UK face coverings discussion

[Philip]

It would be good. Some keep going on about filtration but the filters clog up, so in this case the viral load in the mask potentially could be quite significant meaning if handled this will transfer to the hands and onto a surface meaning anyone who touches that could potentially get a large viral dosage. In the real world people don't wash or sanitise their hands every few minutes.

Where is your evidence for your last point? I have been washing/sanitising my hands a lot more regularly since the start of this pandemic. I can take my face covering off without handling the inside btw, I fold it with the straps and put it in my back pocket.

 

[43066]

The scientists who have advised the government that face coverings should be worn in public places. A lot more testing is being done than earlier in the year, so the figures will be higher and as I keep saying, it is quite possible the figures would be much higher without wearing them.

So why hasn’t the government told us what this new scientific evidence is?

Why did the WHO admit it changed its position on coverings due to political lobbying?

Why has the introduction of masks had seemingly no affect on transmission rates even, in countries where they are more strictly enforced, and required to be worn in more settings, than they are here?

Do unquestioningly believe whatever the government tells you without thinking for yourself?

 

[Philip]

Who are they and what are their credentials?

The scientists advising Sweden are far better than the ones advising our Government.

Just look at the likes of Ferguson et al; they're incompetent!

That's only your opinion; I trust our scientific advisors. I'm not at all happy with this lockdown, but I don't blame the Government or our scientific advisors. And Sweden haven't really 'done well' with their strategy when compared to the other Scandinavian countries and when considering the Sweden population isn't compact like the UK and other European countries, and live in a more socially distant way in general.

 

[Domh245]

Some keep going on about filtration but the filters clog up, so in this case the viral load in the mask potentially could be quite significant meaning if handled this will transfer to the hands and onto a surface meaning anyone who touches that could potentially get a large viral dosage. In the real world people don't wash or sanitise their hands every few minutes.

Exactly. It's that sort of lack of consideration that really annoys me (and the same reason that anyone posting the hamster-cage mask studies ought to be laughed out of the room) - it doesn't prove anything useful at all

To make an analogy, it's like people promoting Diesel cars because they've got reduced CO2 emissions. Great, but what about the myriad other pollutants that come out the tailpipe..

I can take my face covering off without handling the inside btw, I fold it with the straps and put it in my back pocket.

Bad practice. As per government guidance, you should either dispose of it immediately if it's single use, or store it ready to be washed before re-use (plus thoroughly washing hands before and afterwards)

The mass adoption of putting masks into back pockets without any sort of proper process is half the reason I'm of the opinion that making them compulsory for the public is a terrible idea.

 

[kez19]

Well you've misinterpreted my point. My point is that to try to reduce infections and the resulting restrictions and thus improve people's well being, people should comply with the face covering guidelines. People are saying that face coverings aren't working because of the number of people infected now, but perhaps without them that number would be much much higher.

And we're not being asked to wear them all the time, just in public areas. To me lockdowns are a hardship, face coverings aren't. I trust the scientists and doctors and so should a lot of other people; the scientists know a lot more about epidemiology than joe public does.

Yet in another way you don’t see that there could be more to this than we led to believe?

So why trash the economy and other people’s livelihoods?

Technically speaking I did read a few weeks ago Sturgeon was wanting us to wear coverings nearly all the time and for me that’s a no and she can try again with an alternative

 

[yorkie]

That's only your opinion; I trust our scientific advisors. I'm not at all happy with this lockdown, but I don't blame the Government or our scientific advisors. And Sweden haven't really 'done well' with their strategy when compared to the other Scandinavian countries and when considering the Sweden population isn't compact like the UK and other European countries, and live in a more socially distant way in general.

You trust our scientific advisors over Sweden's? Why? And that includes people like Ferguson? Really?

Have you been to cities like Stockholm, Malmö and Gothenburg? To suggest that Swedish cities are comparable to towns in places like Norway or Finland is ludicrous; the population density of cities like Gothenburg, Malmö and Stockholm is very similar to that of comparable British cities. I doubt you have been to these places or you would not be saying these things.

The reality is that cities like Stockholm are not that different to British cities; as I posted on this forum before, Anders Tegnell has pointed out that comparisons with Scandinavian countries are flawed. He is absolutely right.

People who make these ludicrous comparisons are also doing so too early. As Tegnell said a few months ago, "judge me in a year"

This was all discussed in previous threads on this forum and nothing has materially changed since then.

There are so many badly informed people making up nonsense on social media, but we are better than that on this forum!

