"Covid rising in England" - let's stop the fear mongering

[yorkie]

Rather a lot of virtue signalling considering mask wearing in churches was nationwide and applied strictly - and the vast majority of parishioners went along with it; they're not all either virtue signallers of paranoid. I think you'll find it was more to do with protecting everyone present in the building; how effective it was is open to debate of course.

I'm a bit confused; you said:

I doubt churches for example would have implemented a face covering policy for as long as they did if it was obvious that they had no effect at the time.

Firstly for a while it was the law I think (or was it Government guidance; the two were not always in sync) and of course organisations would have implemented policies to 'enforce' mask wearing during that period simply because organisations are bound to follow the law and often bound to follow guidance. Going along with the law or guidance is not about virtue signalling or being paranoid.

However after it ceased to be mandated, anyone continuing to go along with mask wearing from that point could be said to be virtue signalling or being paranoid (or simply be mislead); any organisation implementing such a policy when not mandated is doing so for virtue signalling purposes in my opinion.

The cliche 'I'm not a doctor' falls into this category; basically why not trust the advice of the experts who have spent years of research and training getting to the position they hold, often with previous experience.

Yes, I don't understand why you are not trusting experts who spent many years of research and concluded that mask wearing was not appropriate for respiratory viruses.

People tried to get masks mandated back in 2009 and experts who spent years of research shut them down.

However those who spent years researching this got overruled in 2020, but not after numerous experts had gone on record as stating the mass wearing of masks would not be effective, including Prof Chris Whitty himself.

In early March 2020 there were still a lot of unknown factors and it was only in the months that followed that viral load was discovered to be a key factor. He wasn't advising people not to wear loose fitting coverings in the second half of 2020 and this was because by then more was known about the virus, including that whilst masks didn't prevent transmission they were likely to reduce the load.

You've got it the wrong way round. As we learnt more about the virus, we have gone on to realise that it is spread by aerosols, which are not filtered by flimsy, loose fitting masks.

Tight fitting FFP2/3 respirator masks, in contrast, are highly effective; anyone who wears one is free to do so and does not need to concern themselves with what others are doing.

Yes, because people trust the experts usually.

But you only trust the experts who believe in flimsy, loose fitting masks for some reason?

 

[GC class B1]

Believe what you like but proper science is based on repeated results so afraid one opinion/theory is worthless.

From my research looking for evidence of the effectiveness of surgical and cloth masks, it is apparent that in the studies that concluded that these masks were effective, the procedures used were flawed. The studies set out to find the evidence of mask effectiveness and therefore skewed the parameters used to get the results the scientists wanted. I think a properly set up trial would also look for evidence that masks didn’t reduce transmission by at least looking for other factors that may have resulted in less cases. It is often the case that if you select the results accordingly you can find ‘evidence’ to support your view but this is not scientific evidence.

 

[Richard Scott]

From my research looking for evidence of the effectiveness of surgical and cloth masks, it is apparent that in the studies that concluded that these masks were effective, the procedures used were flawed. The studies set out to find the evidence of mask effectiveness and therefore skewed the parameters used to get the results the scientists wanted. I think a properly set up trial would also look for evidence that masks didn’t reduce transmission by at least looking for other factors that may have resulted in less cases. It is often the case that if you select the results accordingly you can find ‘evidence’ to support your view but this is not scientific evidence.

Agreed.

 

[Enthusiast]

4 March 2020:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-uk-news-professor-chris-whitty-no-masks-advice-a9374086.html

Nothing changed in our understanding of the virus after that,....

No it certainly didn't. What did change, however, was the strategy both the UK and other governments adopted. The UK moved to a "let's scare them witless" approach. This was a result of this disgraceful document produced by SAGE’s "behavioural science sub-group SPI-B", for discussion at SAGE #18 on 23rd March 2020:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

In particular, this:

2. Perceived threat:

A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group (8), although levels of concern may be rising (9). Having a good understanding of the risk has been found to be positively associated with adoption of COVID-19 social distancing measures in Hong Kong (10). The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting Evaluation of options for increasing social distancing.

The paper was actually concerned with "social distancing" but it is my belief that the UK government realised that recommending (and later mandating) face coverings was a good method of increasing the perceived level of personal threat as mentioned in the paper. WHO guidance of face coverings in community settings was quite unequivocal shortly prior to this - they considered they were of no benefit. Once governments realised they had to be seen to be "doing something" their stance mysteriously changed.

