UK face coverings discussion

[Bantamzen]

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.

Well quite clearly the decision makers don't agree, because they continue to mandate people distancing despite also mandating masks.

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.

You don't have evidence because it does not exist. Studies into the effectiveness are almost exclusively limited to medical environments, where of course much stricter protocols exist along with many other mitigations.

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.

There are other factors involved in the spread, but the simple fact remains. In many countries where stricter mask mandates have been applied, infection rates grow. So again, we are told that masks are effective in reducing spread, yet it appears the opposite is actually happening. If masks in non-medical environments were really effective, then it would not be unreasonable to expect infection rates to fall, which they are clearly not doing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well quite clearly the decision makers don't agree, because they continue to mandate people distancing despite also mandating masks.

It seems quite clear to me that masks were used to reduce but not remove distancing, i.e. 2m without, "1m+" with.

 

[Huntergreed]

It seems quite clear to me that masks were used to reduce but not remove distancing, i.e. 2m without, "1m+" with.

Indeed, except a lot of places (especially on the railway) they’re still trying to keep everyone 2m apart (crosscountry reservations for example), what annoys me about the whole thing is the lack of consistency

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, except a lot of places (especially on the railway) they’re still trying to keep everyone 2m apart (crosscountry reservations for example), what annoys me about the whole thing is the lack of consistency

Yes, that's certainly an issue. The local lockdowns are heading that way too, nobody quite knows what is what, and we've moved from England, Scotland and Wales having games of one-upmanship to each individual Council having their own mildly incompetent one, too.

 

[AdamWW]

Well quite clearly the decision makers don't agree, because they continue to mandate people distancing despite also mandating masks.

I agree there hasn't been much consistency on this, but I haven't seen any suggestion that people should make less effort to distance because they have a mask on.

There are other factors involved in the spread, but the simple fact remains. In many countries where stricter mask mandates have been applied, infection rates grow. So again, we are told that masks are effective in reducing spread, yet it appears the opposite is actually happening. If masks in non-medical environments were really effective, then it would not be unreasonable to expect infection rates to fall, which they are clearly not doing.

Yes it would be unreasonable.

If masks have an effect, that doesn't mean their introduction has to mean infection rates fall. It depends on what the transmission rate is without them.

If transmissions are rising, the effect could just be to reduce the rise.

As we don't know what would have happened without them, it's rather hard to say.

You can't just discount other factors. It doesn't work like that.

If the sudden rise in infections in Caerphilly happened to coincide with masks being required, people would be jumping up and down and claiming this as hard evidence that masks are a bad thing.
Yet it happened without any change in the mask rules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree there hasn't been much consistency on this, but I haven't seen any suggestion that people should make less effort to distance because they have a mask on.

You've not come across "one metre plus" then? That's pretty much the whole basis of it.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree there hasn't been much consistency on this, but I haven't seen any suggestion that people should make less effort to distance because they have a mask on.



Yes it would be unreasonable.

If masks have an effect, that doesn't mean their introduction has to mean infection rates fall. It depends on what the transmission rate is without them.

If transmissions are rising, the effect could just be to reduce the rise.

As we don't know what would have happened without them, it's rather hard to say.

You can't just discount other factors. It doesn't work like that.

If the sudden rise in infections in Caerphilly happened to coincide with masks being required, people would be jumping up and down and claiming this as hard evidence that masks are a bad thing.
Yet it happened without any change in the mask rules.

It isn't unreasonable to assume that a rise in infections may be as a result of masks being ineffective, perhaps even a cause.

 

[Yew]

It isn't unreasonable to assume that a rise in infections may be as a result of masks being ineffective, perhaps even a cause.

We can be certain the the supposed "40% reduction" that are so often quoted by the mask brigade haven't materialised.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It isn't unreasonable to assume that a rise in infections may be as a result of masks being ineffective, perhaps even a cause.

It is absolutely unreasonable to assume that given so much has changed apart from masks. You cant just ignore the opening of pubs, restaurants and the like, the increase in people going back to work and the increase in people going on holiday and travelling etc.

 

[Bantamzen]

It is absolutely unreasonable to assume that given so much has changed apart from masks. You cant just ignore the opening of pubs, restaurants and the like.

Pubs and restaurants opened back in July, with no apparent upturn immediately after. But this isn't the point, quite clearly masks aren't working the way they were mooted to. Its so blumming obvious I don't understand why this is even being debated.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Pubs and restaurants opened back in July, with no apparent upturn immediately after. But this isn't the point, quite clearly masks aren't working the way they were mooted to. Its so blumming obvious I don't understand why this is even being debated.

