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

[30907]

My take: Aerosols may be as significant as large droplets in terms of transmission.

Pretty broadly agreed now

Face coverings (other than FFP3 and similar specs) are useless.

Doesn't appear to be stated in the abstract.

 

[Yew]

Doesn't appear to be stated in the abstract.

There is more to papers than the abstract..

 

[DustyBin]

Doesn't appear to be stated in the abstract.

Here's a quote from the full paper:

This study supports the role of fine mode aerosols in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and emphasizes the importance of efficient respiratory protection and airborne isolation precautions to protect from exposure to fine SARS-CoV-2 aerosol when interacting with infected individuals, regardless of symptoms or medical procedure being performed.

Note "efficient respiratory protection" which, when discussing infection via fine mode aerosols, I interpret to mean something like a properly fitted FFP3. This is only my interpretation admittedly, and the authors don't explicitly state this, but it seems reasonable knowing what we know about cloth face coverings and surgical masks (i.e. they're not efficient in this regard).

 

[30907]

Here's a quote from the full paper:



Note "efficient respiratory protection" which, when discussing infection via fine mode aerosols, I interpret to mean something like a properly fitted FFP3. This is only my interpretation admittedly, and the authors don't explicitly state this, but it seems reasonable knowing what we know about cloth face coverings and surgical masks (i.e. they're not efficient in this regard).

I think there is general - though not universal - agreement that FFP3 needs to be worn in the quoted context

to protect from exposure to fine SARS-CoV-2 aerosol when interacting with infected individuals

(eg staff in the amber and red zones of hospitals and surgeries - though AIUI amber zone staff are not always so equipped, my source being a relative who is a GP).

There is more to papers than the abstract..

I am well aware of that, and Dusty Bin has helpfully supplied the information.

 

[yorkie]

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

Indeed.

If masks reduced transmission, we would have expected a rapid rise in cases after the mandate was lifted in England a continuous decline in Scotland.

However cases in England declined once the mask mandate was abolished in England been relatively static in England, but have recently been rising dramatically in Scotland, where the mask mandate persists.

Anyone who claims that mask mandates cause reduction in transmission is very much mistaken and not looking at the available evidence.

 

[Kez]

Of course, you could make the case that any face covering which reduces exposure to any 1-4 micron-scale particles may reduce your total overall exposure to the virus and therefore may prevent infection ... but, of course, this is the internet so you'll only pick the pieces of information to suit your subjective viewpoint without giving too much evaluation of what is presented.

If the authors were referring to FFP3 specifically then they would have stated that.

I also wonder two things.

1. Is the University of Nebraska a centre of expertise in these things ?

2. If this work is so important, why is it published in a journal with an impact factor of 3-3.5 (Good) rather than Nature itself ?

If masks reduced transmission, we would have expected a rapid rise in cases after the mandate was lifted in England a continuous decline in Scotland.

However cases in England declined once the mask mandate was abolished in England been relatively static in England, but have recently been rising dramatically in Scotland, where the mask mandate persists.

Anyone who claims that mask mandates cause reduction in transmission is very much mistaken and not looking at the available evidence.

You are not a scientist, are you ?

 

[bramling]

Indeed.

If masks reduced transmission, we would have expected a rapid rise in cases after the mandate was lifted in England a continuous decline in Scotland.

However cases in England declined once the mask mandate was abolished in England been relatively static in England, but have recently been rising dramatically in Scotland, where the mask mandate persists.

Anyone who claims that mask mandates cause reduction in transmission is very much mistaken and not looking at the available evidence.

The only thing with the above is there’s too many other variables at play to be able to draw much conclusion at all, Scotland could for example be explained by the schools going back.

Really masks have been one big distraction. Whilst I’m not really one for conspiracies, whilst we’re all bickering over masks, it does turn the heat off the government. How convenient...

 

[Kez]

Really masks have been one big distraction.

... but probably not as big a distraction as the importance attached to transmission through contaminated surfaces

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Really masks have been one big distraction. Whilst I’m not really one for conspiracies, whilst we’re all bickering over masks, it does turn the heat off the government. How convenient...

