Supermarkets and Covid-19

[nedchester]

Masks. Don't. Work.

I'm surprised anyone with any grasp of scientific inquiry still believes that they do. The relentless propaganda, fear-mongering and behavioural manipulation given out by government and broadcast media does not constitute proper scientific data.

There are so many proper scientific papers explaining that masks are of no use, the following summarises most of them: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
Including the Danish study which is the only proper randomised controlled study of cloth masks in general community among healthy people.

And the moral case against them: https://www.coronababble.com/post/five-good-reasons-not-to-wear-a-mask

To say Masks don't work is a bold statement as for every bit of internet studies there are many more other pieces of evidence that they DO help in cutting down the transmission of the virus. Funny how all scientists wear masks really isn't it.

@londiscape I assume you have full qualifications in science especially virology? For the avoidance of doubt I do have a Science degree and have worked in a Science setting and communication setting for over 30 years. Therefore, I just might have a 'grasp on scientific enquiry'.

The point here is that masks do reduce scientific transmission of viruses (especially if there is a more transmissible variant), perhaps not as many claim but they do have a positive effect. Granted that the public wearing them fiddle with them, stuff them in their pockets etc which reduces their effectiveness but there is an overall benefit. Of course the scientists could all be complaint drones!

Masks do not do harm and there is no real peer assessed studies to support this.

Regarding compliance and public health tyranny, I don't suppose you have noticed that the hospitals are rather full at the moment so maybe there might be a cause for concern.

Masks dehumanising.....I'll agree with you on this one. As someone who has worked in scientific communication for many years it is important to see people's faces both when talking and also looking at the expression on their faces when talking to them.

Masks elevate fear. Possibly? I think there is fear out there and some of it is over the top. I know people that are behaving irrationally since March but I don't see that as a result of masks. Once this is all over it will be a long time before people's mental health returns to normal.

For the moment masks are a necessary evil and those that make unfounded claims about them (and sight minority scientific views) and basically having a 'toddler tantrum' because they don't want to. For the moment it's the law so you comply even if you don't agree. There's a few laws that I'm not happy with but have to accept them without spitting my dummy out.

I hate wearing masks but if by wearing them now we can hasten the day when we don't have to wear them then I'm happy to follow the law on them in both supermarkets and on public transport.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Why can't all these people who refuse to wear masks wear one of the plastic face shields instead? As long as it is covering the face, that is what matters!

I wear a face shield, but wear a mask in addition whenever in a shop, at work (12 hour (key worker) shift), or on public transport, despite having a special lanyard (to highlight being 'at risk').

Because they do not work either. They are not permitted in Scotland, by law, for that exact reason.

If you feel uncomfortable around a minority of maskless individuals then give them some distance, accept their circumstances are none of your business and get on with your life.

I hate to think how you coped until July before they were mandatory!

 

[DustyBin]

If it's good enough for Marcus Rashford.....

Personally I much prefer them as people can still hear you, lip read, see your smile, etc. Much better than a mask, although not much good in the rain, but when does it rain indoors?

I thought Marcus Rashford was a professional footballer?

 

[Monarch010]

One effect of wearing a mask is that it prevents you from involuntarily touching your mouth and nostrils. While the risk of contracting the virus this way might be low, as the saying goes, every little helps.

 

[Domh245]

The point here is that masks do reduce scientific transmission of viruses (especially if there is a more transmissible variant), perhaps not as many claim but they do have a positive effect. Granted that the public wearing them fiddle with them, stuff them in their pockets etc which reduces their effectiveness but there is an overall benefit. Of course the scientists could all be complaint drones!

Masks of themselves do reduce transmission, that I agree. Whether 'mask mandates' do however seems far less certain (indeed, looking at case rates, it would suggest no or even negative effect) - the general population are not 'compliant drones' like medical professionals are, and whilst they aren't infallible either, the ability and tendency to follow the correct procedure is far higher.

You can't just dismiss the very valid concerns about the public's inability to follow the rules without evidence and claim that there's still a benefit.

Masks do not do harm

Interesting, do you have any evidence to support this?

and there is no real peer assessed studies to support this.

ah..