I firmly believe there was never any scientific basis to introduce mandates for face coverings (something that has since become obvious). Instead they were part of the strategy used to scare the population into complying with many of the utterly nonsensical rules which were introduce to "Save Lives and Protect the NHS".

 

[DustyBin]

No it certainly didn't. What did change, however, was the strategy both the UK and other governments adopted. The UK moved to a "let's scare them witless" approach. This was a result of this disgraceful document produced by SAGE’s "behavioural science sub-group SPI-B", for discussion at SAGE #18 on 23rd March 2020:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

In particular, this:

2. Perceived threat:

A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group (8), although levels of concern may be rising (9). Having a good understanding of the risk has been found to be positively associated with adoption of COVID-19 social distancing measures in Hong Kong (10). The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting Evaluation of options for increasing social distancing.

The paper was actually concerned with "social distancing" but it is my belief that the UK government realised that recommending (and later mandating) face coverings was a good method of increasing the perceived level of personal threat as mentioned in the paper. WHO guidance of face coverings in community settings was quite unequivocal shortly prior to this - they considered they were of no benefit. Once governments realised they had to be seen to be "doing something" their stance mysteriously changed.

I firmly believe there was never any scientific basis to introduce mandates for face coverings (something that has since become obvious). Instead they were part of the strategy used to scare the population into complying with many of the utterly nonsensical rules which were introduce to "Save Lives and Protect the NHS".

This is exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post.

Absolutely appalling.

 

[Eyersey468]

This is exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post.

Absolutely appalling.

Agreed. We must NEVER be subject to that kind of appalling messaging again

 

[Jimini]

No it certainly didn't. What did change, however, was the strategy both the UK and other governments adopted. The UK moved to a "let's scare them witless" approach. This was a result of this disgraceful document produced by SAGE’s "behavioural science sub-group SPI-B", for discussion at SAGE #18 on 23rd March 2020:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

In particular, this:

2. Perceived threat:

A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group (8), although levels of concern may be rising (9). Having a good understanding of the risk has been found to be positively associated with adoption of COVID-19 social distancing measures in Hong Kong (10). The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting Evaluation of options for increasing social distancing.

The paper was actually concerned with "social distancing" but it is my belief that the UK government realised that recommending (and later mandating) face coverings was a good method of increasing the perceived level of personal threat as mentioned in the paper. WHO guidance of face coverings in community settings was quite unequivocal shortly prior to this - they considered they were of no benefit. Once governments realised they had to be seen to be "doing something" their stance mysteriously changed.

I firmly believe there was never any scientific basis to introduce mandates for face coverings (something that has since become obvious). Instead they were part of the strategy used to scare the population into complying with many of the utterly nonsensical rules which were introduce to "Save Lives and Protect the NHS".

It makes me feel a little bit sick, re-reading that.

 

[DustyBin]

It makes me feel a little bit sick, re-reading that.

Millions of people were manipulated and in some cases terrorised by behavioural scientists, and even now don’t realise it.

 

[Jimini]

Millions of people were manipulated and in some cases terrorised by behavioural scientists, and even now don’t realise it.

100%

 

[MikeWM]

No it certainly didn't. What did change, however, was the strategy both the UK and other governments adopted. The UK moved to a "let's scare them witless" approach. This was a result of this disgraceful document produced by SAGE’s "behavioural science sub-group SPI-B", for discussion at SAGE #18 on 23rd March 2020:

Oh, indeed so. As we have had no accountability and no consequences for the decisions and policies that were put in motion in those couple of weeks in March 2020, we *have* to keep on reminding people of what happened. Without recognising what went so terribly wrong then, we are at serious risk of repeating all the same things again.

I firmly believe there was never any scientific basis to introduce mandates for face coverings (something that has since become obvious). Instead they were part of the strategy used to scare the population into complying with many of the utterly nonsensical rules which were introduce to "Save Lives and Protect the NHS".

Yes - and indeed the most convenient and visible way to judge the level of that compliance.

There are a lot of people with unclean hands over this, but one of the things that concerns me most were the scientists and scientific institutions that collaborated with this fear/compliance agenda - and I don't use the word 'collaborated' lightly.

