The case for and against the effectiveness of face coverings and the mandating of their use

[Huntergreed]

How utterly bizarre.

I assume you’re referring to your argument?

 

[Bantamzen]

You didn't bother to read further...but neither did you even bother to read what you quoted. Firstly you managed to extract one sentence to make an argument that the evidence doesn't support general mask wearing, but you failed. The rest of the poage includes other sentences such as "The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained." This CLEARLY shows trhat your extract (below this) does NOT refer to masks only working when sued iunder strict medical protocols. It simply says that authorities should, as well as stating the importance of wearing masks, give guidance on how they should be worn, cleaned and disposed of. Of course that's exactly what the Government have done on this page about face mask wearing https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-to-make-your-own#how-to-wear-a-face-covering. There has been plenty of public information on this

Well then that undermines it further, because the line I quoted clearly suggests that there are medical protocols required to make masks effective. Unless you are suggesting that medical protocols are unnecessary, in which case we could save the NHS a huge amount in PPE?

 

[Merseysider]

I'm happy as you are saying that you are happy to catch it. I'm not happy that you may have and then transmut it whilst still in ther phase where a result using a lateral flow test is yet to show positive, or before you test positive


I'll take could in preference to would anytime - doing this could help save your life is better than not doing. Dirty pieces of cloth are nowhere as effective as good masks, clearly not, but they still reduce transmission to soem extent. I'd rather others wore that than nothing. As to mandating, well yes I do support that. As you say there are far too many selfish people out there who won't do the right thing unless told to

I don’t feel like there’s anything to be gained from replying to you further.

Clearly we’re on two different sides of a line so I’ll leave this here.

I agree with @Huntergreed for the record

 

[island]

And there’s this CDC study which showed no significant reduction of transmission from the use of face masks.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

 

[fireftrm]

Well then that undermines it further, because the line I quoted clearly suggests that there are medical protocols required to make masks effective. Unless you are suggesting that medical protocols are unnecessary, in which case we could save the NHS a huge amount in PPE?

No, no and thrice no. The sentence you quoted simply says that authorities should provide guidance on how to wear, how to clean and dispose of. It is YOU who have made this into a medical protocol, nowhere is that mentioned. It clearly doesn't suit your ideology to accept that. My post linked to the UK Government's such advice, which is nothing like medical protocols, you wouldn't have read it? Or maybe you did and, of course wouldn't acknowlegde that because it undermines your belief. Just in case you hand't read it and for the benefit of anyone who thinks you are making a good point this is what the site says:

• cover your nose and mouth while allowing you to breathe comfortably (a nose wire may help with fit)
• fit comfortably but securely against the side of the face
• be secured to the head with ties or ear loops
• be made of a material that you find to be comfortable and breathable, such as cotton
• ideally include at least 2 layers of fabric (the World Health Organization recommends 3, depending on the fabric used)
• unless disposable, it should be able to be washed with other items of laundry according to fabric washing instructions and dried without causing the face covering to be damaged. Single-use disposable masks should not be washed and reused

Of course this is NOTHING like a medical protocol. That same page even makes the distinction quite clear as further up it states "Face coverings are not classified as PPE (personal protective equipment) which is used in a limited number of settings to protect wearers against hazards and risks, such as surgical masks or respirators used in medical and industrial settings."

 

[Bantamzen]

No, no and thrice no. The sentence you quoted simply says that authorities should provide guidance on how to wear, how to clean and dispose of. It is YOU who have made this into a medical protocol, nowhere is that mentioned. It clearly doesn't suit your ideology to accept that. My post linked to the UK Government's such advice, which is nothing like medical protocols, you wouldn't have read it? Or maybe you did and, of course wouldn't acknowlegde that because it undermines your belief. Just in case you hand't read it and for the benefit of anyone who thinks you are making a good point this is what the site says:

• cover your nose and mouth while allowing you to breathe comfortably (a nose wire may help with fit)
• fit comfortably but securely against the side of the face
• be secured to the head with ties or ear loops
• be made of a material that you find to be comfortable and breathable, such as cotton
• ideally include at least 2 layers of fabric (the World Health Organization recommends 3, depending on the fabric used)
• unless disposable, it should be able to be washed with other items of laundry according to fabric washing instructions and dried without causing the face covering to be damaged. Single-use disposable masks should not be washed and reused

Of course this is NOTHING like a medical protocol. That same page even makes the distinction quite clear as further up it states "Face coverings are not classified as PPE (personal protective equipment) which is used in a limited number of settings to protect wearers against hazards and risks, such as surgical masks or respirators used in medical and industrial settings."

