UK face coverings discussion

[packermac]

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.

As I did not see the press conference you are referring to ( I assume a Downing Street one) then no.

 

[Yew]

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.

Repeating unevidenced assertions doesn't make them true...

 

[The Ham]

No people are saying that they don't work due to the results of every randomised control trial ever.

Which are mostly done in high risk (medical settings) where exposure is for prolonged periods of time (up to 12 hour shifts), where staff can often need to provide close personal care. All of which are likely to reduce the benefits of any measures that are put in place to reduce the risk.

Wearing a mask will give you zero protection of you are within 0.5m of someone with a high viral load for over 6 hours, in a poorly ventilated area; change those variables and it's possible that masks may provide some level of protection.

The problem is that you can't easily test such changes as the sample size would be too small.

However, some of the research did show a small benefit (which may not be there when you adjust for 95% certainty, but a large area of it was still more than zero) and a slightly larger (which is still not zero when you adjust for 95% certainty) for N95 masks on such high risk settings where it was looking at influenza which could be picked up from other sources (such as children from their school or on the way to/from work).

However part of the reason for the size of range for the 95% certainty was that the sample sizes were fairly small, which could be confirmed more accurately with a larger sample size. However that would require a larger study and almost certainly couldn't be done in a non medical setting.

 

[Yew]

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

Indeed, the clue of where surgical masks should be used is in the name!

 

[greyman42]

Yeah - you can keep that.

As soon as pubs are open again I am on it.

You are welcome to mask up behind a sofa. Not for me...

Opening the pubs will be a good thing as less people will have house parties. They should never have been shut.

There is no excuse to get drunk. You can enjoy yourself without getting drunk. People need to take responsibility.

What do you define as getting drunk?

 

[big_rig]

Which are mostly done in high risk (medical settings) where exposure is for prolonged periods of time (up to 12 hour shifts), where staff can often need to provide close personal care. All of which are likely to reduce the benefits of any measures that are put in place to reduce the risk.

Wearing a mask will give you zero protection of you are within 0.5m of someone with a high viral load for over 6 hours, in a poorly ventilated area; change those variables and it's possible that masks may provide some level of protection.

The problem is that you can't easily test such changes as the sample size would be too small.

However, some of the research did show a small benefit (which may not be there when you adjust for 95% certainty, but a large area of it was still more than zero) and a slightly larger (which is still not zero when you adjust for 95% certainty) for N95 masks on such high risk settings where it was looking at influenza which could be picked up from other sources (such as children from their school or on the way to/from work).

However part of the reason for the size of range for the 95% certainty was that the sample sizes were fairly small, which could be confirmed more accurately with a larger sample size. However that would require a larger study and almost certainly couldn't be done in a non medical setting.

I think you are mixing up ‘protection’ and ‘source control.’

A surgical mask, or sock, does not provide protection from covid. If you want that you need a N95 which is fitted so tightly to your face it causes bruising. Wearing a surgical mask on a covid ward will not protect you.

There is no evidence to suggest that surgical masks or socks provide source control, the reason why we wear them (the official line for introducing masks was to protect shopkeepers). RCTs make no positive conclusions regarding them. Going into a covid ward full of people wearing surgical masks and you wearing nothing will not prevent you from getting it (though it would be an interesting experiment).

 

[Yew]

Which are mostly done in high risk (medical settings) where exposure is for prolonged periods of time (up to 12 hour shifts), where staff can often need to provide close personal care. All of which are likely to reduce the benefits of any measures that are put in place to reduce the risk.

Wearing a mask will give you zero protection of you are within 0.5m of someone with a high viral load for over 6 hours, in a poorly ventilated area; change those variables and it's possible that masks may provide some level of protection.

The problem is that you can't easily test such changes as the sample size would be too small.

However, some of the research did show a small benefit (which may not be there when you adjust for 95% certainty, but a large area of it was still more than zero) and a slightly larger (which is still not zero when you adjust for 95% certainty) for N95 masks on such high risk settings where it was looking at influenza which could be picked up from other sources (such as children from their school or on the way to/from work).

However part of the reason for the size of range for the 95% certainty was that the sample sizes were fairly small, which could be confirmed more accurately with a larger sample size. However that would require a larger study and almost certainly couldn't be done in a non medical setting.

Apart from the largest one [1], which was in a community setting, and found no statistically significant benefit in laboratory confirmed influenza.


[1] Barasheed O, Almasri N, Badahdah AM, Heron L, Taylor J, McPhee K, Ridda I, Haworth E, Dwyer DE, Rashid H, Booy R; Hajj Research Team. Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial to Test Effectiveness of Facemasks in Preventing Influenza-like Illness Transmission among Australian Hajj Pilgrims in 2011. Infect Disord Drug Targets. 2014;14(2):110-6. doi: 10.2174/1871526514666141021112855. PMID: 25336079.