Are you seriously suggesting that people going to pubs, restaurants, going back to work, going on holiday etc etc haven't had an effect in spreading the virus but wearing masks has? It is bloody damn obvious that opening up places is the cause of the increase in infections. It is why lockdown was so effective in reducing cases. You stop doing things and the virus reduces. You start doing things again and of course it increases. Are you really disagreeing with that?

You say there was no upturn when places opened but the data posted earlier in this thread suggests differently. June and July were roughly the low point and cases have only increased since then.

 

[AdamWW]

You've not come across "one metre plus" then? That's pretty much the whole basis of it.

I have, and that seems a consistent principle.

But it doesn't seem to be as simple as that.

I'm still told to stay 2 m apart from people on trains even though face coverings are mandatory.

We can be certain the the supposed "40% reduction" that are so often quoted by the mask brigade haven't materialised.

How can you tell that transmission hasn't reduced by 40% compared to what would have happened without them?

Pubs and restaurants opened back in July, with no apparent upturn immediately after. But this isn't the point, quite clearly masks aren't working the way they were mooted to. Its so blumming obvious I don't understand why this is even being debated.

One answer would be that it isn't in fact as straighforward and obvious as that.

 

[Yew]

How can you tell that transmission hasn't reduced by 40% compared to what would have happened without them?

Putting aside the fact that it's impossible to prove a negative, and the onus is on the mask advocates to prove that they work. You'd expect to see a step-change in transmission shortly after they were introduced, as transmission dropped. The fact that the curve is smooth suggests that there has been no effect.

 

[WelshBluebird]

You'd expect to see a step-change in transmission shortly after they were introduced, as transmission dropped.

If you werent changing anything else at the same time then maybe.
But given at the same time we were opening places and encouraging people to travel, go into the office and eat out, all things that increase the spread of the virus, I really dont think your statement holds true.

 

[AdamWW]

Putting aside the fact that it's impossible to prove a negative, and the onus is on the mask advocates to prove that they work. You'd expect to see a step-change in transmission shortly after they were introduced, as transmission dropped. The fact that the curve is smooth suggests that there has been no effect.

That's not a curve showing transmission. You won't see a step change in the infection curve if there is a step change in transmission.

 

[trebor79]

If you werent changing anything else at the same time then maybe.
But given at the same time we were opening places and encouraging people to travel, go into the office and eat out, all things that increase the spread of the virus, I really dont think your statement holds true.

Except by and large, nobody has gone back to the office.
How many infections has track and trace found through people going for a meal? We are continually told the major transmission route is within the home.

 

[Yew]

That's not a curve showing transmission. You won't see a step change in the infection curve if there is a step change in transmission.

For clarity, we would expect to see a step change in transmission, resulting in a change in the gradient of the infection curve.

 

[AdamWW]

For clarity, we would expect to see a step change in transmission, resulting in a change in the gradient of the infection curve.

Wouldn't it be a change in gradient on a log scale, since infections grow/shrink exponentially?

I'm sceptical that we can disentangle the measurements from other effects.

There doesn't seem to be good evidence either way.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Except by and large, nobody has gone back to the office.
How many infections has track and trace found through people going for a meal? We are continually told the major transmission route is within the home.

A lot of people have gone back into offices. Its why we are starting to get news reports about offices not following guidelines. And there are other non office workers who are going back to their workplace too - who do you think is working in the restaurants and pubs!

As for track and trace, probably for another thread but right now its a joke. You can give false details and many places aren't bothering with it. Hell even on this forum people have been complaining about the idea of having to give details and saying they would either give false details or just go to places that didn't require it.

And as for the home - well again since things starting opening back up people have been allowed to meet indoors!

This idea that masks are behind the increase and somehow it isnt the opening up of the country is insane.

 

[trebor79]

This idea that masks are behind the increase and somehow it isnt the opening up of the country is insane.

I think it's both.

 

[6862]

Currently on a TfW service. There's a security man going up and down the train telling people to put their masks on. He told some people opposite me off for eating - he said 'you shouldn't really be eating - but if you must drink you can lower your mask'. I'm eating my lunch right now and he just walked by, I think I got away with it...

 

[Huntergreed]

Currently on a TfW service. There's a security man going up and down the train telling people to put their masks on. He told some people opposite me off for eating - he said 'you shouldn't really be eating - but if you must drink you can lower your mask'. I'm eating my lunch right now and he just walked by, I think I got away with it...