 

[kez19]

That's only your opinion; I trust our scientific advisors. I'm not at all happy with this lockdown, but I don't blame the Government or our scientific advisors. And Sweden haven't really 'done well' with their strategy when compared to the other Scandinavian countries and when considering the Sweden population isn't compact like the UK and other European countries, and live in a more socially distant way in general.

Aah but they don’t need to wear masks there, they are keeping their distance though! I have family there and guess what they aren’t scared ****less (sorry for swearing) they are getting on with life! See what’s wrong with the picture in comparing UK and Sweden?

 

[Philip]

So why hasn’t the government told us what this new scientific evidence is?

Why did the WHO admit it changed its position on coverings due to political lobbying?

Why has the introduction of masks had seemingly no affect on transmission rates even, in countries where they are more strictly enforced, and required to be worn in more settings, than they are here?

Do unquestioningly believe whatever the government tells you without thinking for yourself?

Exactly. It's that sort of lack of consideration that really annoys me (and the same reason that anyone posting the hamster-cage mask studies ought to be laughed out of the room) - it doesn't prove anything useful at all

To make an analogy, it's like people promoting Diesel cars because they've got reduced CO2 emissions. Great, but what about the myriad other pollutants that come out the tailpipe..



Bad practice. As per government guidance, you should either dispose of it immediately if it's single use, or store it ready to be washed before re-use (plus thoroughly washing hands before and afterwards)

The mass adoption of putting masks into back pockets without any sort of proper process is half the reason I'm of the opinion that making them compulsory for the public is a terrible idea.

Yet in another way you don’t see that there could be more to this than we led to believe?

So why trash the economy and other people’s livelihoods?

Technically speaking I did read a few weeks ago Sturgeon was wanting us to wear coverings nearly all the time and for me that’s a no and she can try again with an alternative

The wearing of face coverings will help reduce the damage to the economy and to people's lives, because they reduce transmission and so reduce the likelihood or severity of lockdowns.

 

[yorkie]

Aah but they don’t need to wear masks there, they are keeping their distance though! I have family there and guess what they aren’t scared ****less (sorry for swearing) they are getting on with life! See what’s wrong with the picture in comparing UK and Sweden?

Based on my experience on my recent trip to Gothenburg, there is very little difference in terms of social distancing compared to the UK.

The main differences are that when people are wearing masks they tend to get closer (UK only as this does not happen in Sweden obviously) and in the UK when entering shops you may come into close contact with someone who forces you to use hand sanitiser whereas in Sweden you wouldn't have someone doing that.

The wearing of face coverings will help reduce the damage to the economy and to people's lives, because they reduce transmission and so reduce the likelihood or severity of lockdowns.

How do they reduce transmission when taking into account all relevant factors (including people getting closer to each other, fiddling with masks, storing them, putting them on/off)?

If there is a correlation between mandating masks and less strict lockdowns, how do you explain the lack of masks and lockdown in Sweden, compared to the lengthy and strict lockdowns which are combined with mandatory masks in places like France etc?

Also what about Peru?! They mandate masks everywhere outside the home and have had very strict lockdowns, and where did it get them?!

Peru travel advice

FCDO travel advice for Peru. Includes safety and security, insurance, entry requirements and legal differences.

www.gov.uk

• everyone must wear face masks outside of homes
• in addition to wearing a face mask, everyone must wear facial protectors (usually a clear plastic full-face covering) when on public transport

 

[kez19]

The wearing of face coverings will help reduce the damage to the economy and to people's lives, because they reduce transmission and so reduce the likelihood or severity of lockdowns.

Damage is already being done can you not see this? Isnt that the point of England/Wales have/had Lockdown 2.0?

Governments may as well admit it they can’t control it so let it run it’s course but of course they won’t, it’s treated like a threat to mankind and on the other none of these politicians have a backbone to admit it.

Businesses going to the wall but again let’s blame the public for it all (again heard/seen it on the Scottish Government ads), I swear with talk of controlling a “virus” it feels more like we are in some sort of computer game.


Again I would say I would believe what you say for March but now it’s a load of waffle

Based on my experience on my recent trip to Gothenburg, there is very little difference in terms of social distancing compared to the UK.

The main differences are that when people are wearing masks they tend to get closer (UK only as this does not happen in Sweden obviously) and in the UK when entering shops you may come into close contact with someone who forces you to use hand sanitiser whereas in Sweden you wouldn't have someone doing that.


How do they reduce transmission when taking into account all relevant factors (including people getting closer to each other, fiddling with masks, storing them, putting them on/off)?