 

[greyman42]

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 perhaps it would be lower.

 

[The Ham]

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

I was referring to the study on influenza which I've linked to before which was cited on a webpage suggesting that masks aren't needed.

 

[greyman42]

And we're not being asked to wear them all the time, just in public areas.

Well that's news to me.

 

[Richard Scott]

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.

My evidence is my own observations of people. We have to wear them in corridors at work and that's exactly how almost everyone behaves.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Back in March, the advice of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jenny Harries, was that masks were NOT a good idea outside of clinical settings, for reasons that improper use and infrequent changing of masks could actually increase the spread of the virus. (See the first few minutes of the Channel 5 interview linked to below).
I also remember her repeating that same message when appearing at the daily Downing Street briefings. She was soon shunted into a siding when she said that the rules applied to everyone, which people took as her personal view about Mr Cummings’ antics

At some point, that advice was changed, with no evidence produced then, nor since, in order to support the narrative that masks on public transport and in shops ‘couldn’t do any harm’. ALL of the reasons she gave for them not being wise still held true, but it became a political issue. Government were desperate to be seen taking some action; they needed to be seen doing something. Masks were something; however little evidence there was for their effectiveness.
Oh, and breaking news (from an internal source)....
42 people tested positive for coronavirus at Stratford Delivery Office - in the very first week that Royal Mail made face coverings mandatory in all RM offices!!
But that’s pure coincidence, the pro-maskers will doubtless say...

The company’s website only confirms that ‘deliveries are likely to be affected’ in Stratford (and some other areas), not the precise reasons why

Due to resourcing issues, deliveries in the following areas are likely to be limited on Saturday 14 November. The Customer Service Points at these offices will be open as usual - please see royalmail.com/services-near-you for details of our revised opening hours. We apologise for any inconvenience you may be caused.

• Basildon (SS13, SS14, SS15, SS16)
• Benfleet (SS7)
• Halfway (S20 / S21)
• Maidstone (ME14, ME15, ME16, ME17, ME18)
• Stratford (E15, E20)

Service Updates from Royal Mail today

Latest service updates about deliveries across the UK from Royal Mail.

personal.help.royalmail.com

 

[Richard Scott]

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.

Yet again, I want to see you evidence. Not seen any evidence on the other 200 pages in this thread so hoping this will be the one!

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.

Now we are going around in circles. Still waiting for your evidence. In the real world people don't wash their hands after handling them. Come out of a shop and shove it in pocket, end of story.

 

[big_rig]

Yet again, I want to see you evidence. Not seen any evidence on the other 200 pages in this thread so hoping this will be the one!


Now we are going around in circles. Still waiting for your evidence. In the real world people don't wash their hands after handling them. Come out of a shop and shove it in pocket, end of story.

I am not sure we will ever see the ‘evidence’, but my very simple question to Phillip would be whether he would be happy to go for a walk round a ward full of covid patients if they were wearing masks? If one has belief in their benefit for source control then it wouldn’t be a big deal to nip in and have a bit of a look round surely, maybe sit there and read a book while all the masks (including those made from socks and underpants) soak up all the virus particles?

 

[Philip]

Yet again, I want to see you evidence. Not seen any evidence on the other 200 pages in this thread so hoping this will be the one!


Now we are going around in circles. Still waiting for your evidence. In the real world people don't wash their hands after handling them. Come out of a shop and shove it in pocket, end of story.

Opening the pubs will be a good thing as less people will have house parties. They should never have been shut.


What do you define as getting drunk?

I am not sure we will ever see the ‘evidence’, but my very simple question to Phillip would be whether he would be happy to go for a walk round a ward full of covid patients if they were wearing masks? If one has belief in their benefit for source control then it wouldn’t be a big deal to nip in and have a bit of a look round surely?

A bit of a silly and sweeping question. Of course I wouldn't be comfortable, but I'd be more comfortable than if they weren't wearing masks. That's the whole point, I haven't suggested that they completely stop the spread, but that they reduce it.

I am a lot more comfortable going shopping now than I was before the rule was brought in.

The R rate started dropping in March after pubs were shut and it has done so again since they shut last week. Most people are sensible enough not to have house parties, only a small minority. The definition of getting drunk is open to interpretation, the point is people's behaviour goes down the drain as a general rule.

 

[43066]

I haven't suggested that they completely stop the spread, but that they reduce it.

Which as others have said is something you just repeat again and again, without producing any evidence.

The R rate started dropping in March after pubs were shut and it has done so again since they shut last week.

And the R rate has risen since masks were introduced.

 

[Richard Scott]

The R rate started dropping in March after pubs were shut and it has done so again since they shut last week. Most people are sensible enough not to have house parties, only a small minority. The definition of getting drunk is open to interpretation, the point is people's behaviour goes down the drain as a general rule.