That’s against the legislation which states you can remove it to eat or drink (many TOC’s are offering onboard catering!), sounds like a right stickler who’s enforcing his own ideals rather than the rules.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think it's both.

What of the following two options is more likely to be causing the virus to spread?

1 - people travelling more, going to pubs, going to restaurants, going on holiday (and ignoring the self isolation on return if it applies to the relevant country), visiting family indoors, having house parties indoors, using public transport, going to the office, going back to work if applicable, going to events like the trial sports events and concerts that have happened etc.
2 - masks.

It is pretty damn obvious list number 1 is going to have a much larger impact surely!

 

[6862]

That’s against the legislation which states you can remove it to eat or drink (many TOC’s are offering onboard catering!), sounds like a right stickler who’s enforcing his own ideals rather than the rules.

Yes he looked like he was enjoying his new important role. He was just replaced at the last station by a new security guard who has walked through the train twice (touching every seat back as he goes ) and who didn't say anything to me (eating) or the other people opposite me (eating and drinking).

 

[CaptainHaddock]

It is absolutely unreasonable to assume that given so much has changed apart from masks. You cant just ignore the opening of pubs, restaurants and the like, the increase in people going back to work and the increase in people going on holiday and travelling etc.

Pubs and restaurants reopened way back on 4 July. If they had any effect on the spread of the virus we would have seen new infections rising from mid July onwards.

 

[trebor79]

What of the following two options is more likely to be causing the virus to spread?

1 - people travelling more, going to pubs, going to restaurants, going on holiday (and ignoring the self isolation on return if it applies to the relevant country), visiting family indoors, having house parties indoors, using public transport, going to the office, going back to work if applicable, going to events like the trial sports events and concerts that have happened etc.
2 - masks.

It is pretty damn obvious list number 1 is going to have a much larger impact surely!

I don't know. But if you're going to point out people not following isolation rules in your first point, I'll point out nobody (and I mean nobody) follows proper hygiene measures when putting on, taking off or wearing their damp bit of snotrag across their face.
All the behaviours that Jennie Harries and other warned about can be seen all day every day in every shop and on every high street.
You can't just deny it's a factor because it doesn't fit the narrative that masks are a magic bullet.
What I do know is that there is a general trend that counties and regions with lesser or no mask mandates (or poor compliance, eg London) generally seem to be in a better position with regard to infection rates.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Pubs and restaurants reopened way back on 4 July. If they had any effect on the spread of the virus we would have seen new infections rising from mid July onwards.

We did though.
Slowly to begin with, but the data available shows June and early July being the low point with cases rising after that.
You also have to remember that there is a lag between infection and a positive test as people are advised to wait until they get symptoms before getting a test, so its the middle to end of July you need to look at.

 

[Bantamzen]

Are you seriously suggesting that people going to pubs, restaurants, going back to work, going on holiday etc etc haven't had an effect in spreading the virus but wearing masks has? It is bloody damn obvious that opening up places is the cause of the increase in infections. It is why lockdown was so effective in reducing cases. You stop doing things and the virus reduces. You start doing things again and of course it increases. Are you really disagreeing with that?

You say there was no upturn when places opened but the data posted earlier in this thread suggests differently. June and July were roughly the low point and cases have only increased since then.

The figures don't lie, the was no upturn when shops, restaurants & pubs started to reopen (based on a infection > symptom median of 5.2 days). You can go check the data for yourself if you wish. However since masks have become mandatory in more and more scenarios, the rates have gone up. I am not necessarily saying they are the cause, although I would suggest you do a bit more research on why in some medical circles there is concern on them being used without strict medical protocols. What I am saying is that there appears to be growing evidence that they simply don't work to stop the spread in public.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

We did though.
Slowly to begin with, but the data available shows June and early July being the low point with cases rising after that.
You also have to remember that there is a lag between infection and a positive test as people are advised to wait until they get symptoms before getting a test, so its the middle to end of July you need to look at.

Did deaths from Covid-19 increase after pubs and restaurants reopened?

 

[Richard Scott]

We did though.
Slowly to begin with, but the data available shows June and early July being the low point with cases rising after that.
You also have to remember that there is a lag between infection and a positive test as people are advised to wait until they get symptoms before getting a test, so its the middle to end of July you need to look at.

Need to remember that number of tests have gone up too and more you test the more you find.