order to secure a pack of toilet rolls
* Snitching on neighbours
* Vigilantes going round (mainly villages) telling non-locals to leave the area as they’re spreading disease to the locals
* “Cyclists stop panting germs through our village” signs being erected
* Tyres being let down on non-local cars in certain areas (which could of course have fatal consequences in the wrong circumstances)
* Dominic Cummings, and by extension Boris Johnson, treating the population as utter fools with the story about the eye-test
* “Quarantining” of offices with the ulterior motive of keeping unwanted people out
That’s just a few things off the top of my head, the list is not exhaustive!

On the credit side, I was looking at the website of a bookshop I regularly use. They’ve mentioned that they wish to see sensible distancing, however go on to say that people are welcome to come and visit without formal restriction, and they they welcome cash. They say masks are required by law, but that it is not our role to challenge, and that anyone not wearing a mask will automatically and happily be assumed to be exempt, and that visitors should be aware the staff will not be wearing masks. Good on them, and I’ve just bumped up my on-line order as a gesture of appreciation!

 

[Bantamzen]

Your logic is undermined by the assumption that the spread of the disease is monocausal, and that you presume that success is defined by a direct fall in the number of cases. As others have pointed out, there are a variety of factors feeding into the prevalence of Covid, while success can be measured (with great difficulty) in terms of the number of cases compared to that without the measure.

But isn't the whole point of wearing masks to reduce the spread? So if cases go up following the mandate to wear them, does this not mean that they are not working? Yes there are other factors to consider, but according to the "experts" masks will allow us to lead more normal lives, yet the data suggests quiet the opposite. If anything one might conclude that masks are making things worse.

Interesting one that.

Logically I know that I shouldn't get closer to people just because I have a face covering.

Yet instinctively I do act differently.

So we wear masks for what reason? If they don't allow us to get closer to each other, is this evidence that they don't work?

 

[birchesgreen]

Masks have been mandated along with a reopening of much of the economy and society so its hard to judge the effect of masks. Without masks maybe cases would be much higher than they are now, or maybe not. The only way you'd maybe be able to see an effect is if masks had been mandated earlier during the main lockdown period.

 

[6862]

Surely if there’s no patient it’s personal choice?
It’s all very worrying.

I think this aspect of our lives is rapidly disappearing. Especially when it comes to face coverings - this seen is the one size fits all solution, doesn't matter if the individual can see that it's clearly not needed in certain situations.

 

[trebor79]

On the credit side, I was looking at the website of a bookshop I regularly use. They’ve mentioned that they wish to see sensible distancing, however go on to say that people are welcome to come and visit without formal restriction, and they they welcome cash. They say masks are required by law, but that it is not our role to challenge, and that anyone not wearing a mask will automatically and happily be assumed to be exempt, and that visitors should be aware the staff will not be wearing masks. Good on them, and I’ve just bumped up my on-line order as a gesture of appreciation!

I would like to give this shop some custom, can you say where it is please? PM if you prefer!

 

[Bantamzen]

Masks have been mandated along with a reopening of much of the economy and society so its hard to judge the effect of masks. Without masks maybe cases would be much higher than they are now, or maybe not. The only way you'd maybe be able to see an effect is if masks had been mandated earlier during the main lockdown period.

We are repeatedly told that masks are effective in slowing or stopping the spread of the virus, yet the opposite appears to be true. There were many relaxations in restrictions prior to masks being mandated that did not appear to cause an increase, yet across many countries as mask wearing becomes more widespread, so does the virus. That should at the very least warrant some serious questioning as to their effect.

 

[AdamWW]

So we wear masks for what reason? If they don't allow us to get closer to each other, is this evidence that they don't work?

1) I believe the principle is supposed to be that you wear masks when you can't avoid getting 'too' close to people. Not that having a mask on means you don't bother keeping your distance when you could easily do so.

2) Masks may help but I don't have the evidence to be sure of this. Therefore it is illogical of me to act as if they definitely do.

We are repeatedly told that masks are effective in slowing or stopping the spread of the virus, yet the opposite appears to be true. There were many relaxations in restrictions prior to masks being mandated that did not appear to cause an increase, yet across many countries as mask wearing becomes more widespread, so does the virus. That should at the very least warrant some serious questioning as to their effect.

I think we're rather going round on circles on this, but, for example:

Infection rates in Caerphilly shot up recently. There was no mask mandate or any other big change in regulations coinciding with this.

If they had just brought in stricter mask requirements I expect people here would be saying this is strong evidence that masks are bad.