 

[initiation]

because the only slithers of evidence that masks might have any effect are taken from studies of their use in strictly controlled medical environments

Don't forgot the hamsters in the lab in the far East. That has to be conclusive proof right



Remember, the rules.

1. If cases increase it is because we need more masks and lockdowns.
2. If cases go down it is because masks and lockdowns worked.



Meanwhile in the real world it is good to see such obvious changes in transmission when mask mandates were introduced...

 

[Alex C.]

Don't forgot the hamsters in the lab in the far East. That has to be conclusive proof right



Remember, the rules.

1. If cases increase it is because we need more masks and lockdowns.
2. If cases go down it is because masks and lockdowns worked.



Meanwhile in the real world it is good to see such obvious changes in transmission when mask mandates were introduced...

I wouldn't infer the either of those from a drop or increase in cases because there are too many variables but since you seem so sure that those graphs suggest masks don't help, there are many many changes that have been undertaken throughout the year such as

• Increase in mobility as more mitigation measures have been relaxed
• Reopening of more sectors of the economy (retail, hospitality)
• Eat out to help out
• Seasonality (clearly the biggest influence)
• Schools reopening
• Universities returning
• Return to the office (followed by wait, don't go back to the office)
• Increased testing capacity

How are you so sure that the effect (or lack of) of masks can be identified purely from a chart of case counts and filter out the impact from the above measures? This is only factors for the country but I'm not aware of any country that have used masks in isolation as mitigation without imposing any other measures.

 

[221129]

Why can't all these people who refuse to wear masks wear one of the plastic face shields instead?

Because they do next to nothing and are actually banned as a face covering in Scotland at least because of this.

I don't suppose you have noticed that the hospitals are rather full at the moment

So no different to every other winter for the last 10+ years then.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Whatever the likes of Morrisons, Sainsburys and other retailers say, the advice sent out from the Cabinet Office is quite clear:

GUIDANCE FOR FACE COVERING EXEMPTIONS
In settings where face coverings are mandated in England, there are some circumstances, for health, age or equality reasons, whereby people are not expected to wear face coverings in these settings. Please be mindful and respectful of such circumstances noting that some people are less able to wear face coverings.
You can find the official government guidance on face coverings and exemptions here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make- your-own
We ask that you consider taking the following steps and use the following language if you see someone entering or inside a store not wearing a face covering. Please note charity organisations working with the government have been made aware of this too.
1: You may see an individual wearing a visual cue that indicates they are exempt from wearing a face covering. Some examples can be found at the end of this document. They may also have made their own. It is not mandatory for an individual to wear a visual cue to outline they are exempt.
2: If you cannot see a visual cue but need to ask an individual to put on a face covering, please keep your distance to help protect them. You may need to remove your own face covering so your full face and mouth can be seen to speak to them. This will aid lip reading and facial expression reading, important for those with hearing difficulties and those who are autistic.
3: Ask the individual “Please can you wear a face covering if you are able to?” This allows the individual to reply with “I am not able to/I am exempt”, rather than just “I don’t want to”.
4: Once an individual has said they are not able to/exempt, you must take their word and allow them to continue. A verbal confirmation alone is enough. You must not ask for proof of their medical condition and it is not essential they show any form of exemption card at any point.
Please note if someone is travelling with or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading to communicate, they too are exempt from wearing a face covering.
Examples of visual cues individuals may be wearing
Please note any form of visual cue that indicates an exemption should be respected, however these are the most common you may see.

 

[nedchester]

Whatever the likes of Morrisons, Sainsburys and other retailers say, the advice sent out from the Cabinet Office is quite clear:

I'd suggest that advice may now have changed due to various people kicking off.

Remember shops are private property and have the right to refuse entry.

Because they do next to nothing and are actually banned as a face covering in Scotland at least because of this.


So no different to every other winter for the last 10+ years then.

I don't suppose you've watched the news saying that it's massively worse than previous years.

 

[221129]

I'd suggest that advice may now have changed due to various people kicking off.

It hasn't.

Remember shops are private property and have the right to refuse entry.