You can't conclude pubs are to blame, other activities have been closed down too so cannot isolate one thing as that's not scientifically a fair test. Again where's your evidence to make such a statement?

 

[Philip]

Which as others have said is something you just repeat again and again, without producing any evidence.



And the R rate has risen since masks were introduced.

I think that has more to do with the reopening of hospitality and some people's behaviour in the summer and autumn.

You can't conclude pubs are to blame, other activities have been closed down too so cannot isolate one thing as that's not scientifically a fair test. Again where's your evidence to make such a statement?

Well, the fact that the North West is seeing a reduction in infections and a lower R rate, after drinking pubs were closed a couple of weeks earlier than in the rest of the country, I would call that evidence to suggest that pubs are a big transmission source.

 

[Yew]

I think that has more to do with the reopening of hospitality and some people's behaviour in the summer and autumn.


Well, the fact that the North West is seeing a reduction in infections and a lower R rate, after drinking pubs were closed a couple of weeks earlier than in the rest of the country, I would call that evidence to suggest that pubs are a big transmission source.

Didn't SAGE's own estimates suggest that it was less than 5%, with work, schools, and universities being the main places?

 

[kez19]

[

I think that has more to do with the reopening of hospitality and some people's behaviour in the summer and autumn.


Well, the fact that the North West is seeing a reduction in infections and a lower R rate, after drinking pubs were closed a couple of weeks earlier than in the rest of the country, I would call that evidence to suggest that pubs are a big transmission source.

Err... guess again...
https://www.newstatesman.com/scienc...bs-and-restaurants-blame-second-wave-covid-19

The figures were based on data from a sample of just 98 pubs and 67 cafés and restaurants. The Institute of Economic Affairs has since said that the evidence for closing pubs is “very weak”.

The leader of Manchester City Council, Richard Leese, has claimed that according his data "very little” Covid-19 transmission takes place in pubs and that closing them en masse could lead to more cases as people instead meet in each other’s homes. Significant numbers of jobs hang on the issue.

Seems quite opposite from one source I found by Google....

Governments aren’t following anything, let’s be honest it’s the whack a mole effect that’s in play.

I’m guessing the term science is the go to word at the moment for all decisions but when things go tits up they can’t fault themselves for the decisions they make.


Like I say even the rules they say in terms of meeting people or mixing with people it’s impossible, I work in an environment where I would class as mixing with others outwith my household that’s one, then travelling on transport that’s two, shops and activities like the gym that’s three and four. The rules are useless and clearly not thought of but hey that’s your science/scientists and politicians you trust (but also remember they are breaking the rules too but don’t get punished for it compared to your average joe!)

 

[duncanp]

[



Err... guess again...

Are pubs and restaurants to blame for the second wave of Covid-19?

The hospitality industry has been singled out by Chris Whitty for spreading the virus, but the evidence is anything but clear-cut.

www.newstatesman.com

The figures were based on data from a sample of just 98 pubs and 67 cafés and restaurants. The Institute of Economic Affairs has since said that the evidence for closing pubs is “very weak”.



The leader of Manchester City Council, Richard Leese, has claimed that according his data "very little” Covid-19 transmission takes place in pubs and that closing them en masse could lead to more cases as people instead meet in each other’s homes. Significant numbers of jobs hang on the issue.

Seems quite opposite from one source I found by Google....

Governments aren’t following anything let’s be honest it’s the whack a mole effect that’s in play.


I’m guessing the term science is the go to word at the moment for all decisions but when things go tits up they can’t fault themselves for the decisions they make.


Like I say even the rules they say in terms of meeting people or mixing with people it’s impossible, I work in an environment where I would class as mixing with others outwith my household that’s one, then travelling on transport that’s two, shops and activities like the gym that’s three and four. The rules are useless and clearly not thought of but hey that’s your science/scientists and politicians you trust (but also remember they are breaking the rules too but don’t get punished for it compared to your average joe!)

If pubs and restaurants were to blame for the rise in COVID-19 cases, you would have expected to see a much bigger rise in cases during the summer when they re-opened.

The fact that cases remained low throughout the summer, whilst pubs and restaurants were open, suggests that these settings are not a major source of virus transmission.

Cases only started to rise significantly when schools returned, and really took off when students went back to university.

 

[kez19]

If pubs and restaurants were to blame for the rise in COVID-19 cases, you would have expected to see a much bigger rise in cases during the summer when they re-opened.

The fact that cases remained low throughout the summer, whilst pubs and restaurants were open, suggests that these settings are not a major source of virus transmission.

Cases only started to rise significantly when schools returned, and really took off when students went back to university.

I agree the only thing I would say on that and just opinion is to keep them open (if the virus is still in circulation in these environments then let it run its course), but on the other I guess hospitality in this point has been used as the scapegoat but like I say I just find it that there is no science in this at all it’s just making it up.