Now look at most of the studies into mask efficiency. You'll find they were conducted in.... (wait for it).... Medical scenarios!! <cue music>

So the above is, well irrelevant until studies are done into mask use outside of medical disciplines, where there are few if any controls. I once again refer you to your fellow mask wearers, & tell me they are even following those instructions. If I were you, I'd call it a day. But....

 

[fireftrm]

And there’s this CDC study which showed no significant reduction of transmission from the use of face masks.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

A study on the use of masks and other measure son the transmission of influenza, not Coronavirus!

The evidence is there that masks reduce Coronavirus, but are very much less effective with influenza. In this study publsihed in Nature Magazine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 they found:
"We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b). For influenza virus, we detected virus in 6 of 23 (26%) and 8 of 23 (35%) of the respiratory droplet and aerosol samples collected without face masks, respectively. There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols."

Now look at most of the studies into mask efficiency. You'll find they were conducted in.... (wait for it).... Medical scenarios!! <cue music>

So the above is, well irrelevant until studies are done into mask use outside of medical disciplines, where there are few if any controls. I once again refer you to your fellow mask wearers, & tell me they are even following those instructions. If I were you, I'd call it a day. But....

None of these studies were in medical scenarios, or of medical dicisplines, or medical standard mask wearers...cue the fat lady sings

 

[yorksrob]

Mask wearing in any setting is pretty marginal at preventing transmission and dangerous effects of the virus, in comparison to the vaccination programme.

Therefore I choose to have the vaccine instead as it's both more effective and less hassle.

 

[DustyBin]

A study on the use of masks and other measure son the transmission of influenza, not Coronavirus!

The evidence is there that masks reduce Coronavirus, but are very much less effective with influenza. In this study publsihed in Nature Magazine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 they found:
"We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b). For influenza virus, we detected virus in 6 of 23 (26%) and 8 of 23 (35%) of the respiratory droplet and aerosol samples collected without face masks, respectively. There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols."


None of these studies were in medical scenarios, or of medical dicisplines, or medical standard mask wearers...cue the fat lady sings

So in conclusion your linked study found that masks (in this case the surgical variety) act as a replacement for tissues or handkerchiefs by catching large droplets, nothing more. So why not encourage people to use those instead? Remember “catch it, bin it, kill it”? Instead we have “catch it, contaminate your hands and face with it, spread it”.

 

[Bantamzen]

A study on the use of masks and other measure son the transmission of influenza, not Coronavirus!

The evidence is there that masks reduce Coronavirus, but are very much less effective with influenza. In this study publsihed in Nature Magazine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 they found:
"We detected coronavirus in respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 of 10 (30%) and 4 of 10 (40%) of the samples collected without face masks, respectively, but did not detect any virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols collected from participants wearing face masks, this difference was significant in aerosols and showed a trend toward reduced detection in respiratory droplets (Table 1b). For influenza virus, we detected virus in 6 of 23 (26%) and 8 of 23 (35%) of the respiratory droplet and aerosol samples collected without face masks, respectively. There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols."


None of these studies were in medical scenarios, or of medical dicisplines, or medical standard mask wearers...cue the fat lady sings

You should really read your own links, including that last one. Seriously, it might help you (hint look up the bit about disposable masks). That hole you are digging is getting very deep.

 

[the sniper]

Mask wearing in any setting is pretty marginal at preventing transmission and dangerous effects of the virus, in comparison to the vaccination programme.

Therefore I choose to have the vaccine instead as it's both more effective and less hassle.

