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

[Green tractor]

If somebody sneezes or coughs at you, which probably doesn’t happen very often, it will deflect the full force. However, if you need to cough or sneeze, will you have enough time to whip the visor off and do it into a tissue or your elbow? If not it just flies out of the sides.

They dont do much, but they do stop the droplets projecting as far forward.

 

[yorksrob]

So essentially its the equivalent of the plastic screen over the salad bar !

 

[takno]

They dont do much, but they do stop the droplets projecting as far forward.

Of course a lot of the use of visors has been in hairdressing, where they quite brilliantly stop the droplets going forward and direct 100% of them down onto the customer

 

[Cowley]

Of course a lot of the use of visors has been in hairdressing, where they quite brilliantly stop the droplets going forward and direct 100% of them down onto the customer

 

[nlogax]

Visors are hilarious. By far the most obvious example of 'what the hell is the point of that?'

 

[island]

The point is that they seem to satisfy daft mask requirements without needing to have fabric clinging to one's face.

 

[Mag_seven]

Visors are hilarious. By far the most obvious example of 'what the hell is the point of that?'

Same can be said about masks. I also note that mask wearing seems to have stopped people from coughing / sneezing into a tissue which is a far more effective way of stopping germs spreading. Whatever happened to "catch it, kill it, bin it"?

 

[XAM2175]

The point is that they seem to satisfy daft mask requirements without needing to have fabric clinging to one's face.

They don't even satisfy the requirements, do they? Certainly the Scottish Government rules excluded them.

 

[island]

They don't even satisfy the requirements, do they? Certainly the Scottish Government rules excluded them.

They were explicitly excluded in Scotland as you say, but the rest of the UK seemed ambivalent about them.

 

[GALLANTON]

They were explicitly excluded in Scotland as you say, but the rest of the UK seemed ambivalent about them.

That hasn't stopped people wearing them instead of masks/face coverings.

 

[Scotrail314209]

I probably won’t wear masks anywhere else, but if i’m on the Underground i’ll continue to wear them after TFL ditch the mandatory mask rule.

Even then, it will only be the deep level lines as the mask prevents me from breathing in all the dust and soot down there.

 

[43066]

Even then, it will only be the deep level lines as the mask prevents me from breathing in all the dust and soot down there.

I have to ask which “dust and soot” that would be, when I’ve been taking deep level London tubes since the late 80s, right up until earlier today in 2021, never once noticed have I noticed any dirty deposits on my skin.

Figment of your imagination I suspect?

 

[Eyersey468]

Masks are a busted flush. It’ll probably take a while for some people to accept it, but that’s where we (rightly in my opinion) are.
It’s time to move on and concentrate on what we know definitely works.

I agree

 

[nlogax]

Same can be said about masks

I don't know..to me, visors are a step beyond masks in the overt nature of their pointlessness. May as well replace one with a welding visor or a big pair of sunglasses

 

[Grumpus63]

My current observation on face masks is that I will wear one all the time on trains in Wales (as is required) and also on trains in England if it they are being well-used (in other words if I am sitting within six feet of another person). I will also don one if I hear coughing, sneezing or other clearances of the passages! I will also wear them in shops and supermarkets but not in pubs. However, the minute I leave a train in England or Wales that mask comes off. Yesterday, though, I experienced some embarrassment when waiting on a station when two acquaintances appeared, both masked up to the eyeballs. Conversation proceeded but I felt a little uncomfortable as if I had turned up at a formal dinner party under the impression that it was to be a fancy dress ball. It may have been in my imagination but I got the distinct impression of the unspoken words "WE are masked up because we have consideration for ourselves and others but YOU are nothing but a blatant, inconsiderate CARRIER". When the platform got busier I did affix a mask but I am afraid that by this time my reputation as a male equivalent of Typhoid Mary may already have been firmly established.

 

[The Ham]

There's a problem with both sides of this debate, let me explain by giving the example of Averageville a place where everything is average and numbers follow perfect patterns.

The mayor brings in face masks when there's 100 cases as there's evidence from some scientific papers that it could reduce cases by up to 5%.

The following week there's 285 cases and the mayor is happy with his decision as there should have been 300.

However those opposed are unhappy and highlight how cases are continuing to rise.

Both are right and the numbers are doing what was expected. However both sides sit there and claim their opponents are wrong.

The thing is now that the vaccines are reducing cases by (say) 80% the difference between with or without masks (even at 5%) would mean that from 100 cases we'd see a fall to 60 with just the vaccine or to 57 with masks.

