UK face coverings discussion

[DustyBin]

A friend is an ambulance paramedic. He thinks masks in the hands of the general public is not helpful. because people dont do it properly. They need changing once per hour, and do not touch while wearing. Dispose of properly (not dump in a supermarket trolley for the next customer. The reusable ones need a hot wash to kill anything in them.
bit may of the masks we see being worn are useless.

Why some people can’t see this I have no idea!

 

[High Dyke]

On this subject, I put up signage in the club, whilst the Government allowed us to be open. It included the wording about exemptions, of which a number of the members fall into that category. At a committee meeting one chap was adamant about those that refuse to wear a mask we should ban them from the club. I pointed out we weren't allowed to discriminate like that nor challenge those who are exempt. He wasn't having any of it. I asked him to point me in the direction of the correct wording. Three months later and I'm still waiting his response!

 

[VauxhallandI]

It would seem that the County Council now have a magic ball on restrictions timetables too

The photographs of the letter are from Hertfordshire County Council

They seem to know that the vaccination scheme will have no effect on easing restrictions until after Easter.

They tell you to treat everyone as though they have Covid and they lean heavily in the number of cases rather than the the number of deaths.

To top it all off it talks of the festive period and yet it was delivered on the 2nd January

 

[kez19]

It would seem that the County Council now have a magic ball on restrictions timetables too

I read that line... treat everyone you meet has the Coronavirus (god help us all)!, I’m sure this is a game, avoid social contact/bubbles - happy to apply to public then apply to all the politicians etc (wait that won’t happen!)

 

[The Ham]

Whilst I can’t verify the authenticity of the document, it’s consistent with the advice being given at the time by both the CDC and WHO, even as late as March 2020:

WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick | CNN

World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.

edition.cnn.com

On balance I’m inclined to believe it’s an authentic document, possibly not for public consumption?

I think your post provides a balanced view but my concern is that in the real world many people are wearing masks for hours on end then storing them in pockets, handbags and glove compartments and then wearing them again (repeat cycle). I suspect the number of people using masks correctly and safely is actually very small, which then does raise the question of whether mandating their use was/is a good idea.

Other than the very poor science (not just the mildew issue and the fact that cloth masks both don't filter and trap CO2 at the same time), the other thing which is a red flag that this is unlikely to come from the CDC (even though that it has elements which were broadly in line with what was being said by others previously) is just how poorly it's worded (such as repeating that N95 masks don't filter "Covid breath" which isn't a phrase which would likely use - not the same wording each time but the message is repeated 3 times over 5 lines) as well as the poor formatting (I wouldn't expect to see whole sentences in caps, nor would I expect to see key words capitalised. Also there's the difference in headers between the N95 and other headers).

As such I'm mindful to doubt the authenticity of a photo of something which could be knocked up on word on about 30 minutes, if others were to put something similar showing that masks did show some benefit I'd be just as doubtful.

 

[DustyBin]

Other than the very poor science (not just the mildew issue and the fact that cloth masks both don't filter and trap CO2 at the same time), the other thing which is a red flag that this is unlikely to come from the CDC (even though that it has elements which were broadly in line with what was being said by others previously) is just how poorly it's worded (such as repeating that N95 masks don't filter "Covid breath" which isn't a phrase which would likely use - not the same wording each time but the message is repeated 3 times over 5 lines) as well as the poor formatting (I wouldn't expect to see whole sentences in caps, nor would I expect to see key words capitalised. Also there's the difference in headers between the N95 and other headers).

As such I'm mindful to doubt the authenticity of a photo of something which could be knocked up on word on about 30 minutes, if others were to put something similar showing that masks did show some benefit I'd be just as doubtful.

That’s fair enough, apparently it was first posted back in early 2020 but again I can’t verify that. I thought it looked like some kind of draft or internal communication if anything, you’re right about the poor terminology etc. I do think the underlying message stands though i.e. using the wrong type of mask and using them incorrectly does more harm than good.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think your post provides a balanced view but my concern is that in the real world many people are wearing masks for hours on end then storing them in pockets, handbags and glove compartments and then wearing them again (repeat cycle). I suspect the number of people using masks correctly and safely is actually very small, which then does raise the question of whether mandating their use was/is a good idea.