If there is a correlation between mandating masks and less strict lockdowns, how do you explain the lack of masks and lockdown in Sweden, compared to the lengthy and strict lockdowns which are combined with mandatory masks in places like France etc?

Plus it seems to me that Sweden are living life normal, I know that there is some home working but it seems shared? couple days work from home then other days in office.

 

[Darandio]

Where is your evidence for your last point?

That's only your opinion;

My word, the irony meter just exploded.

You have been repeatedly asked for evidence and have offered only opinion.

 

[yorkie]

Plus it seems to me that Sweden are living life normal, I know that there is some home working but it seems shared? couple days work from home then other days in office.

They are taking sensible measures; it's not totally normal. But they are not going totally crazy like us.

Only a tiny proportion of people wear masks on public transport.

 

[kez19]

They are taking sensible measures; it's not totally normal. But they are not going totally crazy like us.

That I agree with!

 

[Philip]

Based on my experience on my recent trip to Gothenburg, there is very little difference in terms of social distancing compared to the UK.

The main differences are that when people are wearing masks they tend to get closer (UK only as this does not happen in Sweden obviously) and in the UK when entering shops you may come into close contact with someone who forces you to use hand sanitiser whereas in Sweden you wouldn't have someone doing that.


How do they reduce transmission when taking into account all relevant factors (including people getting closer to each other, fiddling with masks, storing them, putting them on/off)?

If there is a correlation between mandating masks and less strict lockdowns, how do you explain the lack of masks and lockdown in Sweden, compared to the lengthy and strict lockdowns which are combined with mandatory masks in places like France etc?

Also what about Peru?! They mandate masks in all public places and have had very strict lockdowns, and where did it get them?!

They reduce transmission because they trap a lot of particles that come out of someone's mouth when they speak or cough. And providing people wash their hands after using them, then the risk of spreading infection through handling them should be low.

People seem to have this idea in their head that this is some way of governments wanting to control their people, but I don't see it. I am convinced our government and scientists are imposing these restrictions/face coverings for the reason they have always said, to reduce the pressure on the NHS. You only have to look at the March/April period and how hospitals were reaching their limit, this was after the government delayed taking action by a couple of weeks and so things got out of control.

 

[43066]

The wearing of face coverings will help reduce the damage to the economy and to people's lives, because they reduce transmission and so reduce the likelihood or severity of lockdowns.

The mass adoption of putting masks into back pockets without any sort of proper process is half the reason I'm of the opinion that making them compulsory for the public is a terrible idea.

It’s more politically motivated than scientific: keep people scared; be seen to be do something; divide and conquer.

Cases continue to rise but the solution is only ever more masks!

The wearing of face coverings will help reduce the damage to the economy and to people's lives, because they reduce transmission and so reduce the likelihood or severity of lockdowns.

Except they very evidently don’t - we were told they would get us back to normality, but cases
rose against after they were introduced, and we are now going into another lockdown.

That’s not a great surprise as the scientific consensus for decades has been that they make no difference. And there has been no significant new evidence since this pandemic began.

Sorry but all you are doing is mindlessly parroting the government’s line (note not even the government actually believes coverings work - that’s why their own guidance only says they “might help”).

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Face coverings were actually mandated in England to make people feel more comfortable going back on the High Street. This was confirmed when Parliament responded to a petition in early August.

It also "coincidentally" coincided with the end of the shielding period.

 

[kez19]

They reduce transmission because they trap a lot of particles that come out of someone's mouth when they speak or cough. And providing people wash their hands after using them, then the risk of spreading infection through handling them should be low.

People seem to have this idea in their head that this is some way of governments wanting to control their people, but I don't see it. I am convinced our government and scientists are imposing these restrictions/face coverings for the reason they have always said, to reduce the pressure on the NHS. You only have to look at the March/April period and how hospitals were reaching their limit, this was after the government delayed taking action by a couple of weeks and so things got out of control.

Yet I could add so where was the track and trace stuff back then? All of this should have been done 2 steps ahead but (I say this as from UK as well as Scottish perspective) that both governments sat on their arses and let it happen (they knew this well in advance by media reporting at the time) but with all this turmoil now and economies tanking its time to spin the wheel on the blame o meter on who to blame and in general it’s the public and not the governments own fault.

Both Politicians and media are finding scapegoats to blame for the mess they created but of course believe what you want.

 

[yorkie]

They reduce transmission because they trap a lot of particles that come out of someone's mouth when they speak or cough. And providing people wash their hands after using them, then the risk of spreading infection through handling them should be low.