Perhaps most notorious, and something I keep going on about as I think it is very important, is the way the Royal Society, in conjunction with Oxford University, produced a paper that claimed cloth masks 'worked', even though the paper was deeply flawed, pretended in the summary of that paper that the evidence was far more conclusive than the rather poor results in the paper itself, and then the head of the society went around the radio stations and tv studios pretending even stronger conclusions than that were present in the over-egged paper to begin with. And at exactly the time the government were trying to get momentum going to make masks mandatory.

When you see things like this happening, all trust is lost. That may give a short-term 'win' for those trying to push an agenda, but it is very dangerous for society itself in the long run.

 

[DelayRepay]

I think what made me sceptical was that the official announcement that masks were mandatory on the Government website was accompanied by a video showing how to make a DIY mask from an old t-shirt. If it's that simple to stop viruses spreading, why haven't we been wearing masks every winter to prevent transmission of flu?

 

[Mikw]

It's a matter of numbers. There aren't enough of the authorities to physically prevent everyone from going about their day to day business.

Indeed not everyone, but some poor folks got punished last time. Laughably inconsistent of course. But just saying "I won't obey the rules" is no guarentee they won't target you.

 

[Philip]

I think what made me sceptical was that the official announcement that masks were mandatory on the Government website was accompanied by a video showing how to make a DIY mask from an old t-shirt. If it's that simple to stop viruses spreading, why haven't we been wearing masks every winter to prevent transmission of flu?

Flu isn't a new virus whereas at the time this virus was new and the immunity within the population was still low hence the need for more precaution.

 

[Dent]

No it certainly didn't. What did change, however, was the strategy both the UK and other governments adopted. The UK moved to a "let's scare them witless" approach. This was a result of this disgraceful document produced by SAGE’s "behavioural science sub-group SPI-B", for discussion at SAGE #18 on 23rd March 2020:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

In particular, this:

2. Perceived threat:

A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group (8), although levels of concern may be rising (9). Having a good understanding of the risk has been found to be positively associated with adoption of COVID-19 social distancing measures in Hong Kong (10). The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting Evaluation of options for increasing social distancing.

The paper was actually concerned with "social distancing" but it is my belief that the UK government realised that recommending (and later mandating) face coverings was a good method of increasing the perceived level of personal threat as mentioned in the paper. WHO guidance of face coverings in community settings was quite unequivocal shortly prior to this - they considered they were of no benefit. Once governments realised they had to be seen to be "doing something" their stance mysteriously changed.

I firmly believe there was never any scientific basis to introduce mandates for face coverings (something that has since become obvious). Instead they were part of the strategy used to scare the population into complying with many of the utterly nonsensical rules which were introduce to "Save Lives and Protect the NHS".

Aside from the ethical issues (and it is completely morally indefensible), the government obviously didn't think through how they were going to un-terrorise the population after they had terrorised them with scare stories that had no logical end point. The way the government were labelled as having blood on their hands by people throwing their own scare stories back at them as soon as they started to relax restrictions was entirely predictable.

 

[Bikeman78]

You certainly can. Consider two people sitting side by side (such as on a tube train). No mask means exhalations are projected forwards, with a small amount going toward each side. A loosely-worn cloth or surgical mask means exhalations are mostly projected toward the left and the right, directly toward those sitting adjacent.

Funny you mention this. On a tube train last year I was sitting next to a bloke. When he coughed I got a lovely waft of the air which blasted out the sides of his mask. Made me chuckle.

 

[DustyBin]

Flu isn't a new virus whereas at the time this virus was new and the immunity within the population was still low hence the need for more precaution.

So making a face covering out of a T-shirt (or old sock as I distinctly remember seeing on one of the news channels!) is a precaution is it?

You’re correct in regard to flu not being new, and it kills a large number of people each winter (some more than others), yet we’ve never attempted to mitigate it by mandating face coverings. Why?

With respect, you’re trying to defend the indefensible here.

 

[danm14]

Indeed not everyone, but some poor folks got punished last time. Laughably inconsistent of course. But just saying "I won't obey the rules" is no guarentee they won't target you.

Covid restrictions were used in Ireland to, effectively, impose extrajudicial punishments on those who the local gardaí (police) did not like.