Spot on Joe Public is being taken for ride by the government and its chums over this.

 

[bramling]

... but probably not as big a distraction as the importance attached to transmission through contaminated surfaces

Who knows on that. One minute that’s the big thing, next minute it isn’t. It is quite odd really that nearly 2 years down the line we still don’t really know how it spreads.

 

[The Ham]

Who knows on that. One minute that’s the big thing, next minute it isn’t. It is quite odd really that nearly 2 years down the line we still don’t really know how it spreads.

Given that one of the main side effect of this is that general hand washing has improved (which has wider benefits, even if not Covid related benefits) that's probably less contentious.

(if you want to discuss on if good hand washing has benefits or not then we'd probably need a new thread.)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Who knows on that. One minute that’s the big thing, next minute it isn’t. It is quite odd really that nearly 2 years down the line we still don’t really know how it spreads.

Indeed as ive remonstrated on this sub forum over last 18 months the government has splashed the cash all over the place to put sticking plasters over holes but has never thrown any of it at our research institutes to get an understanding of exactly what we are dealing with. It remains a novel virus.

 

[bramling]

Indeed as ive remonstrated on this sub forum over last 18 months the government has splashed the cash all over the place to put sticking plasters over holes but has never thrown any of it at our research institutes to get an understanding of exactly what we are dealing with. It remains a novel virus.

It is indeed rather unsettling that we’re this far down the line and there are so many unknowns. There’s certainly IMO a case to be made that some of the money we’ve spent on “response” measures could well have gone in to attempting to better understand things.

Spot on Joe Public is being taken for ride by the government and its chums over this.

The scenes from the House Of Commons this week were rather telling. Whilst we’re all going around getting dirty looks on trains, not a mask in sight in the House.

 

[adc82140]

You are not a scientist, are you ?

What's your theory as to why the infection rate is climbing rather more quickly in Scotland than England, despite their ongoing mask mandate?

 

[Bertie the bus]

What's your theory as to why the infection rate is climbing rather more quickly in Scotland than England, despite their ongoing mask mandate?

Schools reopening meaning the people most likely to be infected are now getting tested more frequently. Just as cases plummeted when the schools broke up for the summer as those most likely to be infected were being tested less frequently.

 

[Kez]

What's your theory as to why the infection rate is climbing rather more quickly in Scotland than England, despite their ongoing mask mandate?

I don't have a theory.

To have a theory requires an observation based upon the changing of one parameter not a bunch like schools going back, non-compliance over mask wearing with moving beyond level 0, behavioural changes with moving beyond level 0, the weather getting a bit crapper (August heralds the start of autumn up here so probably more indoor mixing) ...

... and since cases in Scotland decreased from 1 in 190 to 1 in 200 for the week ending August 14 according to the ONS (cf 1 in 80 for England), perhaps we should wait for reliable data for the past week before even thinking about a theory.

Theories are born of careful analysis of many observations to try to explain those observations, not a knee-jerk reaction to seeing what you want to see.

 

[30907]

Indeed.

If masks reduced transmission, we would have expected a rapid rise in cases after the mandate was lifted in England a continuous decline in Scotland.

Whereas the rapid rise followed the abolition of the mask requirement in schools, and the de facto abolition among young males during the Euros.

However cases in England declined once the mask mandate was abolished in England been relatively static in England, the

They started declining a few days beforehand, and I am not sure mask wearing has significantly changed since, even if the mandate has.

but have recently been rising dramatically in Scotland, where the mask mandate persists.

And where schools have coincidentally just resumed. The dramatic rise is so far not over a significant period. (Increased/decreased testing distorts the figures, and in this case seems proportional to the the jump)

 

[102 fan]

Indeed.

If masks reduced transmission, we would have expected a rapid rise in cases after the mandate was lifted in England a continuous decline in Scotland.

However cases in England declined once the mask mandate was abolished in England been relatively static in England, but have recently been rising dramatically in Scotland, where the mask mandate persists.

Anyone who claims that mask mandates cause reduction in transmission is very much mistaken and not looking at the available evidence.