But not on equality grounds which is what this would be.

the news saying that it's massively worse than previous years.

The news says a lot of things, doesn't make it true or accurate.

 

[nedchester]

It hasn't.

But not on equality grounds which is what this would be.


The news says a lot of things, doesn't make it true or accurate.

Regarding equality legislation I note that Supermarkets can challenge people without breaking any legislation:

https://fullfact.org/online/equality-act-face-mask-discrimination/ - interesting stuff there.

Agree re the media (especially when it comes to thing we know about like the railways). However, Fergus Walsh (BBC) and all those nurses, doctors and ill patients must be damn good actors.

Maybe you should prove it isn't happening.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Meanwhile in the real world it is good to see such obvious changes in transmission when mask mandates were introduced...

Or more likely, mask mandates were largely brought in at about the same time the various countries were opening back up education, leisure, retail and hospitality and were encouraging people to go out again and were reducing restrictions on household gatherings. Doing so would obviously increase transmission.

 

[Bantamzen]

Or more likely, mask mandates were largely brought in at about the same time the various countries were opening back up education, leisure, retail and hospitality and were encouraging people to go out again and were reducing restrictions on household gatherings. Doing so would obviously increase transmission.

So as transmission sources increased, so mask mandation may not have had an effect? That's a possibility right?

 

[WelshBluebird]

So as transmission sources increased, so mask mandation may not have had an effect? That's a possibility right?

Or an alterative view is that without the use of masks, the increase would have been larger. That is also a possibility yes?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I'd suggest that advice may now have changed due to various people kicking off.

Remember shops are private property and have the right to refuse entry.

I don't suppose you've watched the news saying that it's massively worse than previous years.

So why would the Cabinet Office issue such advice at all, then? Wouldn’t they just send out a memo to the effect of ‘if you want to refuse entry to anyone not wearing a mask, fill yer boots, there’s nothing they can do’ ??
You seriously think your average security guard knows the nuances of the legislation?

 

[Bantamzen]

Or an alterative view is that without the use of masks, the increase would have been larger.

Its a possibility, but as has been discussed time and again there is no evidence of this. So the possibility remains that masks have had little, if any effects. However when we come to actually making people wear them by law, the onus is firmly on those making the laws to prove that they will be effective, particularly in the light that places like care homes remain stubbornly the places with by far the most spread.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Or an alterative view is that without the use of masks, the increase would have been larger. That is also a possibility yes?

Or an alternative view would be that we need to purchase more elephant repellent, because the sale of it has been shown to reduce the number of elephants in circulation throughout the UK

 

[Bikeman78]

Because they do not work either. They are not permitted in Scotland, by law, for that exact reason.

If you feel uncomfortable around a minority of maskless individuals then give them some distance, accept their circumstances are none of your business and get on with your life.

I hate to think how you coped until July before they were mandatory!

I wonder about this too. Masks were mandatory in England before Wales. During that period almost no one in Wales wore masks in shops. If it's so obvious that they are so useful then surely people would have worn them voluntarily? I know there are thousands of people on Facebook screaming that rules must be tighter etc. but where were they in July or early August? Certainly not in any of the shops I went to. It's clear to me that the vast majority of people only wear them because it's a legal requirement.

 

[Yew]

Or an alterative view is that without the use of masks, the increase would have been larger. That is also a possibility yes?

The onus is on you to prove that.

 

[Mojo]

So could driving to the supermarket.

We had a high infection rate (R was estimated to be around 6 in March, iirc) in March, we suppressed the virus successfully in the initial lockdown with very little use of face coverings.

A very interesting point and something I’d previously not considered before.

Much of the alleged science behind it makes very little sense when we have had scientists claiming for decades, and even government advisors “I’ve been studying virology for a very long time” and have never seen any evidence that they work etc etc. There have been claims that this was to protedt

It does happen in some smaller convenience stores and isles sometimes get closed off in larger stores. Replenishing shelves isn't really the biggest problem as (in large stores) most of it happens overnight, it's other tasks like date code checking, price changes etc.

I was in Tesco's in Slough a few months ago and the person with the reductions stickers had put some temporary yellow barriers around them to stop anyone getting close.