People seem to have this idea in their head that this is some way of governments wanting to control their people, but I don't see it. I am convinced our government and scientists are imposing these restrictions/face coverings for the reason they have always said, to reduce the pressure on the NHS. You only have to look at the March/April period and how hospitals were reaching their limit, this was after the government delayed taking action by a couple of weeks and so things got out of control.

Ok so you don't wish to address any of my points; that's fine, it is entirely your choice. But equally I think I know why you are avoiding them; as the saying goes, 'the silence is deafening'

Face coverings were actually mandated in England to make people feel more comfortable going back on the High Street. This was confirmed when Parliament responded to a petition in early August.

It also "coincidentally" coincided with the end of the shielding period.

Absolutely this; it's to appease gullible people who demand to see something be done.

 

[packermac]

The same scientists that appear on in a live press conference to support a lockdown decision for us based on old and incorrect data? The same scientists that give out gems such as 'hospital admissions are now near to or exceeding the levels seen earlier in the year' when a look at the data doesn't support that?

Trust who you want, I don't, especially not when their information is based on false data and certainly not when you view their reaction to being caught out on this data.

So when the NHS in Wales or the head of Bournemouth and Poole Hospital says that there are more COVID patients now than in wave 1 (and I have seen both say this on the news in the past three days) they are lying are they?

 

[kez19]

Face coverings were actually mandated in England to make people feel more comfortable going back on the High Street. This was confirmed when Parliament responded to a petition in early August.

It also "coincidentally" coincided with the end of the shielding period.

Weren’t we in Scotland had this “enforced” ( wrong word here) about 24 July or something? (have that date in my head)

 

[yorkie]

So when the NHS in Wales or the head of Bournemouth and Poole Hospital says that there are more COVID patients now than in wave 1 (and I have seen both say this on the news in the past three days) they are lying are they?

Is that patients who have tested positive for Sars-Cov-2 (regardless of symptoms and regardless of why they are in hospital), or is it patients who are seriously ill with Covid19 symptoms?

There is a huge difference between the two; but also it is important to understand that one would expect there to be more cases in places that have (thus far) built up less immunity, due to not having many cases last time around.

Without more information and clarification it's not possible to take any meaningful information from your post; it raises more questions than answers.

 

[Domh245]

So when the NHS in Wales or the head of Bournemouth and Poole Hospital says that there are more COVID patients now than in wave 1 (and I have seen both say this on the news in the past three days) they are lying are they?

They are of course entirely qualified to speak about their local situation, but the data doesn't lie...

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Weren’t we in Scotland had this “enforced” ( wrong word here) about 24 July or something? (have that date in my head)

15 June was public transport in England, 22 June in Scotland.

10 July was shops in Scotland, 24 July was shops in England.

 

[kez19]

15 June was public transport in England, 22 June in Scotland.

10 July was shops in Scotland, 24 July was shops in England.

Thanks for corrections!

 

[Darandio]

So when the NHS in Wales or the head of Bournemouth and Poole Hospital says that there are more COVID patients now than in wave 1 (and I have seen both say this on the news in the past three days) they are lying are they?

I'm pretty sure you know what I was talking about, a press conference to the whole country making a claim that the system overall was inundated and we needed to act upon it. The data said otherwise as others have just posted.

 

[bramling]

The wearing of face coverings will help reduce the damage to the economy and to people's lives, because they reduce transmission and so reduce the likelihood or severity of lockdowns.

Keeping repeating the same thing doesn't make your opinion, for that's what it is, any more factual.

 

[cactustwirly]

I've already given my own evidence, that is that many particles end up on the inside of the covering when people talk or cough, rather than on someone else. I'm sure they don't stop all particles getting through the material, but a lot are stopped and so that ties in with viral load.

How big are these "particles"??
You do realise a virus is very very small, smaller than a single dust particle. Which a fabric facemask will have no effect in stopping the transmission. This is why a respirator is required in dusty environments such as building sites and factories.

 

[The Ham]

No it isn't s small price, being able to see people's faces is a very important part of human society.



Firstly there is no "the science", science isn't a binary, fixed point. Secondly there is very little, nay no evidence that masks work in non-medical scenarios, this has been covered time and again on this thread. Thirdly whilst this is a new virus, there is nothing new about how it spreads. It does exactly what all other viruses do, it spreads. Quite frankly the world has resorted to fear and stupidity in the misguided belief that this particular virus can be "beaten". Quite why is a question best put to the politicians that have made these decisions, but here is the bottom line. The virus cannot be beaten, especially with silly bits of cloth over people's faces. The statistics of it's spread post mandation proves that.