As I've said before, masks are no more than a comfort blanket for some. Others only wear it because they could be fined. How do we explain the supposed (because I for one don't believe them) cases in N Ireland which are higher than ROI, Wales or England?

 

[yorksrob]

... but probably not as big a distraction as the importance attached to transmission through contaminated surfaces

Transmission on surfaces was a big thing at the start of the pandemic but doesn't seem to have become as much of a totemic issue for the pro-restriction side.

 

[yorkie]

Of course, you could make the case that any face covering which reduces exposure to any 1-4 micron-scale particles may reduce your total overall exposure to the virus and therefore may prevent infection ...

I refer you to the study referred to in the BBC article linked to up thread, where it was mentioned that in order to reduce exposure to particles of the relevant size, masks that are designed for that purpose are required; the study found that standard surgical masks were ineffective in stark contrast to FFP3 masks, which do filter such particles, which were effective.

Did you read the article? Are you suggesting FFP3 masks should be worn by everyone or just those who need additional protection beyond that of the vaccine?

Or are you suggesting ineffective masks should be worn?

If the authors were referring to FFP3 specifically then they would have stated that.

We have seen the results of a study which specifically compared standard masks with FFP3.

Any study that finds masks to be effective but does not state the type of masks should be assumed to be a mask of a type that is designed to protect against virus protection, surely? If they were testing ineffective masks they would surely have stated that.

I also wonder two things.

1. Is the University of Nebraska a centre of expertise in these things ?

2. If this work is so important, why is it published in a journal with an impact factor of 3-3.5 (Good) rather than Nature itself ?



You are not a scientist, are you ?

I refer you to the views of Dr Colin Axon; he is a scientist. Are you?

Also what do you mean exactly by 'scientist' in this context and are you suggesting anyone who meets your definition has a worthy opinion and anyone who doesn't meet it does not?

How are you more qualified than Dr Colin Axon and if you are more qualified, why are you not a member of Sage?

Whereas the rapid rise followed the abolition of the mask requirement in schools, and the de facto abolition among young males during the Euros.

I don't think the schools part is relevant; can you clarify what you think was required in schools in England and when? I suspect you have misunderstood what was required.

They started declining a few days beforehand, and I am not sure mask wearing has significantly changed since, even if the mandate has.

Cases did indeed start to decline beforehand and continued to decline for some time after that before levelling off.

I see no evidence of any link between mask mandates and case rates (other than anecdotal evidence of rates increasing after mandates were imposed on many countries and rates decreasing - or continuing to decrease - after mandates lifted in numerous regions)

And where schools have coincidentally just resumed. The dramatic rise is so far not over a significant period. (Increased/decreased testing distorts the figures, and in this case seems proportional to the the jump)

Schools have only been open for one week in Scotland. I also doubt many lessons took place on Monday and perhaps Tuesday if the return to schools in Scotland is anything like that in England (i.e. typically start with one or two teacher training days); that's only a few days ago, so is too early to be deemed responsible for the increase.

Schools reopening may contribute to an increase in infections but it's too early to conclude this and has been far too recent to be the catalyst.

It's interesting to see the length mask lobbyists will go to defend the use of ineffective masks.

I have no issue with recommending that someone who is immunocompromised wears an effective FFP3 mask, but the arguments for the mass wearing of ineffective masks is absurd and I'm not going to stop arguing against any suggestions for such measures.

 

[The Ham]

Schools reopening may contribute to an increase in infections but it's too early to conclude this and has been far too recent to be the catalyst

Whilst I generally agree with most of what's said, schools returning could show up more cases if there's a requirement for ongoing twice weekly testing in Scotland for school children (my reading of the 3rd of August guidance seems to say that there is for secondary school children).

If that's the case then it's likely to pick up cases which otherwise wouldn't have been spotted, which could be seen as a rise even though there's not been enough time for people to get infected.

 

[yorkie]

Whilst I generally agree with most of what's said, schools returning could show up more cases if there's a requirement for ongoing twice weekly testing in Scotland for school children (my reading of the 3rd of August guidance seems to say that there is for secondary school children).