During the periods of relative freedom I went on two or three day trips around the country. I used the same mask for the whole trip and it went in and out of my pocket several times. It didn't do me any harm but it probably renders the whole thing rather pointless.

 

[kristiang85]

I saw this Australian article posted from 17 years ago during the SARS epidemic... how times have changed.

Farce mask: it's safe for only 20 minutes

www.smh.com.au

Retailers who cash in on community fears about SARS by exaggerating the health benefits of surgical masks could face fines of up to $110,000.

NSW Fair Trading Minister Reba Meagher yesterday warned that distributors and traders could be prosecuted if it was suggested the masks offered unrealistic levels of protection from the disease.

"I'm sure everyone would agree that it is un-Australian to profiteer from people's fears and anxieties," Ms Meagher said.

"There appears to be some debate about whether surgical masks are able to minimise the effects of SARS."

Ms Meagher said her department would investigate any complaints about false mask claims which concerned the public.

"Penalties can range from fines of up to $22,000 for an individual or $110,000 for a corporation," she said.

Health authorities have warned that surgical masks may not be an effective protection against the virus.

"Those masks are only effective so long as they are dry," said Professor Yvonne Cossart of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney.

"As soon as they become saturated with the moisture in your breath they stop doing their job and pass on the droplets."

Professor Cossart said that could take as little as 15 or 20 minutes, after which the mask would need to be changed. But those warnings haven't stopped people snapping up the masks, with retailers reporting they are having trouble keeping up with demand.

John Bell from the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, who owns a pharmacy in Woollahra, Sydney, said mask supplies were running low.

"At the moment we don't have any because we haven't been able to get any in the last few days," MrBell said. "In the early stages it was unbelievable; we'd get people coming in all the time."

Mr Bell agreed with Professor Cossart's assessment regarding the effectiveness of the masks.

"I think they're of marginal benefit," he said. "In a way they give some comfort to people who think they're doing as much as they can do to prevent the infection."

That seems to be the mentality of travellers to Asian destinations, who are buying and wearing the masks while overseas.

Rosemary Taylor, of Kirribilli, arrived in Sydney from Shanghai last week after a two-week holiday in China. Ms Taylor and travelling companion Joan Switzer had worn the masks during the trip home, even though they had been warned they were of little value.

"We were told you need 16 layers on your mask for it to offer 95per cent protection," Ms Taylor said.

 

[trainophile]

16 layers? That would be like trying to breathe through a roll of wallpaper. Time these "experts" got a grip on reality.

 

[trebor79]

This was posted on another forum I use, but the guidance really did change very suddenly didn’t it?

View attachment 88100

I don't think that's a genuine document from the CDC - the language is far too casual and poorly drafted. The last paragraph banging on about carbon dioxide in particular is a load of nonsense. There is other pseudo-science babble throughout the document, thought he gist of what it is saying is correct.
Whilst I agree masks outside of clinical settings are of zero help in preventing the spread of COVID, I'm not certain that pseudo-science like this helps make the argument, especially when it's dressed up to appear to come from an official source.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't think that's a genuine document from the CDC - the language is far too casual and poorly drafted. The last paragraph banging on about carbon dioxide in particular is a load of nonsense. There is other pseudo-science babble throughout the document, thought he gist of what it is saying is correct.
Whilst I agree masks outside of clinical settings are of zero help in preventing the spread of COVID, I'm not certain that pseudo-science like this helps make the argument, especially when it's dressed up to appear to come from an official source.

That’s fair enough @The Ham said the same thing, I assumed it was some kind of internal communication or draft but it may well be fake. I too agree with the gist of it though, and it’s consistent with the underlying message being conveyed by the CDC etc. at the time.

 

[DB]

it’s consistent with the underlying message being conveyed by the CDC etc. at the time.

Indeed.

Incientally, anyone seen any of the "growing evidence" for mask effectiveness, as promised by our government back in July? Strangely, the evidence still seems to be hiding somewhere.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed.

Incientally, anyone seen any of the "growing evidence" for mask effectiveness, as promised by our government back in July? Strangely, the evidence still seems to be hiding somewhere.

I’ve seen faster growing oak trees!

 

[initiation]

This BBC article suggests the planned 'tougher' measures could include that "Masks need to be made of three layers, not just one, and worn in more locations than now - including workplaces, schools and crowded outdoor spaces."

