Keeping repeating this unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t maKE it true, and it most certainly doesn’t make it proportionalbut this a small price to pay for such a major potential public health benefit in recently unprecedented times
Keeping repeating this unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t maKE it true, and it most certainly doesn’t make it proportionalbut this a small price to pay for such a major potential public health benefit in recently unprecedented times
Keeping repeating this unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t maKE it true, and it most certainly doesn’t make it proportional
Because the safety nazis have attempted to scare everyone into wearing one!
Illogical, if the potential benefit is massive then the evidence wouldn’t be weak to non-existent. It’s no stronger than the evidence that it leads to more contact transmission, and more risky behaviour due to assumed safety.
The inconvenience is also not minor.
How would YOU deal with public transport for example as lockdown measures are eased? I hope you're not one of these let it rip 'herd immunity' enthusiasts because that simply will not work, would undo all the hard work done to reduce incidence so far, lead to a widespread resurgence, and almost certainly a second possibly heavier and even more economically damaging lockdown. Belgium has just announced a nationwide requirement on Public transport from May, joining a long list of places implementing the measure. I don't WANT to wear a mask either but its a far bigger issue than me, me, me!Keeping repeating this unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t maKE it true, and it most certainly doesn’t make it proportional
But we clearly need a study. Could one smallish city (maybe somewhere like Lancaster or Preston) be used to trial it? Don't change anything else, but mandate by Byelaw the wearing of masks in all public indoor space and workplaces, and see what that does?
Is this true? The evidence is surely to compare the mask-wearing nations to the non-. And haven't the WHO already been doing that and will continue to, as the data increases?Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for the potential benefit to be massive but for the evidence to be weak because actually getting scientifically robust evidence is difficult, expensive, and takes a lot of time, and no-one has yet done the required research.
Why not try it in London on public transport, where the risk is probably at its highest in our most densely transited city and the Mayor wants to do it already?But we clearly need a study. Could one smallish city (maybe somewhere like Lancaster or Preston) be used to trial it? Don't change anything else, but mandate by Byelaw the wearing of masks in all public indoor space and workplaces, and see what that does?
Is this true? The evidence is surely to compare the mask-wearing nations to the non-. And haven't the WHO already been doing that and will continue to, as the data increases?
Why not try it in London on public transport, where the risk is probably at its highest in our most densely transited city and the Mayor wants to do it already?
Just because other countries have jumped for ‘easy’, visible, “something must be done”, measures doesn’t mean they are correct.How would YOU deal with public transport for example as lockdown measures are eased? I hope you're not one of these let it rip 'herd immunity' enthusiasts because that simply will not work, would undo all the hard work done to reduce incidence so far, lead to a widespread resurgence, and almost certainly a second possibly heavier and even more economically damaging lockdown. Belgium has just announced a nationwide requirement on Public transport from May, joining a long list of places implementing the measure. I don't WANT to wear a mask either but its a far bigger issue than me, me, me!
Wearing masks is not to protect the wearer, but primarily to protect others around them, so if there's no one around to check whether someone is wearing or not in a quiet location, then not wearing in that area is not a problem at all I suggest.
Recent pictures of crowded post-lockdown streets, shops, mass transit stations in East Asia often neglect to mention one issue. That elephant in the room, street or station illustrated is near universal mask wearing, evident in all these images, a measure that must at least help in preventing transmission taking off again often in areas where distancing requirements are difficult to maintain, and help to keep the testing and tracing difficulties and workload under control as the extent of any new small outbreaks is constrained while lockdown measures are eased. Why would these nations insist on such mandatory mask-wearing otherwise?
Carelessly discarded waste from disposables is highly likely to be an increasing problem. It is already around some workplaces where masks are mandated, but this a small price to pay for such a major potential public health benefit in recently unprecedented times. In the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the measure was in place widely for only a matter of months as the infection rate fell away dramatically. There were a few hiccoughs along the way with 'anti-mask leagues' etc and consequent new flare ups, but the force of law typically came back quickly to reinforce compliance.
![]()
In the 1918 flu pandemic, not wearing a mask was illegal in some parts of America. What changed? | CNN
In 1918, America adopted mask wearing with a greater vengeance than anywhere else in the world. But a century later, it is Asian countries which have remembered the lessons the US learned.edition.cnn.com
The WHO stated that by far the greatest number of CoV2 infections occur in the home. Generally from prolonged exposure to someone who is sick and showing symptoms. People mostly aren’t catching it in the street, at the shops or at school, they are catching it from prolonged exposure at home. In that case all those people walking the streets of Beijing and Seoul wearing masks, although they may feel righteous, are really contributing very little.
Or Milton Keynes. If you are not willing to participate in such a trial yourself don't expect others to be forced to do so.But we clearly need a study. Could one smallish city (maybe somewhere like Lancaster or Preston) be used to trial it? Don't change anything else, but mandate by Byelaw the wearing of masks in all public indoor space and workplaces, and see what that does?
I guess the big issue is whether it’s airborne or contact transmission (I am excluding people sneezing and coughing because they should be in quarantine, but wouldn’t have been before any measures started)True. But if it was only occurring in the home, the R value would end up right down because it'd stay there, you would be effectively considering a home as one person, as it sort of is in this context.
It is, however, getting between homes somehow. How? And can masks stop it?
Or Milton Keynes. If you are not willing to participate in such a trial yourself don't expect others to be forced to do so.