If that's the case then it's likely to pick up cases which otherwise wouldn't have been spotted, which could be seen as a rise even though there's not been enough time for people to get infected.

That's a very good theory. If so, and if the tests were taken in the week or so before schools returned, it's not an increase in infections but an increase in 'cases'. If the cases are presented by age it should be easy to verify if this is the case or not. But if it was, I would have expected to have heard about this by now.

 

[Kez]

I refer you to the views of Dr Colin Axon; he is a scientist. Are you?

Also what do you mean exactly by 'scientist' in this context and are you suggesting anyone who meets your definition has a worthy opinion and anyone who doesn't meet it does not?

How are you more qualified than Dr Colin Axon and if you are more qualified, why are you not a member of Sage?

Do you mean Dr Colin Axon the Lecturer in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering ?

Is he not an engineer rather than a scientist ?

I am not a member of SAGE but believe that they give more insight into the issue at hand having reviewed ALL evidence.

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...4a-duration-wearing-face-coverings-170920.pdf

"SAGE has previously given advice that face coverings are likely to be effective at reducing the emission of respiratory droplets and aerosols containing virus into the environment"


The problem is that too many people think they are 'scientists' who don't have a scientific training. I can give advice on driving trains or open heart surgery but I imagine that I would sound quite silly to those who have done the hard yards to become qualified.


For the record, the cornerstone of a good scientific training is objectivity.

 

[Bantamzen]

You are not a scientist, are you ?

Ah yes, the guaranteed go-to for those seeking to continue with restrictions! If all else fails, tell people that they don't understand the science because they are not scientists. You do understand that science isn't some exclusive members only club where only scientists understand what's being discussed right? You do know that you can read about & discuss science without formal qualifications yes? And most importantly of all, you do understand that science isn't binary?

Frankly I find it abhorrent that some people seek to shut down debate on things like masks because they are not formally qualified in science. Masks have a direct impact on the quality of our lives, they have negative effects on many people's mental wellbeing (and before you say they don't I can promise you they do, my wife has had panic attacks whilst wearing them), and they act as a psychological barrier for some. And for what? Clearly the removal of mandatory wearing over a month ago did not have the effect SAGE claimed it would. 200,000 cases a day was their prediction by midsummer. Well that has been and gone and here we are at only a fraction of that figure, with no real indication that this will become the case anytime soon.

We are entitled to debate this issue, to discuss the science or lack of around masks being worn to prevent spread. Of course if you do want to draw a line under it, all you have to do is prove beyond doubt that masks, when used in public without all the discipline used in medical scenarios have a statistically significant effect of transmission. I won't hold my breath.

 

[adc82140]

Do you mean Dr Colin Axon the Lecturer in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering ?

Is he not an engineer rather than a scientist ?

If you want to go down that rabbit hole, then pretty much every scientist who speaks to the media should be ignored. Epidemiologists- they are mathematicians, not virologists as some think. Also doing the regular breakfast TV rounds are a GP, a dietician and a race relations advisor for Formula 1. They all claim to speak with authority about Covid, and advocate extended lockdowns and face coverings. So really they should be ignored too.

 

[Kez]

Ah yes, the guaranteed go-to for those seeking to continue with restrictions! If all else fails, tell people that they don't understand the science because they are not scientists. You do understand that science isn't some exclusive members only club where only scientists understand what's being discussed right? You do know that you can read about & discuss science without formal qualifications yes? And most importantly of all, you do understand that science isn't binary?

Frankly I find it abhorrent that some people seek to shut down debate on things like masks because they are not formally qualified in science. Masks have a direct impact on the quality of our lives, they have negative effects on many people's mental wellbeing (and before you say they don't I can promise you they do, my wife has had panic attacks whilst wearing them), and they act as a psychological barrier for some. And for what? Clearly the removal of mandatory wearing over a month ago did not have the effect SAGE claimed it would. 200,000 cases a day was their prediction by midsummer. Well that has been and gone and here we are at only a fraction of that figure, with no real indication that this will become the case anytime soon.