If we use what I mentioned as a sample you would expect the governments to backtrack and apologise for trouble caused but they don’t but will create the paranoia that no one should venture to pubs.


For the idea of closing sections/sectors what does that achieve after reopening? You may get outbreaks but wouldn’t it have been better running society as normal just like with any other viruses out there than closing down? Again for me there is clearly no logic in thinking let alone at every turn to date no one has explained to the public what is the exit strategy out of this mess, it’s just keep dragging it out. Politicians are meant to lead and to lead out of crises but at the moment most of the politicians are loving this.

I have little to no faith in trust with both politicians and media in this but this is just my own opinion


Governments - open? honest?, like the MPs in general that’s laughable in itself, I’m thinking the public are realising it doesn’t add up (majority) but what do we expect?

 

[island]

I really do wish people would remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think that has more to do with the reopening of hospitality and some people's behaviour in the summer and autumn.


Well, the fact that the North West is seeing a reduction in infections and a lower R rate, after drinking pubs were closed a couple of weeks earlier than in the rest of the country, I would call that evidence to suggest that pubs are a big transmission source.

You can't call that evidence when more than one factor is being changed, I'm afraid that's simple school science.

 

[johnnychips]

Just to lighten up a little, somebody earlier posted that masks may not have a big effect as viruses were very small.

I have a very black washable mask, and on Friday I was asked to put it over my eyes in a “Put the nose on Pudsey” competition. I did so and could see right through it. I am now eating the chocolates that were the prize.

 

[farleigh]

Just to lighten up a little, somebody earlier posted that masks may not have a big effect as viruses were very small.

I have a very black washable mask, and on Friday I was asked to put it over my eyes in a “Put the nose on Pudsey” competition. I did so and could see right through it. I am now eating the chocolates that were the prize.

Is Pudsey essential?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

New face mask that kills coronavirus could be available by December | ITV News

The mask has a copper lining embedded in it which releases ions to kill the virus if they come into contact with it. | ITV News Central

www.itv.com

What are your views and thoughts on this new type of mask that might work even better than the current ones we wear?

P.S. I'll slightly amend the reference tomorrow

A scientist in Nottingham has invented a face mask that is "more than 90% effective at killing coronavirus".

Dr Gareth Cave, who is a scientist and nanotechnology expert at Nottingham Trent University, is the genius behind the new face covering.

How does the mask work?

Instead of "trapping" the coronavirus the new masks kill it.

The anti-viral face covering features a fluid-repellent outer layer which reduces the inhalation of droplets that carry Covid-19.

There is also a copper lining embedded in the mask which releases ions which kill the virus if they come into contact with it.

Tests have shown that the masks kills more than 90% of flu and coronavirus infections.

 

[NorthOxonian]

New face mask that kills coronavirus could be available by December | ITV News

The mask has a copper lining embedded in it which releases ions to kill the virus if they come into contact with it. | ITV News Central

www.itv.com

What are your views and thoughts on this new type of mask that might work even better than the current ones we wear?

P.S. I'll slightly amend the reference tomorrow

Obviously if it works, that's a good thing, and it's a good example of ingenuity. I do have concerns about the cost, which seems to be £1 a pop, particularly because they seem to be only in disposable form. I still firmly believe that if people are going to be encouraged to wear coverings we really should be promoting reusable ones for environmental reasons and to minimise litter.

I suppose I'm also concerned that it could lead to a push to normalise masks in yet more settings. The government would have an excuse to mandate them everywhere outside the home if they think their impact was seen to increase in such a way, and as I've said numerous times on here I find their constant presence totally dispiriting.

 

[initiation]

new type of mask that might work even better than the current ones we wear?

To be fair, that is probably not very difficult.

The idea certainly seems more promising than a piece of fabric but as with all these things, the 'proof' is in the scientific trials and real world performance.

 

[The Ham]

New face mask that kills coronavirus could be available by December | ITV News

The mask has a copper lining embedded in it which releases ions to kill the virus if they come into contact with it. | ITV News Central

www.itv.com

What are your views and thoughts on this new type of mask that might work even better than the current ones we wear?

P.S. I'll slightly amend the reference tomorrow

I suspect that they would be good for the general population long duration use (thinking flying, long distance coach travel, long distance rail travel) where the risk may not be high, but people may be willing to pay the extra for the mask because it's likely to give them better protection (even if they mostly wish to avoid getting the flu, and you only need to remember back to last winter when you were on public transport and the number of times you could hear coughing and sneezing to see that even that protection would be useful).

For healthcare workers, visitors and patients in high risk settings (Covid wards) or for high risk people (entering a care home during the flu season) then again there could be benefits.

It would be good to see the scientific paper behind this, to see if the 90% is against no mask and/or if there's data comparing other masks as well.