Cloth masks, scarves and bandanas to be 'encouraged' with no compulsion

[Domh245]

Or they're selfish and only care about protecting themselves.

Self-preservation is no doubt part of it, but for the most part I think they're just uninformed but well intentioned. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

It's like the people I've seen going shopping wearing dust masks & gloves, but who leave the gloves on when they get in the car, consequently smearing whatever they might have gotten on those gloves whilst in the supermarket all over the controls. They see all the examples of people wearing masks and gloves around the world and rather than stopping and thinking about why they're wearing these and what they need to do for it to be effective, they simply go "If I wear gloves and a mask, I'm fine"

 

[Meerkat]

If people can’t be arsed to take the proper precautions when wearing a mask, but are at least wearing one then that’s their problem. At least the rest of us are slightly more protected from them. And that is the most important aspect of wearing one.

Is your slight increase in protection (minute increase really) greater than the contact risk from the person who has touched their contaminated mask/face then the handrail, shopping, whatever, that you touch immediately afterward?

 

[RichT54]

I've noticed that some of the people wearing face masks are the most likely to not observed the 2m separation in the supermarkets. I wonder if that's down to a false sense of security i.e. the mask makes them feel safer, so social distancing doesn't seem as important to them?

 

[Mag_seven]

I've noticed that some of the people wearing face masks are the most likely to not observed the 2m separation in the supermarkets. I wonder if that's down to a false sense of security i.e. the mask makes them feel safer, so social distancing doesn't seem as important to them?

That is the worry that I have - if people start wearing them then they will start to disregard the far more important measures. I wonder if any of the countries that have introduced compulsory mask wearing have considered that risk?

 

[Qwerty133]

I've noticed that some of the people wearing face masks are the most likely to not observed the 2m separation in the supermarkets. I wonder if that's down to a false sense of security i.e. the mask makes them feel safer, so social distancing doesn't seem as important to them?

Yes in the supermarket this morning there was a considerable number of elder people wearing masks repetitively getting within 2 metres of everyone and generally being a nuisense.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've noticed that some of the people wearing face masks are the most likely to not observed the 2m separation in the supermarkets. I wonder if that's down to a false sense of security i.e. the mask makes them feel safer, so social distancing doesn't seem as important to them?

Isn't one of the key argument for masks that it negates the need for social distancing?

 

[Domh245]

Isn't one of the key argument for masks that it negates the need for social distancing?

It's one of the arguments that people use, but taking a quote from the latest WHO guidance that was linked in this thread (my bold):

However, the following potential risks should be carefully
taken into account in any decision-making process:

• self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated mask
• depending on type of mask used, potential breathing difficulties
• false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
• diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of mask for health care workers
• diversion of resources from effective public health measures, such as hand hygiene

So WHO clearly not endorsing it as a way of reducing the requirements for people to maintain distance and wash their hands properly

 

[Meerkat]

Whilst I am very anti-mask (you may have noticed), I can’t see how one can believe they are effective and yet still think you need to stay 2m apart. Either they are or aren’t effective!

 

[Laryk]

Is your slight increase in protection (minute increase really) greater than the contact risk from the person who has touched their contaminated mask/face then the handrail, shopping, whatever, that you touch immediately afterward?

Good practice dictates that after shopping, or touching any surface in a public area that you should wash/sanitise your hands.

If the whole premise for not encouraging the use of face masks is that a suspected proportion unknown of the population don't take hygiene seriously then I think masks are the least of our concern.
I suspect those who wear a face mask without taking care would also not take care without the mask and touch their phone, touch their face and contaminate surfaces in general.
At any rate, the outside of the mask is considerably less contaminated than the inside unless you are in an area with a high concentration of the virus such as a hospital. You should really not have any need to touch the inside of the mask even if you are fiddling and taking the mask off and on all the time.

I object to you quantifying the increase in protection as minute, we have no way to know, but if it's good enough for health professionals...