We are entitled to debate this issue, to discuss the science or lack of around masks being worn to prevent spread. Of course if you do want to draw a line under it, all you have to do is prove beyond doubt that masks, when used in public without all the discipline used in medical scenarios have a statistically significant effect of transmission. I won't hold my breath.

:ighs::

Of course, if you knew the first thing about science, you would know that nothing can be 'prove(d) beyond doubt'. Ninety-nine experiments don't prove a theory, one experiment can dispel it.

As I say, you can talk all you like about science but understand that it is akin to me talking about driving a train or open heart surgery or even what you are trained in ... just don't expect me to take it seriously.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole, then pretty much every scientist who speaks to the media should be ignored. Epidemiologists- they are mathematicians, not virologists as some think. Also doing the regular breakfast TV rounds are a GP, a dietician and a race relations advisor for Formula 1. They all claim to speak with authority about Covid, and advocate extended lockdowns and face coverings. So really they should be ignored too.

I don't disagree. My pet peeve is Professor Linda Bould, the 'scientist' and 'medical expert' with a degree in Public Health and pre-pandemic 'expertise' in addiction. Doesn't this tell you that many people who are held up as 'experts' are merely people who have seen an opportunity to further their careers by being prepared to talk to the media ? 'Talking to the media' is valued in the academic sector where it is known as 'public engagement with science' and justifies the funding they get. In fact, the more oddball and 'maverick' what you have to say, the more likely it is that the media will want to talk to you and the more Brownie points you will get for 'public engagement'. What 'some think' is perhaps often wrong and people should look at who is saying what rather than grasping at any information which serves to support their position.

The whole zeitgeist of this thread is ...

" I don't want to wear a mask so I'm going to go and try and find someone who says there is no point and, this being the internet, I will find someone. I will them present my stance as being supported by the science " , the irony being that the approach that they have taken is the exact opposite of a scientific approach.

 

[DustyBin]

Ah yes, the guaranteed go-to for those seeking to continue with restrictions! If all else fails, tell people that they don't understand the science because they are not scientists. You do understand that science isn't some exclusive members only club where only scientists understand what's being discussed right? You do know that you can read about & discuss science without formal qualifications yes? And most importantly of all, you do understand that science isn't binary?

Frankly I find it abhorrent that some people seek to shut down debate on things like masks because they are not formally qualified in science. Masks have a direct impact on the quality of our lives, they have negative effects on many people's mental wellbeing (and before you say they don't I can promise you they do, my wife has had panic attacks whilst wearing them), and they act as a psychological barrier for some. And for what? Clearly the removal of mandatory wearing over a month ago did not have the effect SAGE claimed it would. 200,000 cases a day was their prediction by midsummer. Well that has been and gone and here we are at only a fraction of that figure, with no real indication that this will become the case anytime soon.

We are entitled to debate this issue, to discuss the science or lack of around masks being worn to prevent spread. Of course if you do want to draw a line under it, all you have to do is prove beyond doubt that masks, when used in public without all the discipline used in medical scenarios have a statistically significant effect of transmission. I won't hold my breath.

Good post. It’s clear there’s no evidence whatsoever to support the efficacy of face coverings in a community setting; if there was we’d have seen it (several times a day for weeks on end!). There’s nothing, not even circumstantial evidence (e.g. a reduction in infections following their introduction in at least one country). Primarily they’re simply a visual reminder that we should be fearful. They may well catch large droplets when the wearer sneezes but a tissue or handkerchief does the same equally effectively and far more hygienically. Maybe the plebs couldn’t be trusted to “catch it, bin it, kill it” who knows, but nor should they be trusted to use face coverings correctly based on my observations over the last year and a bit! Far from being an effective NPI one could easily argue they do more harm than good.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole, then pretty much every scientist who speaks to the media should be ignored. Epidemiologists- they are mathematicians, not virologists as some think. Also doing the regular breakfast TV rounds are a GP, a dietician and a race relations advisor for Formula 1. They all claim to speak with authority about Covid, and advocate extended lockdowns and face coverings. So really they should be ignored too.