Masks aren't worn for your benefit though, so I don't know why having the vaccination makes any difference. A few weeks after you've had the vaccination, you just don't need to be concerned with whether others wear masks.

Not to argue the case for masks, as there'll never be sufficient evidence to satisfy those who are highly ideologically opposed to them. Anything but a significant proven benefit won't be enough for some and I doubt they are significantly beneficial.

 

[yorksrob]

Masks aren't worn for your benefit though, so I don't know why having the vaccination makes any difference. A few weeks after you've had the vaccination, you just don't need to be concerned with whether others wear masks.

Not to argue the case for masks, as there'll never be sufficient evidence to satisfy those who are highly ideologically opposed to them. Anything but a significant proven benefit won't be enough and I doubt they are significantly beneficial.

The vaccine makes you less likely to have it, and consequently less likely to spread it as well. I think that that is more likely to provide the "significant benefit" of which you speak, rather than face coverings.

 

[the sniper]

The vaccine makes you less likely to have it, and consequently less likely to spread it as well.

Doesn't it also make it far more likely to have it but be unsystematic? To me, now we're coming to the point where most people who'll have the second jab can get it is the point at which the masks become completely irrelevant.

I think that that is more likely to provide the "significant benefit" of which you speak, rather than face coverings.

Undoubtedly. But they're not either/or, to be fair.

 

[yorksrob]

Doesn't it also make it far more likely to have it but be unsystematic? To me, now we're coming to the point where most people who'll have the second jab can get it is the point at which the masks become completely irrelevant.



Undoubtedly. But they're not either/or, to be fair.

I think that you're still less likely to have it altogether, even though you're also more likely to be asymptomatic if you do happen to have it. There's also a question mark as to how likely asymptomatic people are to spread it, versus symptomatic people.

It may not be either/or, but given the choice between a really quite effective mitigation that is little inconvenience, versus one that is high hassle and marginal effectiveness, I feel more comfortable about ditching the marginal one.

 

[AlterEgo]

Here the ONS figures demonstrated a reduction of around 75% in COVID transmission within a railway carriage, comparing 90% mask wearing to 50% mask wearing.

How did they do this? Where can we find this dataset and methodology?

 

[Bantamzen]

How did they do this? Where can we find this dataset and methodology?

Cigarette packet, back of....

 

[jumble]

Not a single straw grasped there only facts. If you work for a mailine railway company you would be aware that the RSSB have statistics to show how effective mask wearing is at reducing transmission. Basic biology (GSCE) would give you the knowledge that viruses mutate and to do so need to have multiple hosts, so the greater the case numbers the greater the likelihood of new variants. Yours is a reply showing ignorance, whether inate or like Yorkie's because it suits your idealogy


No I was stating facts, I was not making a fallacy argument against a man

Network Rail found no evidence of Covid in Stations or trains when they investigated
I wonder if the statistics you cite took these findings into account

No Covid traces found in railway stations or trains

Heavily touched areas like escalator handles, ticket machines and benches were swabbed for the virus.

www.bbc.co.uk

In august 2020 the RSSB said that the chances of catching Covid in a 1 hour train journey with no Masks was 1 in 11000
Yes 1 in 11000

404 - Page Not Found

www.rssb.co.uk

These two facts clearly say to me that wearing a mask or not on a train is irrelevant

 

[Cdd89]

How did they do this? Where can we find this dataset and methodology?

It sounds groundbreaking, but good luck seeing it. It appears to be the report that lives in Canada!

