Not wearing a mask isn't likely to expose yourself to the virus, though.I think that volunteers in vaccine trials should be excempt from wearing masks. In order to prove that a vaccine works, I would have thought the volunteers would have to try and expose themselves to the virus?
The UK is pushing ahead to be the first nation to carry out "human challenge" studies where up to 90 healthy people will be deliberately exposed to Covid.
The trials, which could begin in January, aim to speed up the race to get a Covid-19 vaccine.
The government is putting £33.6m towards the groundbreaking work.
Safety will be a number one priority, experts insist. The plans will need ethical approval and sign-off from regulators before they can go ahead.
Human challenge studies provide a faster way to test vaccines because you don't have to wait for people to be exposed to an illness naturally.
I'm not aware of anyone doing so on this forum, but I'd say it's best discussed in a separate thread (e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/signing-up-for-covid-vaccine-trials.206990/ )Is anyone on this forum taking part in a vaccine trial?
I wore a blue mask for a week (mandated at work) about 20 minutes a day and my face got sore and sinuses blocked.
i wear a snood now
Hong Kong, Singapore: No social distancing in markets (outdoors) and supermarkets (indoors), population density (literally not metaphorically) much higher, everyone wearing masks outdoors (no "exemption" nonsense) - result no large outbreak.Evidence for the masks assertion, please!
If only there was some well-established standard of scientific rigour that we could use...Hong Kong, Singapore: No social distancing in markets (outdoors) and supermarkets (indoors), population density (literally not metaphorically) much higher, everyone wearing masks outdoors (no "exemption" nonsense) - result no large outbreak.
You are asking for scientific evidence. I think that whatever can be provided, it will not be enough for you.
If you want to find "evidence" which supports your theory, you will eventually find enough. Similar to the bible bashers who managed to scrape enough evidence from various research papers to "prove" that the universe is <10,000 years old and that the theory evolution is a figment of our imagination.
Hong Kong, Singapore: No social distancing in markets (outdoors) and supermarkets (indoors), population density (literally not metaphorically) much higher, everyone wearing masks outdoors (no "exemption" nonsense) - result no large outbreak.
You are asking for scientific evidence. I think that whatever can be provided, it will not be enough for you.
If you want to find "evidence" which supports your theory, you will eventually find enough. Similar to the bible bashers who managed to scrape enough evidence from various research papers to "prove" that the universe is <10,000 years old and that the theory evolution is a figment of our imagination.
So is he saying that if you mask-up now instead of when he first asked, 60,000 extra deaths ‘will be on your conscience for not obeying sooner’ ? That’s the sort of shaming these maskivists like to bring to the table...
Re : Signage Display during the pandemic
Date: 7 December 2020 Our reference: FC20068 Your reference: N/A
Thank-you for bringing this matter to my attention in relation to the signage that was being displayed at Tesco, 64-78 Tuners Hill, Cheshunt during lockdown:
Mr Gill would like to complain that Broxbourne Borough Council are failing to enforce the terms of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions)(Obligations of Undertakings) (England)(Amendment) Regulations 2020 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1046/made in regards to Tesco Metro located at Cheshunt The Old Pond not presenting the correct signage for the wearing of face masks.
I have discussed this matter with local representatives of the County group and agree that a consistent message should be applied.
The issue that you have raised related to the signage being displayed at the premises and it not making reference specifically to the exemptions. The Council’s Legal Department were consulted in relation to this issue. The legal advice that the Council has received is that ‘Tesco were not required to display an additional notice providing information for customers that are exempt from wearing face coverings’.
As there was no legislative requirement for this to be provided and the premises have also now subsequently improved their signage, there is nothing further for the Council to investigate.
The Council has worked with numerous supermarket premises during the pandemic to ensure that they are Covid secure.
I have therefore not upheld your complaint.
Formal Complaint, Stage 2 – Signage Display during the Pandemic
Thank you for your communication regarding the issues specified below:
Your stage 2 complaint is summarised as:
* Tesco should display signs which inform customers of the need to wear a face covering in store, unless an exemption applies. The current signs only makes reference to the need to wear a mask but does not refer to the exemptions.