Very true, the majority of these so called experts are anything but. Many are in fact complete charlatans who’ve dragged science through the gutter for the last 18 months, whilst serving their own interests.

The whole zeitgeist of this thread is ...

" I don't want to wear a mask so I'm going to go and try and find someone who says there is no point and, this being the internet, I will find someone. I will them present my stance as being supported by the science " , the irony being that the approach that they have taken is the exact opposite of a scientific approach.

I disagree. It’s more “I’ve been told to wear a mask when out and about for the first time in my life and would like to know why”.

 

[Bantamzen]

:ighs::

Of course, if you knew the first thing about science, you would know that nothing can be 'prove(d) beyond doubt'. Ninety-nine experiments don't prove a theory, one experiment can dispel it.

As I say, you can talk all you like about science but understand that it is akin to me talking about driving a train or open heart surgery or even what you are trained in ... just don't expect me to take it seriously.

With that level of dodging you'd make a good politician. One word of advice though, talking down to people the way you do will mean no-one will take you seriously.

 

[brad465]

Frankly I find it abhorrent that some people seek to shut down debate on things like masks because they are not formally qualified in science. Masks have a direct impact on the quality of our lives, they have negative effects on many people's mental wellbeing (and before you say they don't I can promise you they do, my wife has had panic attacks whilst wearing them), and they act as a psychological barrier for some. And for what? Clearly the removal of mandatory wearing over a month ago did not have the effect SAGE claimed it would. 200,000 cases a day was their prediction by midsummer. Well that has been and gone and here we are at only a fraction of that figure, with no real indication that this will become the case anytime soon.

We are entitled to debate this issue, to discuss the science or lack of around masks being worn to prevent spread. Of course if you do want to draw a line under it, all you have to do is prove beyond doubt that masks, when used in public without all the discipline used in medical scenarios have a statistically significant effect of transmission. I won't hold my breath.

Couldn't agree more, what disgusts me most is those who claim that masks are not a restriction, when they clearly are, in particular to anyone who relies on facial expressions to aid their communication and understanding others. Also, when it comes to communication, verbal language is actually quite low as a %, body language is the largest share (55%), then tone of voice (38%), with verbal language lowest (7%). Of the three, masks hugely impact the first, and depending on the mask type, the second is impacted as well.

I'd say in part one reason we haven't been able to debate this issue goes back much further than covid: our media institutions and political system have favoured dividing society to succeed, and so stoke division on a number of political issues. This has only got worse in the last decade with "you know what", and now Covid has become the next issue, with debates around masks, lockdowns, etc., all hugely divisive. It's in the interest of dividers to present opinions and evidence for one particular point of view, without mentioning the drawbacks to them. In other words, they have made rational debate impossible with their brainwashing ways. What we need is more education in critical thinking to improve people's ability to think for themselves and find out facts where needed most, but again, this won't happen while we have Government's who rely on stupidity to get elected.

 

[DustyBin]

Couldn't agree more, what disgusts me most is those who claim that masks are not a restriction, when they clearly are, in particular to anyone who relies on facial expressions to aid their communication and understanding others. Also, when it comes to communication, verbal language is actually quite low as a %, body language is the largest share (55%), then tone of voice (38%), with verbal language lowest (7%). Of the three, masks hugely impact the first, and depending on the mask type, the second is impacted as well.

I'd say in part one reason we haven't been able to debate this issue goes back much further than covid: our media institutions and political system have favoured dividing society to succeed, and so stoke division on a number of political issues. This has only got worse in the last decade with "you know what", and now Covid has become the next issue, with debates around masks, lockdowns, etc., all hugely divisive. It's in the interest of dividers to present opinions and evidence for one particular point of view, without mentioning the drawbacks to them. In other words, they have made rational debate impossible with their brainwashing ways. What we need is more education in critical thinking to improve people's ability to think for themselves and find out facts where needed most, but again, this won't happen while we have Government's who rely on stupidity to get elected.

Another excellent and thoughtful post Brad, I couldn’t agree more!