Can I take from your post that you would agree that masks have some benefit in a medical setting?

If that's the case, then given that duration is a major factor on the risk of infection then being in a medical setting (up to 12 hour shift) whilst wearing a mask is likely to need to provide a much higher level of protection than if the same mask is used in a non medical setting (i.e. in the supermarket for 45 minutes), therefore it's not too unreasonable to assume that they could provide the same benefits in the community.

Yes you might need to be aware of good training for putting on/taking off the mask to obtain that benefit, however (and I don't know the answer) is that going to alter the risk by more than other variables (including time) which also come into play (lower number of cases, both wearing masks, better/worse ventilation, variations in proximity, etc).

The reason that testing is done in medical settings is because the risk is much higher and so it's easy to identify people who are infected and you're likely to have more cases (resulting in it being easier to measure). Conversely in a community setting the level of risk is lower and so the difference between the two is likely to be more open to a bigger variation due to 1 extra/1 less case than would be the case where you've efficiently got a larger sample size.

For instance if there's about 10% difference then the change in outcome between 10 and 11 from a sample of 100 is much bigger than between 100 and 101 from a sample of 1,000. It's why sample size is key to how reliable results are.

Such changes become more obvious the smaller the percentage change. For instance a 0.1% change wouldn't really show up until you've got a sample size of 500 or more (0.5), however you couldn't be sure that it's not just a statistical error until you've got a sample of over 2,000 (2), and probably would want to be much bigger before you could be sure that it was actually the case and you hadn't just had more cases then should be the case (i.e. is it really 2, and not one where you've just identified a second one a bit earlier than you should have done).

That variation is why there's a range of certainty within reports, to allow for the potential of there being a +n/-n within the results within the samples which skews the results one way or the other. The smaller the sample size the wider that variation.

 

[adrock1976]

Well you've misinterpreted my point. My point is that to try to reduce infections and the resulting restrictions and thus improve people's well being, people should comply with the face covering guidelines. People are saying that face coverings aren't working because of the number of people infected now, but perhaps without them that number would be much much higher.

And we're not being asked to wear them all the time, just in public areas. To me lockdowns are a hardship, face coverings aren't. I trust the scientists and doctors and so should a lot of other people; the scientists know a lot more about epidemiology than joe public does.

Name the scientists and doctors then.

I can name a "scientist" or "doctor" that appears for the daily briefings (or party political broadcasts depending upon your interpretation) on the news in Scotland. This individual is a professor who is named Jason Leitch. He is not actually qualified in epidemiology or viruses, but is specialised in dentistry, of which he has mentioned very little of when dental practices can start providing the full range of treatments and check ups.

 

[big_rig]

Can I take from your post that you would agree that masks have some benefit in a medical setting?

If that's the case, then given that duration is a major factor on the risk of infection then being in a medical setting (up to 12 hour shift) whilst wearing a mask is likely to need to provide a much higher level of protection than if the same mask is used in a non medical setting (i.e. in the supermarket for 45 minutes), therefore it's not too unreasonable to assume that they could provide the same benefits in the community.

Yes you might need to be aware of good training for putting on/taking off the mask to obtain that benefit, however (and I don't know the answer) is that going to alter the risk by more than other variables (including time) which also come into play (lower number of cases, both wearing masks, better/worse ventilation, variations in proximity, etc).

The reason that testing is done in medical settings is because the risk is much higher and so it's easy to identify people who are infected and you're likely to have more cases (resulting in it being easier to measure). Conversely in a community setting the level of risk is lower and so the difference between the two is likely to be more open to a bigger variation due to 1 extra/1 less case than would be the case where you've efficiently got a larger sample size.

For instance if there's about 10% difference then the change in outcome between 10 and 11 from a sample of 100 is much bigger than between 100 and 101 from a sample of 1,000. It's why sample size is key to how reliable results are.

Such changes become more obvious the smaller the percentage change. For instance a 0.1% change wouldn't really show up until you've got a sample size of 500 or more (0.5), however you couldn't be sure that it's not just a statistical error until you've got a sample of over 2,000 (2), and probably would want to be much bigger before you could be sure that it was actually the case and you hadn't just had more cases then should be the case (i.e. is it really 2, and not one where you've just identified a second one a bit earlier than you should have done).

That variation is why there's a range of certainty within reports, to allow for the potential of there being a +n/-n within the results within the samples which skews the results one way or the other. The smaller the sample size the wider that variation.

Surgical masks are used in medical environments by people doing surgery on open wounds. I don’t do much of that at Tesco!