Another factor that is not discussed is the wearing any sort of face covering should lessen the viral load being shed from an infected person. Acknowledging the fact that disposable face masks won't prevent all infections, they may well have an impact on the severity of symptoms if a person infected by a face mask-wearer is subject to less of a load than if no face mask was being worn.

 

[Laryk]

Whilst I am very anti-mask (you may have noticed), I can’t see how one can believe they are effective and yet still think you need to stay 2m apart. Either they are or aren’t effective!

Masks aren't 100% effective. Staying 2m apart isn't 100% effective. The two measures combined are more effective than alone

 

[Meerkat]

I object to you quantifying the increase in protection as minute, we have no way to know, but if it's good enough for health professionals...

No way to know yet your are keen to impose it on the population!
health professionals use medical masks and use them whilst in close proximity to those definitely or likely to be infectious. It’s a hugely different risk profile

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I am very anti-mask (you may have noticed), I can’t see how one can believe they are effective and yet still think you need to stay 2m apart. Either they are or aren’t effective!

That isn't actually true, and is a perfect example of the absolutism you often get on this forum (e.g. "we can't have e-tickets because they aren't 100% secure" - actually, we can, because they are *secure enough*).

They will have a degree of efficacy, because they're basically like a handkerchief over the mouth, and it is and long has been known that catching a cough or sneeze in a handkerchief is preferable to letting it out. The thing we need to find out is if that exceeds the degree of risk they pose, e.g. from touching it then touching an object that someone else then touches.

 

[Laryk]

No way to know yet your are keen to impose it on the population!
health professionals use medical masks and use them whilst in close proximity to those definitely or likely to be infectious. It’s a hugely different risk profile

No, I am not keen to impose it on the population.
The argument here is "should cloth masks, scarves and bandannas be encouraged" and I think that disposable face masks should be encouraged

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, I am not keen to impose it on the population.
The argument here is "should cloth masks, scarves and bandannas be encouraged" and I think that disposable face masks should be encouraged

I don't, as that will take them away from healthcare professionals.

 

[Laryk]

I don't, as that will take them away from healthcare professionals.

This is likely to be the reason why they are not being encouraged, as with the current manufacturing and supply chain in place we can barely provide the right PPE as it is.

But I think the government should recognise the importance of wearing face masks for the wider population and make plans their wider use.

 

[yorksrob]

If we’re working on the basis that coughs and sneezes are the primary mechanism of spread (which is what we’ve heard from the scientists more or less since day one) then it follows that crowded public transport must be a comparatively risky activity.

As I’ve said before, I’d possibly be happy to take an element of risk for myself as I’m not (knowingly) part of a high-risk group. However I have some concern about passing it on to others who are bordering on being higher risk due to age, hence I’m more risk-aware than I might otherwise be. I don’t wish to be exposed to the uncontrollable risk of someone coughing over me in a confined space. Masks might help but then again we’ve heard for so long how ineffective they are...

We've heard that masks are ineffective against catching the virus - not spreading it. That is the difference.

 

[Qwerty133]

It would require hundreds of millions of masks to be produced each week for the necessary supply to expect the public to wear them whenever they are out of the house. This simply isn't physically possible and to suggest otherwise simply wastes everyone's time discussing it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would require hundreds of millions of masks to be produced each week for the necessary supply to expect the public to wear them whenever they are out of the house. This simply isn't physically possible and to suggest otherwise simply wastes everyone's time discussing it.

Which is why (and in line with the subject line) for the public it will be DIY cloth masks and bandanas, Buffs etc.

Though I do actually have 2 of the "basic" surgical ones (which I gained from a trip to hospital) and they seem to wash OK.

 

[Meerkat]

But I think the government should recognise the importance of wearing face masks for the wider population and make plans their wider use.

What importance? If it was that important it would be easily proven

 

[Bantamzen]

It's one of the arguments that people use, but taking a quote from the latest WHO guidance that was linked in this thread (my bold):



So WHO clearly not endorsing it as a way of reducing the requirements for people to maintain distance and wash their hands properly

Whilst I am very anti-mask (you may have noticed), I can’t see how one can believe they are effective and yet still think you need to stay 2m apart. Either they are or aren’t effective!