* The Council inaccurately stated that the legislation does not require signs to make reference to the exemptions.
* The Council inaccurately claimed Tesco Metro had improved their signs.
* You consider the Council’s comment that it has worked with various supermarkets to
make them Covid secure, to be irrelevant, in the context of the concern you raised.
* The Council should take enforcement action against Tesco for displaying signs which are not in accordance with the legislation.
I can confirm the Council was incorrect in its previous communication with you regarding Regulation 2020/1008 concerning the wording required on shop signs for wearing face coverings, for which I sincerely apologise.
As you state in your letter the regulation does note that signs requiring customers to wear a face covering should also say, ‘unless an exemption applies or you have a reasonable excuse under the regulations’.
Please accept my formal apology for providing you with an inaccurate response regarding the interpretation of the regulations, and for incorrectly stating the store had improved its signs.
The Council has been working with stores to ensure they are Covid secure, but I accept this statement is not relevant to the particular complaint you were raising about the signs in Tesco Metro.
I confirm the Council will write to the management team of the Tesco Metro store and remind them of the appropriate signage responsibilities in accordance with the regulations.
Once again, apologies for the error and the inconvenience this caused.
Yes I was going to summarise something around maybe them being hotbeds of inadequacy.Given I was previously employed by a local Council (which will remain nameless) and know what they are like, and given the reputation they have leading to people referring to them as the "Clowncil", I am absolutely not surprised other Councils are similarly incompetent.
I also get the impression some Councils are rather keen on the authoritarianism that now plagues our society, so I am not surprised they chose not to familiarise themselves with these parts of the legislation that don't suit an authoritarian agenda.
think councils are loving this. reound here bunging up signs all over the place. do they really think people dont know whey are supposed to social distance? seeing more petty vandalism of this useless signage.Given I was previously employed by a local Council (which will remain nameless) and know what they are like, and given the reputation they have leading to people referring to them as the "Clowncil", I am absolutely not surprised other Councils are similarly incompetent.
I also get the impression some Councils are rather keen on the authoritarianism that now plagues our society, so I am not surprised they chose not to familiarise themselves with these parts of the legislation that don't suit an authoritarian agenda.
That's an interesting one actually, because my local Tesco's signage definitely mentions the exemptions, and rightly so. I wonder if it's a regional thing. If you don't mind, could you keep us posted in this thread on whether they do in fact change the signs or not, next time you visit?Well you can imagine the frustration of receiving such a poor response which include more irrelevant information than anything directly evidencing their decision on the point in hand.
Therefore I was left with no option but to go to Complaint stage 2. I specifically asked them to provide the evidence that the Statutory Instrument did not read as I had read it. Whilst I am not a lawyer I read contracts on a regular basis so I am no stranger to legalese.
I received this response on 23rd December:
Whilst it is a relief to finally get to the agreement on the SI there are so many questions left.
When will Tesco do the change of signage, I haven’t been out since the 23rd to check.
What was the Legal thinking and how did it change
How can the whole department be so wrong and incapable of critical thinking
Can you imagine the condescension and tone of my interactions with their team. Overall they think you are an idiot and you will just disappear if they ignore, lie or inject enough irrelevant information in to the conversations.
This whole thing took 3 months (if indeed it is over) when it could have taken an hour.
Yes, my local council has a standard template sign which all local businesses are displaying; you can walk through the local shopping precinct and the same sign is up several dozen times. I'm not sure I really see the point of it to be honest.think councils are loving this. reound here bunging up signs all over the place. do they really think people dont know whey are supposed to social distance? seeing more petty vandalism of this useless signage.
On Wednesday I used the train for the first time in a month, and the first time it was really cold, so could see what wearing face coverings (I use a bandana) outside is like. I could easily see the vapour from my breath passing through it, albeit with a slightly different movement in the air perhaps, but it does make me think viral particles must be getting through if they're clinging to vapour particles.