I don't think it's an 'easy' measure at all, but more people are returning to work, and many employers are introducing mask-wearing anyway in the workplace, no doubt due to their statutory health and safety responsibilities towards both employees and customers. Have they got this wrong as well? The most recent Amazon advert on TV attests to this trend, with every staff member filmed being masked, and the nature of their business clearly places that company in an outstanding position to source and distribute such PPE. It is only a matter of time before other shared areas, and particularly public transport, start getting busier again, and distancing cannot always be controlled in these areas, no matter how hard an individual tries. Minor coughs and sneezes will always occur, especially in summer due to pollen and dust, so it's utterly unrealistic to expect everyone to self isolate immediately at the tiniest tickle. The mask provides the 'prefitted handkerchief' that catches such unintended ejections and could prevent a tree of thousands of reinfections in the homes and workplaces from those the ejected droplets could land on.Just because other countries have jumped for ‘easy’, visible, “something must be done”, measures doesn’t mean they are correct.
i would just try to keep public transport demand down for a while - still push WFH, and restrict to essential travel.
True. But if it was only occurring in the home, the R value would end up right down because it'd stay there, you would be effectively considering a home as one person, as it sort of is in this context.
It is, however, getting between homes somehow. How? And can masks stop it?
I’m seeing one or two colleagues wearing full-face visors instead of masks. If the benefits of masks are dubious (because they get damp and encourage a tendency to keep readjusting the fit), surely these are better? View attachment 77081
I have just had the grim vision of someone sneezing into one of those face visors!Yes, they are reasonably comfortable to wear and can be cleaned and reused.
Yes, they are reasonably comfortable to wear and can be cleaned and reused.
It's why you try to compare countries with similar cultural and demographic profiles. A much smaller pool of data, but therefore less work to do!Yes, you can make that comparison. But remember, every country has its own cultural and demographic peculiarities: Hand-washing and general hygiene tendencies, level of social interaction, extent to which people shake hands/kiss/etc., differences in expected level of personal space, different employment patterns leading to different levels of social distancing, typical sizes of household and extent to which people live together in extended families etc. etc. All those things are likely to swamp any differences between countries in transmission levels caused by mask wearing, and would be very difficult to separate out in the data. I won't say, impossible, as it's the kind of problem that statisticians and data scientists would have to deal with very often. But very difficult, which I'm sure is one reason why we don't really have any definitive answers about the extent to which mask wearing works.
Indeed. Seeing them being worn at Waitrose was where I had the ideaThey're available to all Waitrose staff so if you have one near you might see the Partners wearing them.
I have just had the grim vision of someone sneezing into one of those face visors!
For the wearer, not for those watching!At least you can remove them quickly you could sneeze into your sleeve...
Wearing a mask with ties would be worse I’d think.
It's why you try to compare countries with similar cultural and demographic profiles. A much smaller pool of data, but therefore less work to do!![]()
So a couple of queries under mask wearing....
1)Thus far those in the main that are wearing them on the trains I work are probably causing more of a risk to themselves than if not wearing it(mask on & off, leaving them on table, not washing hands before putting them back on etc), equally some of the masks are homebuilt so how do we know they are actually effective.
Does it need a set of approved supplier of masks that everyone can access for little cost and that meet the guidelines?
2)in Asia I presume mask use has been quite common for a while(Chinese have always worn them I presume to counter pollution), now this is controversial as it depends if you believe the official Chinese death figures(I don't), did masks actually make a difference to the death figures and in other countries with low death rates it's noted they don't wear masks so is it effective or is it just a visual that makes you feel better mentally?
3):It will be impossible to police so what happens when someone gets on a Bus/Train without a mask?
If they accidentally sneeze(hay forever perhaps)could this cause people to flee thus causing a bigger crush risk or more people in other vehicles than normal?
4)
Testing is taking place for more and more people (some key workers, NHS workers) to see if they have the virus.
If given the all clear should they need to wear a mask and should those who have had the disease and got well be made to wear it.
5)What's the time limit on wearing a mask and has there been a study to see how those who are claustrophobic or have Asmtha will cope if they have to wear a mask on a 2 to 3 hour train/coach journey?
Does it bring additional germ risk?
6)
Is there a risk that public transport operators see this as an easy way to circumnavigate the 2metre safe distance ruling as to implement that(which all acknowledge works)will cost a lot of money and mean more trains are needed thus making profit small and overheads large, so is this just in place to offer an option to that but realistically it offers minimal benefit to those travelling in comparison?
7)
If it's such a benefit why don't the World Health Organisation recommend it?
Kind of true. But not if the wearing of masks in Italy resulted in them having a lower R than the UK. Plus we have France, Italy, Spain being very similar and France is just about to wear masks. Obviously it's not easy, or WHO would already have definitive guidance, but that's not to say it cannot be done.Yeah, but that's almost impossible. How many pairs of countries are there that are so similar in their culture, way of life, demographics, etc. that you can ignore those differences when looking at masks? I would say, almost none.
Think for example of how people have compared the UK and Italy regarding our CoronaVirus responses. The UK and Italy are both industrialised Western democracies, whose populations are of similar ethnic inheritance and have very westernised ways of life. Viewed on a global scale, the two countries are very similar, and with your criterion would therefore be good to compare (if you doubt that, think how comparing the UK and Italy would look from the perspective of someone in - say - China or Vietnam: From the perspective of someone in China, the UK and Italy are going to be basically the same.). But even between the UK and Italy, you have the more huggy culture in Italy plus bigger extended families plus greater tendency to live in apartment blocks - and those differences will swamp the data in any comparison.