Please note I'm not claiming that masks are 5% effective, I've just used that figure as an example figure which isn't far of some of the better results indicated.

 

[takno]

There's a problem with both sides of this debate, let me explain by giving the example of Averageville a place where everything is average and numbers follow perfect patterns.

The mayor brings in face masks when there's 100 cases as there's evidence from some scientific papers that it could reduce cases by up to 5%.

The following week there's 285 cases and the mayor is happy with his decision as there should have been 300.

However those opposed are unhappy and highlight how cases are continuing to rise.

Both are right and the numbers are doing what was expected. However both sides sit there and claim their opponents are wrong.

The thing is now that the vaccines are reducing cases by (say) 80% the difference between with or without masks (even at 5%) would mean that from 100 cases we'd see a fall to 60 with just the vaccine or to 57 with masks.

Please note I'm not claiming that masks are 5% effective, I've just used that figure as an example figure which isn't far of some of the better results indicated.

I think the problem is that the debate has never revolved around numbers like 5%. I suspect that they don't even make that much difference, but what's always put about is the implication that masks are highly effective - like more than 50%. I was regularly talking to people last year who believed that the only reason why covid wasn't in complete abeyance was that some people weren't wearing them or that they weren't mandatory outside.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I think the problem is that the debate has never revolved around numbers like 5%. I suspect that they don't even make that much difference, but what's always put about is the implication that masks are highly effective - like more than 50%. I was regularly talking to people last year who believed that the only reason why covid wasn't in complete abeyance was that some people weren't wearing them or that they weren't mandatory outside.

And it's even more extreme in the US - where many (including Fauci) have seemingly claimed that masks were more important than vaccines! Fortunately most have rowed back on that now.

 

[bramling]

I think the problem is that the debate has never revolved around numbers like 5%. I suspect that they don't even make that much difference, but what's always put about is the implication that masks are highly effective - like more than 50%. I was regularly talking to people last year who believed that the only reason why covid wasn't in complete abeyance was that some people weren't wearing them or that they weren't mandatory outside.

The problem is there's always been a discrepancy between what some/many people think and reality. I seem to remember many people believe the median age of Covid mortality to be well below what it actually is, for example.

With the amount of media time devoted to Covid bordering on the obsessive, something is wrong here, as there's no reason at all for anyone to be under misapprehensions, though of course people should be capable of doing their own research so one can't totally blame the government / media for whipping up fear.

 

[yorkie]

I probably won’t wear masks anywhere else, but if i’m on the Underground i’ll continue to wear them after TFL ditch the mandatory mask rule.

Even then, it will only be the deep level lines as the mask prevents me from breathing in all the dust and soot down there.

I assume you refer to an FFP3 (or similar) mask, which are designed to filter fine particles?

A standard mask won't do much, at least not for the particles that actually matter.

Yesterday, though, I experienced some embarrassment when waiting on a station when two acquaintances appeared, both masked up to the eyeballs. Conversation proceeded but I felt a little uncomfortable as if I had turned up at a formal dinner party under the impression that it was to be a fancy dress ball. It may have been in my imagination but I got the distinct impression of the unspoken words "WE are masked up because we have consideration for ourselves and others but YOU are nothing but a blatant, inconsiderate CARRIER". When the platform got busier I did affix a mask but I am afraid that by this time my reputation as a male equivalent of Typhoid Mary may already have been firmly established.

It's a dangerous cult; why give into it? Why be complicit in the abuse? I'd have stood firm. We need to get on top of this nonsense and get back to normal.

There's a problem with both sides of this debate, let me explain by giving the example of Averageville a place where everything is average and numbers follow perfect patterns.

The mayor brings in face masks when there's 100 cases as there's evidence from some scientific papers that it could reduce cases by up to 5%.

The following week there's 285 cases and the mayor is happy with his decision as there should have been 300.

However those opposed are unhappy and highlight how cases are continuing to rise.

Both are right and the numbers are doing what was expected. However both sides sit there and claim their opponents are wrong.

The thing is now that the vaccines are reducing cases by (say) 80% the difference between with or without masks (even at 5%) would mean that from 100 cases we'd see a fall to 60 with just the vaccine or to 57 with masks.

Please note I'm not claiming that masks are 5% effective, I've just used that figure as an example figure which isn't far of some of the better results indicated.

A very theoretical argument, but mask advocates tend to say wearing a mask will "prevent spread" or "keep us safe"; they don't tend to admit that the effectiveness of standard flimsy masks is anything from 0% to 5%.