Covid: What could 'tougher' measures mean for us?

After the PM hints at tighter measures in England, our science editor looks at what they could entail.

www.bbc.co.uk

They've been so effective so far it's sure to have a material impact on positive test results

 

[philosopher]

This BBC article suggests the planned 'tougher' measures could include that "Masks need to be made of three layers, not just one, and worn in more locations than now - including workplaces, schools and crowded outdoor spaces."

Covid: What could 'tougher' measures mean for us?

After the PM hints at tighter measures in England, our science editor looks at what they could entail.

www.bbc.co.uk

They've been so effective so far it's sure to have a material impact on positive test results

Sounds completely unenforceable. Are the police going to go round checking if masks have three layers. And how exactly can a crowded outdoor space be distinguished from a non crowded outdoor space.

 

[py_megapixel]

Are they not already worn in schools anyway?

 

[kristiang85]

This BBC article suggests the planned 'tougher' measures could include that "Masks need to be made of three layers, not just one, and worn in more locations than now - including workplaces, schools and crowded outdoor spaces."

Covid: What could 'tougher' measures mean for us?

After the PM hints at tighter measures in England, our science editor looks at what they could entail.

www.bbc.co.uk

They've been so effective so far it's sure to have a material impact on positive test results

Oh great, now we will have the mask vigilantes going on about layers now...

Hopefully this won't happen.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh great, now we will have the mask vigilantes going on about layers now...

Hopefully this won't happen.

Ofcourse it will happen.

SAGE are in a panic and are desperate to prove that their strategy has not failed.

 

[bramling]

Ofcourse it will happen.

SAGE are in a panic and are desperate to prove that their strategy has not failed.

You’re probably right, as pretty much everything which has been demanded has eventually happened.

I see Sturgeon is working on her upgraded Covid measures today. This is the first step in the process we’ve seen so many times.

I’m up for a real fight over masks now, there remains not a shred of evidence that they’re having any useful effect at all. On the contrary if anything.

 

[Ian Cunningham]

I don't think that's a genuine document from the CDC - the language is far too casual and poorly drafted. The last paragraph banging on about carbon dioxide in particular is a load of nonsense. There is other pseudo-science babble throughout the document, thought he gist of what it is saying is correct.
Whilst I agree masks outside of clinical settings are of zero help in preventing the spread of COVID, I'm not certain that pseudo-science like this helps make the argument, especially when it's dressed up to appear to come from an official source.

There is not a chance in hell this is a genuine document from the CDC - just reading the language tells us this. There's spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and official documents don't put RANDOM words in CAPITALS or "quotes" for effect.
This sort of bull**** misinformation is downright dangerous

 

[DB]

There is not a chance in hell this is a genuine document from the CDC - just reading the language tells us this. There's spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and official documents don't put RANDOM words in CAPITALS or "quotes" for effect.
This sort of bull**** misinformation is downright dangerous

Even if it is fake (which it probably is), the message it gives on the lack of mask effectiveness agrees with the message which the CDC (and indeed pretty much all heath authorities, including the WHO) were giving until they changed their tune last year based on no real evidence.

 

[bramling]

There is not a chance in hell this is a genuine document from the CDC - just reading the language tells us this. There's spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and official documents don't put RANDOM words in CAPITALS or "quotes" for effect.
This sort of bull**** misinformation is downright dangerous

Genuine or otherwise, it’s not dissimilar to what Jenny Harries (and others) were saying right through the first half of last year.

I suspect the real motivation behind masks was a reassurance thing, lest we remember that it coincided with a time when the government was gently trying to encourage people back to work, and likewise to get people back spending money in shops. Those days seem like a lifetime ago now!

 

[DB]

Oh great, now we will have the mask vigilantes going on about layers now...

Hopefully this won't happen.

Don't the Welsh mask regulations have some completely unenforceable stipulation about layers?

Not sure how the masterminds coming out with this stuff think it will work. Sure, some maskivists will dilligently buy new masks, but the bulk of people, who are only wearing them to keep the peace, will simply carry on using what they have been using up until now.

 

[bramling]

Don't the Welsh mask regulations have some completely unenforceable stipulation about layers?