 

[LAX54]

No, no and thrice no. The sentence you quoted simply says that authorities should provide guidance on how to wear, how to clean and dispose of. It is YOU who have made this into a medical protocol, nowhere is that mentioned. It clearly doesn't suit your ideology to accept that. My post linked to the UK Government's such advice, which is nothing like medical protocols, you wouldn't have read it? Or maybe you did and, of course wouldn't acknowlegde that because it undermines your belief. Just in case you hand't read it and for the benefit of anyone who thinks you are making a good point this is what the site says:

• cover your nose and mouth while allowing you to breathe comfortably (a nose wire may help with fit)
• fit comfortably but securely against the side of the face
• be secured to the head with ties or ear loops
• be made of a material that you find to be comfortable and breathable, such as cotton
• ideally include at least 2 layers of fabric (the World Health Organization recommends 3, depending on the fabric used)
• unless disposable, it should be able to be washed with other items of laundry according to fabric washing instructions and dried without causing the face covering to be damaged. Single-use disposable masks should not be washed and reused

Of course this is NOTHING like a medical protocol. That same page even makes the distinction quite clear as further up it states "Face coverings are not classified as PPE (personal protective equipment) which is used in a limited number of settings to protect wearers against hazards and risks, such as surgical masks or respirators used in medical and industrial settings."

The guidelines in bold, which would work, but sadly I would say over 85% of masks worn in the stores and in the street do not come near any of those requirements, add to that the majority that wear them wrong anyway.......

 

[fireftrm]

Well then that undermines it further, because the line I quoted clearly suggests that there are medical protocols required to make masks effective. Unless you are suggesting that medical protocols are unnecessary, in which case we could save the NHS a huge amount in PPE?

No you have made that jump - just try and point out where, anywhere…., a medical protocol being required is said.

This should be fun!

Mask wearing in any setting is pretty marginal at preventing transmission and dangerous effects of the virus, in comparison to the vaccination programme.

Therefore I choose to have the vaccine instead as it's both more effective and less hassle.

I chose both vaccine and mask wearing

You should really read your own links, including that last one. Seriously, it might help you (hint look up the bit about disposable masks). That hole you are digging is getting very deep.

Go on then tell us how this is digging my hole and not yours?

How did they do this? Where can we find this dataset and methodology?

By being a member of the RSSB

 

[yorkie]

By being a member of the RSSB

The RSSB have access to information not available elsewhere?

I chose both vaccine and mask wearing

That's your choice but you cannot impose this on others.

I choose to believe in the vaccines; therefore I will not be wearing a mask as a standard mask is ineffective and I personally do not require the use of an effective FFP3 mask.

Someone who is particularly vulnerable (for example immunocompromised) can choose to protect themselves with an effective FFP3 mask, if they wish to do so.

 

[fireftrm]

Network Rail found no evidence of Covid in Stations or trains when they investigated
I wonder if the statistics you cite took these findings into account

No Covid traces found in railway stations or trains

Heavily touched areas like escalator handles, ticket machines and benches were swabbed for the virus.

www.bbc.co.uk

In august 2020 the RSSB said that the chances of catching Covid in a 1 hour train journey with no Masks was 1 in 11000
Yes 1 in 11000

404 - Page Not Found

www.rssb.co.uk

These two facts clearly say to me that wearing a mask or not on a train is irrelevant

August 2020, low levels of COVID-19 cases, no Alpha variant yet and Delta was six months away. NR found no COVID…..on surfaces. By the way road deaths still outweigh any chance of COVID transmission on a train leading to death, but the stats here don’t support mask wearing being irrelevant! I’d say that strawberries are redder than cucumbers but that doesn’t mean sugar isn’t bad for you

The RSSB have access to information not available elsewhere?

That's your choice but you cannot impose this on others.

I choose to believe in the vaccines; therefore I will not be wearing a mask as a standard mask is ineffective and I personally do not require the use of an effective FFP3 mask.

Someone who is particularly vulnerable (for example immunocompromised) can choose to protect themselves with an effective FFP3 mask, if they wish to do so.

Yes

You are off on one again, just where did anyone say anything about impos any mask wearing?
I believe in the effectiveness of the vaccines but I also know that being vaccinated doesn’t prevent me from catching COVID or transmittimg it if I do. I also know that any mask will reduce virus particles being spread, whether by others to me or me to others. I don’t wear a FFFP3 mask, but I do wear a double layer cotton based washable/reusable one. I know it’s not as effective but it’s more effective than none.