 

[Darandio]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ngs-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

Oh come on. Presumably when someone asks you what you are basing your opinion on it's generally required in the form of evidence. This isn't.

The best available scientific evidence is that, when used correctly, wearing a face covering may reduce the spread of coronavirus droplets in certain circumstances, helping to protect others.

When you also consider that someone else in this thread has suggested that disability legislation should be temporarily ignored for the 'greater good' then people really need to do better than this. Can you imagine the legal minefield in pushing that legislation aside based on something as flimsy as the above?

It's nearly six months since masks were mandated and still the best evidence our own government can provide is a sentence using the word 'may reduce the spread'. Yet people want to deprive a sizeable proportion of the population of some very important rights based on nothing more than guesswork. Madness.

 

[initiation]

I wouldn't infer the either of those from a drop or increase in cases because there are too many variables but since you seem so sure that those graphs suggest masks don't help, there are many many changes that have been undertaken throughout the year such as

• Increase in mobility as more mitigation measures have been relaxed
• Reopening of more sectors of the economy (retail, hospitality)
• Eat out to help out
• Seasonality (clearly the biggest influence)
• Schools reopening
• Universities returning
• Return to the office (followed by wait, don't go back to the office)
• Increased testing capacity

How are you so sure that the effect (or lack of) of masks can be identified purely from a chart of case counts and filter out the impact from the above measures? This is only factors for the country but I'm not aware of any country that have used masks in isolation as mitigation without imposing any other measures.

We've been bombared with news stories since last spring saying that masks are the solution. We have articles like this covering papers which say that if 80% of americans wore masks covid cases would dwindle. Well now more than 80% of americans wear masks and cases definitely haven't dwindled. Suddenly it's "masks are not the only solution, it's more complicated". Yes we know, that's why we've been saying the mandation of them is pointless.

I completely agree on you can't draw firm conclusions from the graphs but would you not expect some sort of visible step change in transmission? Even in at least a couple of countries around the globe. Does it not cast any doubt on the effectiveness of them?

 

[takno]

I was in Tesco's in Slough a few months ago and the person with the reductions stickers had put some temporary yellow barriers around them to stop anyone getting close.

That's sensible at any time. People are like animals around the reductions trolley

 

[Ian Cunningham]

Why can't all these people who refuse to wear masks wear one of the plastic face shields instead? As long as it is covering the face, that is what matters!

I wear a face shield, but wear a mask in addition whenever in a shop, at work (12 hour (key worker) shift), or on public transport, despite having a special lanyard (to highlight being 'at risk').

A face shield on its own basically provides very little to no protection so is pointless for the general public.
However a face shield combined with a proper RPE facemask does provide additional protection for the wearer in higher risk situations (eg close contact work) as the eyes are a potential infection path

Because they do not work either. They are not permitted in Scotland, by law, for that exact reason.

Because they do next to nothing and are actually banned as a face covering in Scotland at least because of this.

Strictly speaking they are not banned -you are still free to wear one but it's not considered to be a "face covering" if used on its own.

You can still use one but in order to comply with the Regulations (eg wearing in shops) you must also wear a face covering

 

[david1212]

Oh come on. Presumably when someone asks you what you are basing your opinion on it's generally required in the form of evidence. This isn't.

The best available scientific evidence is that, when used correctly, wearing a face covering may reduce the spread of coronavirus droplets in certain circumstances, helping to protect others.

It's nearly six months since masks were mandated and still the best evidence our own government can provide is a sentence using the word 'may reduce the spread'. Yet people want to deprive a sizeable proportion of the population of some very important rights based on nothing more than guesswork. Madness.

Likewise tomorrow I may buy a lottery ticket with at least four matching numbers.

One effect of wearing a mask is that it prevents you from involuntarily touching your mouth and nostrils. While the risk of contracting the virus this way might be low, as the saying goes, every little helps.

If you wear glasses so are constantly taking them off because misted up while not touching your mouth and nostrils you are touching your nose and the glasses which if you are infected will also be contaminated. Maybe a homemade mask from a single layer of loose weave cloth would be better than a three-ply medical style mask. I feel that from restricted vision there is a much higher probability of me slipping or tripping and ending up in hospital with something broken than passing Covid to another shopper.