I am unable to link to a print-only local newspaper, but a person in my local town in Ireland was last week, in July 2022, sentenced to a further ten days imprisonment for failing to pay a €600 fine issued earlier in the year for the crime of leaving home for non-essential purposes in March 2021, notwithstanding that the reason he was unable to pay the fine was because he was in prison and had no money to pay it with. Prisoners in Ireland receive a daily stipend of between 95c and €2.20.

The reason he was fined in the first place was because the gardaí had asked him to prove his claim that he was on his way to do his grocery shopping, despite the fact he was in the town centre during a period when the only businesses open were grocery shops - which he was (quite obviously) unable to do, so he was prosecuted.

 

[yorkie]

Covid restrictions were used in Ireland to, effectively, impose extrajudicial punishments on those who the local gardaí (police) did not like.

I am unable to link to a print-only local newspaper, but a person in my local town in Ireland was last week, in July 2022, sentenced to a further ten days imprisonment for failing to pay a €600 fine issued earlier in the year for the crime of leaving home for non-essential purposes in March 2021, notwithstanding that the reason he was unable to pay the fine was because he was in prison and had no money to pay it with. Prisoners in Ireland receive a daily stipend of between 95c and €2.20.

The reason he was fined in the first place was because the gardaí had asked him to prove his claim that he was on his way to do his grocery shopping, despite the fact he was in the town centre during a period when the only businesses open were grocery shops - which he was (quite obviously) unable to do, so he was prosecuted.

Is there no online source for this at all? Surely newspapers in Ireland aren't print only

That aside, this is appalling behaviour by the Irish police. Shame on them and shame on those who support such restrictions / enforcement.

Flu isn't a new virus whereas at the time this virus was new and the immunity within the population was still low hence the need for more precaution.

But the wearing of flimsy, loose fitting masks does not do anything to reduce transmission, regardless of whether the virus is novel or not!

FFP2/3 masks, when correctly worn/handled/stored/replaced are completely different.

Funny you mention this. On a tube train last year I was sitting next to a bloke. When he coughed I got a lovely waft of the air which blasted out the sides of his mask. Made me chuckle.

It's all about box ticking and virtue signalling rather than practicalities.

 

[43301]

Millions of people were manipulated and in some cases terrorised by behavioural scientists, and even now don’t realise it.

Indeed. I would highly recommend that anyone who doubts this should read the book 'A State of Fear' by Laura Dodsworth - a very thoroughly-researched account of how the government and their advisors deliberately set out to terrify the population to get compliance with pointless and damaging rituals.

Indeed not everyone, but some poor folks got punished last time. Laughably inconsistent of course. But just saying "I won't obey the rules" is no guarentee they won't target you.

It's all about numbers. If even 5% of the population absolutely refuses to follow their 'rules', there is nothing that they can do about it - there aren't enough police to enforce compliance at even this level.

 

[Eyersey468]

Covid restrictions were used in Ireland to, effectively, impose extrajudicial punishments on those who the local gardaí (police) did not like.

I am unable to link to a print-only local newspaper, but a person in my local town in Ireland was last week, in July 2022, sentenced to a further ten days imprisonment for failing to pay a €600 fine issued earlier in the year for the crime of leaving home for non-essential purposes in March 2021, notwithstanding that the reason he was unable to pay the fine was because he was in prison and had no money to pay it with. Prisoners in Ireland receive a daily stipend of between 95c and €2.20.

The reason he was fined in the first place was because the gardaí had asked him to prove his claim that he was on his way to do his grocery shopping, despite the fact he was in the town centre during a period when the only businesses open were grocery shops - which he was (quite obviously) unable to do, so he was prosecuted.

How was he expected to prove that he was going to the grocery shop short of the police accompanying him?

 

[danm14]

Is there no online source for this at all? Surely newspapers in Ireland aren't print only

The newspaper itself is not print-only, but the court reports are only available in the print edition (outside of high profile cases which attract attention in the national media). This is quite common in Ireland, especially where the local newspaper is actually locally owned.

Ireland does not have a system of criminal record checks (outside of positions where a person will have regular access to children or vulnerable people), and access to court records is much more heavily restricted than in the UK. In this context, I would imagine local newspapers are very reluctant to create what would effectively be a searchable database of which locals had been convicted of petty crimes.