I couldn't contemplate ever sneezing into a mask. Yuck!If I sneeze in a face coverings I automatically still put my hand over my mouth outside of my mask and my hand gets wet
I beg your pardon.Both Tesco and Broxbourne Council have better things to do than pander to your libertarian 'crusade for freedom'
Totally agree. I take mine off and sneeze into a hanky or tissue.I couldn't contemplate ever sneezing into a mask. Yuck!
Without particularly sharing the views of @VauxhallandI, adhering to the law as written would have avoided that diversion of time and energy.Both Tesco and Broxbourne Council have better things to do than pander to your libertarian 'crusade for freedom'
Both Tesco and Broxbourne Council have better things to do than pander to your libertarian 'crusade for freedom'
This was posted on another forum I use, but the guidance really did change very suddenly didn’t it?
View attachment 88100
Exactly what we’ve been saying on here from the get-go. Try presenting all this logic to the mask obsessives though...
However what that does show is that there's still may be benefit from wearing (non N95) masks for up to 30 minutes at a time, with the timeframe thereafter being to discussion as to how risky it is thereafter (if 0-30 minutes is OK, how much beyond 30 minutes is it before risks outweigh the benefits?).This was posted on another forum I use, but the guidance really did change very suddenly didn’t it?
View attachment 88100
However what that does show is that there's still may be benefit from wearing (non N95) masks for up to 30 minutes at a time, with the timeframe thereafter being to discussion as to how risky it is thereafter (if 0-30 minutes is OK, how much beyond 30 minutes is it before risks outweigh the benefits?).
After 30 minutes your mask won't actually cause you harm from mildew, in that typically it takes about 24 hours from getting wet before surfaces are infected with mildew spores (often cited as a figure of between 24-72 hours). Therefore it's likely that 30 minutes is related to how long before masks are wet enough to be infected with spores.
Even if they were infected with spores at that point (due to being in an area with lots of mildew spores) it's going to take time before they start to grow.
With such a basic misunderstanding on Mildew, either the CDC are giving out poor advice or it may well be that such a document may not actually have come from the CDC (given that it's a photo of a document which could fairly easily be modified before being printed off and photographed as "evidence").
Therefore whilst it's not a good idea to wear masks for long periods of time (and given the data from studies which show a possible minor improvement to risk tend to also be linked to long exposure in high risk areas, and time and high levels of virus are two major factors as to if you're going to be infected and so it's very unlikely that wearing a mask for a long period of time is unlikely to be of much/any use) it doesn't prove that mask wearing for the majority of uses (going to the supermarket, short trips on a bus, etc) wouldn't provide benefit.
However, at I've said before, is going to be hard to show any benefit for such short term use as the level of risk is generally low, so you'd be hard pushed to develop a study to be able to prove that they provide benefit as two major risk factors are likely to be low risk anyway.
Therefore, assuming that the document is from the CDC (and I'd like to see something more than had already been shown) then for most who wear masks for short periods of time then their risk from wearing them is going to be very low but may provide some benefit in providing some reduction in their risk of contracting Covid-19 and so should where suitable continue to wear masks.
For those who should wear masks for longer periods of time I fully agree that the evidence is poor and that you do run the risk that you could start to get other complications which could offset any possible benefits. However even then the studies to date do show that mask wearing is more likely than not to have some limited benefit in high risk long duration settings where there's other sources of the flu (such as from the healthcare workers child) and so unless you're in such a setting then it's probably worth wearing masks.
However I would highlight that any change between wearing/not wearing masks is only going to have a small impact on the growth rate in the number of infections (i.e. if they are doubling every week without masks it may only reduce to x1.99 a week with masks) and so fast climbing numbers of cases isn't evidence either way. As the difference on the increase line between 1024 and 974 over a 10 week period wouldn't look all that different.
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. "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
if one is exempt, one is obeying the law. But having signs in shops (yes, you the COOP) saying you must wear a mask is confusing for everyone. These are big companies with large departments of compliance lawyers. no excuse.Without particularly sharing the views of @VauxhallandI, adhering to the law as written would have avoided that diversion of time and energy.
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.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.