And it's even more extreme in the US - where many (including Fauci) have seemingly claimed that masks were more important than vaccines! Fortunately most have rowed back on that now.

Yes there has been a lot of anti-vaccine rhetoric coming out of the US in order to justify mass mask wearing lately. The latest claim is to waffle about "waning antibodies". People like Trish Greenhalgh and other people with dubious motivies are making similar noises in the UK.

 

[bramling]

It's a dangerous cult; why give into it? Why be complicit in the abuse? I'd have stood firm. We need to get on top of this nonsense and get back to normal.

This is the thing. Wearing a mask is *abnormal*, no one should be shamed in this way. Having said that, one certainly has to be thick-skinned at times, sadly.

If anyone is uncomfortable with me not wearing a mask, then *stay away*, being one of those people who quite likes personal space I'm only too happy for people to keep distance. Some people simply don't seem to get this though. I will never understand the types who seem to find lack of mask to dangerous, yet will go up to people and confront them. Well actually I do understand it - it's the authoritarian streak coming into play.

 

[The Ham]

A very theoretical argument, but mask advocates tend to say wearing a mask will "prevent spread" or "keep us safe"; they don't tend to admit that the effectiveness of standard flimsy masks is anything from 0% to 5%.

Indeed, however it's also true that some from the other side of the argument point to the rising/falling case numbers and say that it proves that masks have zero impact.

As I've highlighted before my view is that a lot of the masks are now next to useless due to how good the vaccines are.

Especially given that people don't wear masks as they should, such as having their nose out, or wearing for prolonged periods of time without changing them or any of the other 100 ways which can reduce their impact/increase the wearer's risk beyond the level of protection that they may give.

 

[RPI]

Interesting article in the Telegraph today, makes the case for masks even weaker really, makes you wonder exactly evidence there is for their usage

Top scientists remain puzzled over how and why Covid spreads​

The world may have multiple vaccines and drugs to fight coronavirus but we’re still not really sure about how it transmits or how to stop it

BySarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR7 August 2021 • 2:17pm
In 15th-century Italy, a puzzling epidemic swept through the population, its origins and spread so baffling it was named “influenza” from the Italian “influence of the stars”.
Today, nearly 600 years later, the world is facing an equally perplexing respiratory virus, with unclear origins and confounding transmission dynamics.
Even now, after nearly two years of scientific endeavour, which has given us multiple vaccines and drugs to fight coronavirus, we’re still not completely sure about how it spreads or how to stop it. It is why the mask debate rages on.
One of the biggest arguments between scientists is whether the virus is truly airborne, by which we mean that it is floating around in sufficient quantities to have a noticeable impact on infections.
This is not the same as being close enough to someone that you can inhale the droplets they propel through the air as they breathe, speak or cough.
Understanding how and why the virus spreads is crucial for determining which control measures are effective at breaking the chain of transmission, and which are needlessly disruptive.

The case for airborne transmission​

The case for airborne transmission comes from observational evidence which shows that people confined to closed environments - such as cruise ship cabins, prison cells and quarantine hotel bedrooms - have inexplicably become infected.
Erasmus University Medical Center, in Rotterdam, found that ferrets can catch influenza if they share an air supply with an infected animal, leading them to theorise that coronavirus may spread in a similar way.
We also know that transmission is higher indoors than outdoors, and that it is substantially reduced by good ventilation. Likewise, coronavirus has been detected in air filters and building ducts in hospitals with Covid-19 patients.
Scientists at the University of California have also shown that coronavirus can float in the air for several hours during lab experiments, while the University of Florida found the virus was present in the air around the hospital beds of Covid-19 patients.
Experts also point to super-spreader events where crowded indoor spaces such as nightclubs, choir practices and slaughterhouses have produced multiple infections.

So why are some scientists still sceptical?​

So, if all this evidence exists, why are some scientists still unconvinced? The problem lies in the quality of evidence.
A review in March by the University of Oxford and funded by the World Health Organisation (WHO) found that of the 67 studies looking at the role of airborne transmission, all were of low quality.
Almost half the studies did not detect viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the air at all. Even the Rotterdam ferret study relied on animals being placed in small, sealed boxes joined by a large tube, with a strong air flow passing between them, hardly an analogue for everyday life.
In fact, the only clear proof that a communicable disease has ever been transmitted in the air in a real-world setting comes from a study in the 1950s, in which a large colony of guinea pigs was placed in a ward with tuberculosis patients over several years to see if they would also contract the disease. They eventually did.
“The whole field is plagued by poor quality studies, by ideology-driven sweeping statements that cannot be backed up by science,” said Professor Tom Jefferson, of Oxford University, one of the authors on the review.
“How does it transmit? Most likely droplets and contact.”
The Oxford team also uncovered several papers which showed no evidence of airborne transmission, even when it might be expected.
One study from the University of California tracked down 421 healthcare workers who had been exposed to two infected patients, and were highly at risk because of performing aerosol-generating procedures. Yet only eight became infected, and none were found to be from airborne causes.