How was he expected to prove that he was going to the grocery shop short of the police accompanying him?

Well, that was the point, wasn't it. Indeed, one could argue that even the police accompanying him would not prove he had the intention of going there before being stopped by the police.

 

[yorkie]

Such misbehaviour by the police really ought to be a major story.

Here in the UK the misbehaviour of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire police in particular made headlines and the outrage promoted apologies from both forces and forced them to shift their behaviour.


----

It was posted above that daily symptomatic infections reached an estimate of 351,546 on 12 July, according to the Zoe app data.

Then on 13 July, a lower estimate was published:

Zoe Health Study - COVID Data

COVID infection & vaccination rates in the UK today, based on public data and reports from millions of users of the ZOE Health Study app

web.archive.org

Daily new cases of COVID​

Total numbers of new daily cases across the UK​

349,773​

Now that figure is further reduced:

Latest Daily UK COVID-19 Data: Vaccines, Cases, Trends | ZOE

COVID infection & vaccination rates in the UK today, based on public data and reports from millions of users of the ZOE Health Study app

health-study.joinzoe.com

Daily new cases of COVID​

Total numbers of new daily cases across the UK​

347,559​

So it looks like we may have reached the peak on the day the media went with the "look how high infections are" narrative and are now seeing a reduction in daily infections.

It's almost as if someone tipped off the media when the peak would be, so that on that day they could all launch "look how high cases have gone" stories. Now I wouldn't actually have minded that, if they were transparent and honest about it.

But the i reported the opposite as being the case:

UK Covid cases hit record 351,000 as government accused of ignoring rising infections

Infection levels have risen far higher than even the experts expected and scientists are critical of the Government's hands-off approach

inews.co.uk

UK infections are expected to rise even further, to nearly 400,000 a day, next week before starting to drop down

Hmm...

 

[danm14]

Such misbehaviour by the police really ought to be a major story.

Here in the UK the misbehaviour of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire police in particular made headlines and the outrage promoted apologies from both forces and forced them to shift their behaviour.

People will simply not be outraged by a person who was already in prison getting their sentence extended, even on such outrageous grounds. "Good enough for him", would be the common attitude.

There's a horrible attitude among many in Ireland that injustice is perfectly fine as long as the right people are the victims of it. The majority of Irish people would likely be outraged to see a mother fined €200 for stealing a loaf of bread to feed her child - but if that mother were a Traveller, or an asylum seeker, or a former drug user, many of them would be more than delighted to see her spend twelve months in prison and have her child taken into care.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I don't know if there is proven evidence, but sometimes you can think about it logically and any kind of covering over the nose and mouth is likely to at least reduce the number of viral particles (especially bigger particles) that transfer from one person to another through these.

Clutching at straws

I doubt churches for example would have implemented a face covering policy for as long as they did if it was obvious that they had no effect at the time. It wasn't about stopping transmission; the point is whether they helped reduce potential viral load and I don't see evidence that they weren't at least partially effective in this purpose.

More straws

 

[Philip]

They were introduced as the government wanted to be seen to be doing something, and also to increase the perceived threat. You may recall that the WHO advice changed from "don't wear a mask" to "wear a mask" overnight. There was no new evidence it was a knee-jerk reaction.

Surgical masks are no better than cloth face coverings (I suspect you actually mean FFP2s and FFP3s, but as per my previous post the former achieved nothing when mandated in Germany).

Look at it from a logical perspective; if someone is infected and is talking with someone else in the same room and they are wearing some kind of loose face covering then some of the viral particles from the infected person will escape from behind the mask and potentially infect the other person, but some particles will also land on the inside of the face covering and not transfer to the other person. If the infected person is not wearing any face covering then the particles that would have landed on the back of the mask would instead be airborne and potentially go to the other person, hence the other person would potentially receive a bigger viral load in the 'no mask' scenario.

As I've said I don't see any need for them now that we have vaccination and building immunity but at the time they were first brought in they were a way of potentially reducing viral load when we didn't have vaccines or previous immunity to fight off an infection, as I've explained above.