Of course the argument that ‘someone who is particularly vulnerable can wear a FFFP3 to protect themselves’ is one that only the selfish ‘I don’t care about others just me and I don’t want to wear a mask’ would ever use. Wearing a mask is not just about protecting yourself it is equally about protecting others. You may be spraying virus around now, do you care? Clearly not.

 

[Bantamzen]

No you have made that jump - just try and point out where, anywhere…., a medical protocol being required is said.

This should be fun!

I agree, from that last link of yours.... <drumroll>

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluid

Ooooh, there we are, designed to be worn by medical personnel. Who knew?

Now you do understand that medical personnel work to strict protocols right? So add the two together. Quite simple really.

Go on then tell us how this is digging my hole and not yours?

As above....

 

[yorkie]

August 2020, low levels of COVID-19 cases, no Alpha variant yet and Delta was six months away. NR found no COVID…..on surfaces. By the way road deaths still outweigh any chance of COVID transmission on a train leading to death, but the stats here don’t support mask wearing being irrelevant! I’d say that strawberries are redder than cucumbers but that doesn’t mean sugar isn’t bad for you

I am not sure what your point is here; if you can elaborate that would be useful.

You are off on one again, just where did anyone say anything about impos any mask wearing?

Ah so you agree with me it should be each persons personal choice? That's great; can we end the debate now?

I believe in the effectiveness of the vaccines but I also know that being vaccinated doesn’t prevent me from catching COVID or transmittimg it if I do.

HCoVs will always circulate in human populations; there is nothing that can be done to prevent this. We now have 5 endemic HCoVs; previously we had 4.

I also know that any mask will reduce virus particles being spread, whether by others to me or me to others. I don’t wear a FFFP3 mask, but I do wear a double layer cotton based washable/reusable one. I know it’s not as effective but it’s more effective than none.

The case for the effectiveness of loose fitting flimsy masks is very weak and it cannot be stated as a matter of fact that they reduce the spread of viruses. It is your opinion, which is shared by some scientists but by no means all.

Of course the argument that ‘someone who is particularly vulnerable can wear a FFFP3 to protect themselves’ is one that only the selfish ‘I don’t care about others just me and I don’t want to wear a mask’ would ever use. Wearing a mask is not just about protecting yourself it is equally about protecting others. You may be spraying virus around now, do you care? Clearly not.

No; it isn't. The vast majority of people are extremely well protected by vaccines. Even people in the immunocompromised group get good protection.

Who are you asking to be protected? Your argument appears to be that some people are not well protected by vaccines, and that they may choose not to wear effective masks (as is their right of course) and that therefore everyone else should be required to wear ineffective masks, on the basis that this may provide additional protection to those people?

I do not think it is fair to call me selfish; I've taken the vaccine, I keep myself fit and healthy. I do not get ill with viruses often at all and the only time I have been really ill in the last 15 years is due to being put under stress or other mental health issues caused by matters such as lockdowns and other restrictions.

If you are suggesting that I, a healthy vaccinated individual, with healthy BMI and an active lifestyle, pose a risk to others, and that the risks I pose can be negated if I wear a flimsy loose fitting face covering, I would say you are incorrect.

What do you claim I "do not care" about?

 

[initiation]

Nobody has ever claimed that facemasks we the key to reducing tranmission, just that they made a small difference as part of a package of other measures.

1) not quite true. There have been numerous news reports over the last year saying how Japan/Czech Republic/other random country 'beat' Covid because they wore masks (strangely silent a few months later when things went sour)
2) you had people like the Head of the CDC in the US last year who said before a US Senate committee: "I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine" and they are "the most important, powerful public health tool we have". I mean really, masks are better at protecting people than vaccines?!!!

Oh, and cases are starting to rise again in the UK

Yup cases have been rising again in the UK - England, Scotland, NI, and Wales. Regardless of any mask laws or 'freedom' days. No noticable change with removal of these laws.

 

[island]

Yes, surely if masks worked we would see a meaningful divergence between England and Scotland/Wales.

 

[fireftrm]

I am not sure what your point is here; if you can elaborate that would be useful.