Not sure how the masterminds coming out with this stuff think it will work. Sure, some maskivists will dilligently buy new masks, but the bulk of people, who are only wearing them to keep the peace, will simply carry on using what they have been using up until now.

Part of the rationale for masks as they are is that anyone can make their own, which nearly swerves any issues with availability or people not being able to afford them - anyone can just use a pair of old pants covered in brown stuff and that’s regarded as acceptable.

And they wonder why some of us just don’t take masks seriously.

 

[Darandio]

Genuine or otherwise, it’s not dissimilar to what Jenny Harries (and others) were saying right through the first half of last year.

I suspect the real motivation behind masks was a reassurance thing, lest we remember that it coincided with a time when the government was gently trying to encourage people back to work, and likewise to get people back spending money in shops. Those days seem like a lifetime ago now!

Of course it was just a reassurance thing, also as a way of reducing the 2m rule without alarming those (millions apparently) who were scared to go outdoors and believed everyone else should follow suit. Then cases and deaths reduced over the summer as we would expect from a respiratory disease and these apparent millions of people didn't make that association, they just believed masks had helped.

Now that genie is out of the bottle it cannot go back, further mandation is an easy appeasement for these people.

 

[DB]

I suspect the real motivation behind masks was a reassurance thing, lest we remember that it coincided with a time when the government was gently trying to encourage people back to work, and likewise to get people back spending money in shops. Those days seem like a lifetime ago now!

They pretty much said so - all that crap about making people feel 'confident' to go shopping! Of course, this alleged lack of confidence was only because they'd spent months doom-mongering.

 

[bramling]

Of course it was just a reassurance thing, also as a way of reducing the 2m rule without alarming those (millions apparently) who were scared to go outdoors and believed everyone else should follow suit. Then cases and deaths reduced over the summer as we would expect from a respiratory disease and these apparent millions of people didn't make that association, they just believed masks had helped.

Now that genie is out of the bottle it cannot go back, further mandation is an easy appeasement for these people.

I’m surprised more people aren’t asking the question that if masks are so wonderful (that someone not wearing them justifies a fine of over £6k), how come we now have over 50k positive tests per day...

I suppose it would just be blamed on non-compliance and all those evil people with disability exemptions. Unfortunately there’s an answer to everything amongst the pro-restriction fraternity.

 

[DB]

Of course it was just a reassurance thing, also as a way of reducing the 2m rule without alarming those (millions apparently) who were scared to go outdoors and believed everyone else should follow suit. Then cases and deaths reduced over the summer as we would expect from a respiratory disease and these apparent millions of people didn't make that association, they just believed masks had helped.

Now that genie is out of the bottle it cannot go back, further mandation is an easy appeasement for these people.

Didn't cases actually increase soon after masks were mandated (having been in decline up to that point)?

I’m surprised more people aren’t asking the question that if masks are so wonderful (that someone not wearing them justifies a fine of over £6k), how come we now have over 50k positive tests per day...

Maskivists always have an answer to that one - "it would be worse otherwise"!

They've basically created a situation with these restrictions where they can't lose - if restrictions are followed by a fall in cases (whether causation or just coincidence) then that's evidence that the restrictions work. If cases stay the same or increase, then it would be even worse without the restrictions. There is no scenario which, so far as they are concerned, will demonstrate that the restrictions are pointless.

 

[Darandio]

Didn't cases actually increase soon after masks were mandated (having been in decline up to that point)?

You are right actually, it's deaths that reduced for another 6 weeks after mandation although they were very minor figures anyway. Either way i've no doubt these people associated masks with low rates judging by what I was reading at the time on social media etc.

 

[MikeWM]

I’m surprised more people aren’t asking the question that if masks are so wonderful (that someone not wearing them justifies a fine of over £6k), how come we now have over 50k positive tests per day...

Because logic and rational thought appear to have left the building. Hopefully at some point they will return. Currently we're at the level of the people who thought killing cats was helpful to keep the Black Death away.

I suppose it would just be blamed on non-compliance and all those evil people with disability exemptions. Unfortunately there’s an answer to everything amongst the pro-restriction fraternity.

Of course - we just need to do things *more*, and clearly they will start working! Either way, I don't know where all these non-compliant and exempt people are - I haven't seen more than a handful of them for months now.