 

[rg177]

When I used to work for a light rail operator during the height of the pandemic, no vaccines etc, I refused to wear anything other than a properly fitted FFP2 mask on shift. Completely failed to see the point of wearing surgical masks or even worse, stupidly thin cloth masks and snoods. If you had to wear a mask you may as well wear one that offers some sort of actual protection.

Worked exactly as intended. Delayed any infection until I was vaccinated and by the time I caught covid I'd had two jabs and it was the weaker Omicron variant.

These days, its all down to personal choice but again, I despair when i see people wandering about with cloth masks under their nose and the like. I have however seen more FFP2 masks being worn, particularly in London. Although nothing beats the craziness of seeing someone jogging in 36°C Rome while wearing one!

My support for any restrictions ceased once the vaccination programme was at an advanced stage. By all means do whatever you think is necessary for yourself but I cannot see restrictions, particularly those restrictions on seeing friends and family, ever being followed again.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Look at it from a logical perspective; if someone is infected and is talking with someone else in the same room and they are wearing some kind of loose face covering then some of the viral particles from the infected person will escape from behind the mask and potentially infect the other person, but some particles will also land on the inside of the face covering and not transfer to the other person. If the infected person is not wearing any face covering then the particles that would have landed on the back of the mask would instead be airborne and potentially go to the other person, hence the other person would potentially receive a bigger viral load in the 'no mask' scenario.

As I've said I don't see any need for them now that we have vaccination and building immunity but at the time they were first brought in they were a way of potentially reducing viral load when we didn't have vaccines or previous immunity to fight off an infection, as I've explained above.

Logic not science -we are running out of straws

 

[Bikeman78]

When I used to work for a light rail operator during the height of the pandemic, no vaccines etc, I refused to wear anything other than a properly fitted FFP2 mask on shift. Completely failed to see the point of wearing surgical masks or even worse, stupidly thin cloth masks and snoods. If you had to wear a mask you may as well wear one that offers some sort of actual protection.

Worked exactly as intended. Delayed any infection until I was vaccinated and by the time I caught covid I'd had two jabs and it was the weaker Omicron variant.

These days, its all down to personal choice but again, I despair when i see people wandering about with cloth masks under their nose and the like. I have however seen more FFP2 masks being worn, particularly in London. Although nothing beats the craziness of seeing someone jogging in 36°C Rome while wearing one!

My support for any restrictions ceased once the vaccination programme was at an advanced stage. By all means do whatever you think is necessary for yourself but I cannot see restrictions, particularly those restrictions on seeing friends and family, ever being followed again.

I'm not convinced that any of the rules and restrictions made any difference. I know people that were super cautious and others that threw caution to the wind. In both camps, some caught Covid, some did not. Some were quite ill for a while but none of them died. It's inevitable that we will all be exposed to it. I accepted that even before the first lockdown, shrugged my shoulders and got on with life.

 

[DustyBin]

Look at it from a logical perspective; if someone is infected and is talking with someone else in the same room and they are wearing some kind of loose face covering then some of the viral particles from the infected person will escape from behind the mask and potentially infect the other person, but some particles will also land on the inside of the face covering and not transfer to the other person. If the infected person is not wearing any face covering then the particles that would have landed on the back of the mask would instead be airborne and potentially go to the other person, hence the other person would potentially receive a bigger viral load in the 'no mask' scenario.

As I've said I don't see any need for them now that we have vaccination and building immunity but at the time they were first brought in they were a way of potentially reducing viral load when we didn't have vaccines or previous immunity to fight off an infection, as I've explained above.

As stated numerous times though, SARS-CoV-19 is transmitted via aerosols; these don’t “land on the inside of the face covering”.

Do you have any evidence to support your viral load argument? As I stated previously:

It's also worth noting that viral load peaks up to a week after initial infection and is dependent on a number of factors (as is the eventual clinical outcome), of which "was the individual wearing a mask?" isn't one.

 

[Philip]

As stated numerous times though, SARS-CoV-19 is transmitted via aerosols; these don’t “land on the inside of the face covering”.

Do you have any evidence to support your viral load argument? As I stated previously:

Nonetheless some of the particles of the aerosol will still land on the mask. I don't need evidence, it's just common sense. I also believe the fact that their use was so widespread strengthens the case that they at least had some effect; the world isn't full of virtue-signaling, paranoid or medically misinformed people.