The case against airborne transmission​

To date, no study has found viable viral particles in the air that could have gone on to infect someone.
Professor Carl Heneghan, of Oxford university, another author of the review, said: “RNA mills about in the air. Very small fragments. You will pick this up in the air of nursing homes and hospitals.
“The misconception is that this means the virus is airborne. Nobody has managed to capture a viable virus because once it’s in the environment it becomes unstable very quickly.”
Yet another problem with the airborne theory is that it has not been proven that humans infected with Covid-19 can generate infectious aerosols of less than five micrometres just by speaking or coughing.
Although experimental models suggest it could happen, nobody has shown that it actually has.
The US lab scientist who showed the virus can linger in the air for several hours, used high-powered jet nebulizers to make the particles airborne, which in no way reflect normal human interaction.
And although lab studies have shown coronavirus can linger in the air, real-world studies have yet to show airborne virus.
A recent study by Imperial College and Network Rail, which sampled air from London Euston, Birmingham New Street, Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Piccadilly during the peak of the winter wave, and again in June, found no evidence of the virus, either in stations or trains.
Some researchers say not finding the virus does not mean it is not there.
“I think we have to be careful that just because we don’t find the presence of the virus, it’s a little bit like looking for a needle in the haystack,” said Professor Cath Noakes, from the University of Leeds.

Additional problems with the theory​

And there are other problems with the airborne theory.
In an article published last year, Michael Klompas, Professor of Population Medicine at Harvard University, pointed out that the natural R number for Covid (2.5) should be higher if it was spread through the air, closer to the 18 of measles.
“Considering that most people with Covid-19 are contagious for about one week, a reproduction number of two to three is quite small given the large number of interactions, crowds, and personal contacts that most people have under normal circumstances within a seven-day period,” he wrote.
“Either the amount of Sars-CoV-2 required to cause infection is much larger than measles or aerosols are not the dominant mode of transmission.”
To date, the WHO remains unconvinced that airborne transmission is having a major impact on the pandemic.
In contrast, it believes that respiratory secretions or droplets expelled by infected individuals can contaminate surfaces and objects, creating fomites that can stay infectious for periods ranging from hours to days.
These have been found in high concentrations in health care facilities where Covid patients are treated, so transmission may occur through touching surfaces followed by touching the mouth, nose, or eyes.
Like airborne transmission, there are no studies that directly demonstrate fomite transmission for Covid; however, other coronaviruses and respiratory viruses are known to transmit through surface spread.
To make the transmission problem even more complicated, it is likely that different groups will transmit the virus in different ways.
Older people, who have weakened immune systems, and struggle to clear the virus quickly, are likely to be infectious far longer than a child, who might get rid of the infection in as little as 48 hours.
A cancer patient in Russia was recently found to have had the disease for 318 days, and the virus had mutated 40 times in that period.
Scientists also now recognise the problem of “over-dispersion” where some people don’t pass the virus on at all, while others infect many individuals.
Prof Noakes added: “There is huge variability in how people are transmitting, and people with high viral load are probably very infectious if you get them in the wrong place at the wrong moment.
“The problem is it’s really hard to know who those people are so you get nothing and then a massive outbreak.
“You see it in households. Some people will infect one third of people, others will infect everyone.”
If the virus is not airborne, then wearing masks is unlikely to do much good outdoors, in ventilated areas or where people are not in close contact with other people.

The ecology of the virus​

Certainly since the rules were relaxed on July 19, there has been no uptick in cases, which might be expected if masks were having a major impact on transmission. Instead we have seen a continued fall in cases.
Prof Jefferson said even now we know very little about the ecology of this virus.
“The only thing the virus seems to obey is Farr’s Law (which states epidemics rise and fall in a symmetrical bell curve),” he said. “I am not convinced the path of the pandemic has much to do with our interventions.”