I consider my efforts to minimise the risk to both others and myself are shopping at quieter times, trying to keep 2m distancing and if closer minimising the time to a couple of seconds and keeping the time in the store as short as possible.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Likewise tomorrow I may buy a lottery ticket with at least four matching numbers.



If you wear glasses so are constantly taking them off because misted up while not touching your mouth and nostrils you are touching your nose and the glasses which if you are infected will also be contaminated. Maybe a homemade mask from a single layer of loose weave cloth would be better than a three-ply medical style mask. I feel that from restricted vision there is a much higher probability of me slipping or tripping and ending up in hospital with something broken than passing Covid to another shopper.

I consider my efforts to minimise the risk to both others and myself are shopping at quieter times, trying to keep 2m distancing and if closer minimising the time to a couple of seconds and keeping the time in the store as short as possible.

Or slipping, tripping and ending up in hospital where they will make sure you catch Covid

 

[yorkie]

Or an alterative view is that without the use of masks, the increase would have been larger. That is also a possibility yes?

This is a false claim made by authoritarians with absolutely no evidence to backup their claims; the term ''clutching at straws'' springs to mind!

There are many examples of cases shooting up soon after mask mandates were introduced. For example Italy who mandated masks outdoors from 7th October:


Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101680/coronavirus-cases-development-italy/

Graph shows a very low increase prior to 7 October, after which the increase in cases is rapid, and by late October there is a doubling of cases from half a million to a million in the space of 2 weeks

Of course, I am not claiming that mask mandates increases spread. I think they makes very little difference, if any at all, and yet cause conflict as well as cause problems for people with anxieties, medical conditions, disabilities and more.

If they made a difference, you would expect countries like Peru, Italy, Spain, France etc to be doing better than countries that don't mandate masks but that is not happening at all.

All the evidence for face masks is based on theoretical lab-based scenarios, not real-world data, and makes assumptions that people wear masks of a particular standard/quality and that single use masks are not reused and that people store them correctly. In practice this just does not happen. A mandate must only be implemented if the real world application supports it.

We've been bombared with news stories since last spring saying that masks are the solution. We have articles like this covering papers which say that if 80% of americans wore masks covid cases would dwindle. Well now more than 80% of americans wear masks and cases definitely haven't dwindled. Suddenly it's "masks are not the only solution, it's more complicated". Yes we know, that's why we've been saying the mandation of them is pointless.

They will claim that the mandating of masks has avoided an even greater increase.

Authoritarians are totally unreasonable and will not budge!

I completely agree on you can't draw firm conclusions from the graphs but would you not expect some sort of visible step change in transmission? Even in at least a couple of countries around the globe. Does it not cast any doubt on the effectiveness of them?

You would, but authoritarians are not interested in making conclusions after evaluating data. They will cherry pick the data and make excuses if the data does not support their arguments, and make up hypothetical claims to justify their arguments.

You can't ever 'win' an argument against an authoritarian, but then that's not a realistic aim: when I argue with them, I know they will not back down. But the battle is over the hearts and minds of people in between who are undecided. If I can argue against an authoritarian so that a neutral person can see the authoritarian is wrong and if I can persuade more people to reject authoritarianism, that's a victory in my book

 

[nedchester]

The point about masks is that the is a consensus amongst scientists that they may well be helpful.

Waiting for in depth studies really isn't practical at the moment.

Therefore, how about going along with it for the (hopefully) short time scale especially when infection rates are very high?

Better than throwing toys out the pram because you just don't like it.

For clarification - I hate masks.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The point about masks is that the is a consensus amongst scientists that they may well be helpful.

Waiting for in depth studies really isn't practical at the moment.

Therefore, how about going along with it for the (hopefully) short time scale especially when infection rates are very high?

Better than throwing toys out the pram because you just don't like it.

For clarification - I hate masks.

It is not a high enough threshold for mandatory status especially with the vitriol and government signalling that has left us all talking about it rather than the REAL risks and issues at the moment. Its a a total disgrace.