Ah so you agree with me it should be each persons personal choice? That's great; can we end the debate now?

HCoVs will always circulate in human populations; there is nothing that can be done to prevent this. We now have 5 endemic HCoVs; previously we had 4.


The case for the effectiveness of loose fitting flimsy masks is very weak and it cannot be stated as a matter of fact that they reduce the spread of viruses. It is your opinion, which is shared by some scientists but by no means all.

No; it isn't. The vast majority of people are extremely well protected by vaccines. Even people in the immunocompromised group get good protection.

Who are you asking to be protected? Your argument appears to be that some people are not well protected by vaccines, and that they may choose not to wear effective masks (as is their right of course) and that therefore everyone else should be required to wear ineffective masks, on the basis that this may provide additional protection to those people?

I do not think it is fair to call me selfish; I've taken the vaccine, I keep myself fit and healthy. I do not get ill with viruses often at all and the only time I have been really ill in the last 15 years is due to being put under stress or other mental health issues caused by matters such as lockdowns and other restrictions.

If you are suggesting that I, a healthy vaccinated individual, with healthy BMI and an active lifestyle, pose a risk to others, and that the risks I pose can be negated if I wear a flimsy loose fitting face covering, I would say you are incorrect.

What do you claim I "do not care" about?

First point - this was a reply to a poster who said NR had stated travel by rail was safer by road and another who used a statement from August 2020 when cases were low. That your settings force posts to be amalgamated led it to be in a reply to you too!
Yes I am saying that mask wearing is a personal choice, but it’s a good one as they do provide some protection to you and others

yes vaccination provides good protection against serious illness, but not 100% and being vaccinated does not mean you can’t catch COVID or spread it, therefore if you can take other measures as well it’s going to help reduce transmission and mutation. As it is there’s around 30% of the U.K. population not vaccinated and just over 40% with only one dose, so over 3 in 10 of the people you will meet have no protection. I did not make an argument that SOME people aren’t well protected I made a statement of truth that vaccination is not 100% effective against catching COVID whoever you are

As to you being selfish - the I don’t get ill, I’m a fit and healthy person, I have a healthy BMI etc just proves my point. On just one of those - not getting I’ll with a viral infection does not mean you can’t and won’t spread that virus to others who might become seriously unwell. Your comment shows exactly where you are- I’m alright Jack. You have now been seriously ill, so you say, due to lockdowns and being made to wear a mask? Really?
Lastly you further drop your argument to the ridiculous when you say ‘a flimsy loose fitting face covering’. That there are people with these is not the point now is it? You really are being silly

 

[MikeWM]

You may be spraying virus around now, do you care? Clearly not.

Jumping in on this specific point - to put it bluntly, I don't, no. A couple of years ago pretty much noone else would have done either.

There is no moral requirement to 'protect' other people from an illness that you don't know you have and have no particular reason to suspect you may have. (If you have symptoms or a particularly good reason to suspect you've been exposed to the disease, then it is fair to be a little more careful).

That's the way the world works and has done for millennia. All part of the way we exist on this messy imperfect planet.

 

[big_rig]

By being a member of the RSSB

Lol. The RSSB paper is freely available to download:

404 - Page Not Found

www.rssb.co.uk

It cites 'Chu et al' as the single reference to masks which is available here:

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed...

www.thelancet.com

Chu is another paper which is just a list of previous studies (a 'meta analysis' in fancy words, or a 'blog' effectively in the real world), an approach which has long been hashed over in this thread and adds no actual scientific evidence.

 

[Cdd89]

As it is there’s around 30% of the U.K. population not vaccinated and just over 40% with only one dose, so over 3 in 10 of the people you will meet have no protection.

None of whom are at high risk except through their own choice.

Lastly you further drop your argument to the ridiculous when you say ‘a flimsy loose fitting face covering’. That there are people with these is not the point now is it? You really are being silly

The vast majority of face coverings in everyday use meet this description.

Lol. The RSSB paper is freely available to download:

Ah, so it’s not an “ONS” study at all. @fireftrm do you actually have this “ONS” report or were you mistaken?