Top scientists remain puzzled over how and why Covid spreads

The world may have multiple vaccines and drugs to fight coronavirus but we’re still not really sure about how it transmits or how to stop it

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Green tractor]

Interesting article in the Telegraph today, makes the case for masks even weaker really, makes you wonder exactly evidence there is for their usage

Top scientists remain puzzled over how and why Covid spreads

The world may have multiple vaccines and drugs to fight coronavirus but we’re still not really sure about how it transmits or how to stop it

www.telegraph.co.uk

"In contrast, it believes that respiratory secretions or droplets expelled by infected individuals can contaminate surfaces and objects, creating fomites that can stay infectious for periods ranging from hours to days."

Face masks stop you spitting on things, we all exhale moisture when we breath, that is the reason why we were asked to wear them in the first place

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Interesting article in the Telegraph today, makes the case for masks even weaker really, makes you wonder exactly evidence there is for their usage

Top scientists remain puzzled over how and why Covid spreads

The world may have multiple vaccines and drugs to fight coronavirus but we’re still not really sure about how it transmits or how to stop it

www.telegraph.co.uk

This reinforces my long held view that the govt should have flung a bit of our cash to understand this properly otherwise it doesn't really know what control measures are appropriate.

Still feel it just has to wash through the population then we move on.

 

[RPI]

This reinforces my long held view that the govt should have flung a bit of our cash to understand this properly otherwise it doesn't really know what control measures are appropriate.

Still feel it just has to wash through the population then we move on.

I'm inclined to agree, now that the most vulnerable are vaccinated and infact everyone who wants to be are vaccinated, protecting them to a very high degree against severe illness then let it be now, it'll soon run out of hosts

 

[yorkie]

"In contrast, it believes that respiratory secretions or droplets expelled by infected individuals can contaminate surfaces and objects, creating fomites that can stay infectious for periods ranging from hours to days."

Face masks stop you spitting on things, we all exhale moisture when we breath, that is the reason why we were asked to wear them in the first place

If face masks are the key to preventing transmission, why did transmission skyrocket in so many countries once face mask mandates were introduced? and why did cases fall in so many countries once face mask mandates were lifted? Why did Sweden not do much worse than they did? Why did cases in the UK increase much more rapidly in late December than they did in March 2020 (even taking into account the dramatic increase in testing capacity)?

This reinforces my long held view that the govt should have flung a bit of our cash to understand this properly otherwise it doesn't really know what control measures are appropriate.

A lot of cash has been thrown at this and we still don't fully understand it.

I'm inclined to agree, now that the most vulnerable are vaccinated and infact everyone who wants to be are vaccinated, protecting them to a very high degree against severe illness ...

Absolutely

 

[Green tractor]

If face masks are the key to preventing transmission, why did transmission skyrocket in so many countries once face mask mandates were introduced? and why did cases fall in so many countries once face mask mandates were lifted? Why did Sweden not do much worse than they did? Why did cases in the UK increase much more rapidly in late December than they did in March 2020 (even taking into account the dramatic increase in testing capacity)?

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

 

[Cdd89]

Face masks stop you spitting on things, we all exhale moisture when we breath, that is the reason why we were asked to wear them in the first place

The best way to avoid droplets/aerosols is… not to talk unless necessary. Minimal inconvenience.

So why are there no “anti talking” mandates? That would be a lot more effective than masks, but I’ve never once seen any patronising advise from a TOC (or other random people) to avoid vocalisation. Ironically masks mean people have to talk louder to be understood, which increases the base risk, even if there’s a net mitigation. And if you’re concerned about risks, would you like to be sat behind or next to a talking mask-wearer? I would say that is substantially higher risk as the openings on masks project aerosols in those directions.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If face masks are the key to preventing transmission, why did transmission skyrocket in so many countries once face mask mandates were introduced? and why did cases fall in so many countries once face mask mandates were lifted? Why did Sweden not do much worse than they did? Why did cases in the UK increase much more rapidly in late December than they did in March 2020 (even taking into account the dramatic increase in testing capacity)?


A lot of cash has been thrown at this and we still don't fully understand it.

Each flare up has been associated with a new variant that has a high transmission rate but soon runs out of steam probably before its gets to whole population. The cycle then starts again with the next new variant that appears and goes on a rampage until that runs out of steam especially as vaccination levels have built up. Look at the situation in Florida where the Delta has taken hold but like its origin country India (remember them never off the headlines for a week then the cases just dropped almost as fast) it will drop away and another chunk of the population will have been exposed.