All of which was my point. Masks have been touted as a possibility in situations where social distancing of 2 metres might not be possible, despite the WHO recommendations that they are not effective in reducing transmission from people without symptoms . At this rate people will soon be suggesting keeping 5 metres apart whilst wearing full hazmat suits!

 

[Bletchleyite]

All of which was my point. Masks have been touted as a possibility in situations where social distancing of 2 metres might not be possible, despite the WHO recommendations that they are not effective in reducing transmission from people without symptoms . At this rate people will soon be suggesting keeping 5 metres apart whilst wearing full hazmat suits!

Are not or are not proven to? The WHO has said a lot of things like that, e.g. "there is not proven to be any immunity after a case", which also means "there is not proven that there is not any immunity after a case" but people automatically read it the other way.

 

[RichT54]

At this rate people will soon be suggesting keeping 5 metres apart whilst wearing full hazmat suits!

Ah! argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[Bantamzen]

Are not or are not proven to? The WHO has said a lot of things like that, e.g. "there is not proven to be any immunity after a case", which also means "there is not proven that there is not any immunity after a case" but people automatically read it the other way.

Well I'm pretty certain the WHO don't just make things up.

Ah! argumentum ad absurdum.

No, argumentum ad RUK....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well I'm pretty certain the WHO don't just make things up.

No, but they're medical professionals so you do need to read what they say.

So was it that masks do not provide any protection, or are not proven to provide any protection (which also means it's not proven that they won't)?

I find the former inconceivable, though the protection may be limited.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, but they're medical professionals so you do need to read what they say.

So was it that masks do not provide any protection, or are not proven to provide any protection (which also means it's not proven that they won't)?

I find the former inconceivable, though the protection may be limited.

Their current position is that there is no apparent benefit in the general public wearing masks, and that encouraging their use could result in people trying to procure masks that would otherwise would be procured by health services. Yes people could tear up t-shirts, but there is even less evidence that would be effective, and such a method could be all but useless.

 

[Laryk]

What importance? If it was that important it would be easily proven

The importance of using a face mask to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases is proven and well documented.
As an example from the Singapore Medical Journal titled "The use of facemasks to prevent respiratory infection"

The effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 masks in blocking the transmission of SARS are 68% and 91%, respectively. Facemasks, when fitted properly, effectively disrupt the forward momentum of particles expelled from a cough or sneeze, preventing disease transmission. Even if the facemasks are ill-fitting, they are still able to interrupt the particles and airborne viruses sufficiently, such that these pathogens do not reach the breathing zones of people nearby.

From the British Medical Journal, "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review"

Pooled estimates of effect of public health interventions to interrupt transmission of SARS from case-control studies

Intervention​	No of studies (references)​	Odds ratio (95% CI)​	Intervention effectiveness* (%)​	Number needed to treat (95% CI)†​
Frequent handwashing (>10 times daily)​	6 (w48, w45-w47, w49, w50)​	0.45 (0.36 to 0.57)​	55​	4.00 (3.65 to 5.52)​
Wearing mask​	5 (w45-w47, w49, w50)​	0.32 (0.25 to 0.40)​	68​	6.00 (4.54 to 8.03)​
Wearing N95 mask​	2 (w45, w47)​	0.09 (0.03 to 0.30)​	91​	3.00 (2.37 to 4.06)​
Wearing gloves​	4 (w46, w47 w45, w50)​	0.43 (0.29 to 0.65)​	57​	7.00 (4.15 to 15.41)​
Wearing gown​	4 (w45, w46, w47, w50)​	0.23 (0.14 to 0.37)​	77​	5.00 (3.37 to 7.12)​
Handwashing, mask, gloves, and gown combined​	2 (w46, w47)​	0.09 (0.02 to 0.35)​	91​	3.00 (2.66 to 4.97)​

 

[Laryk]

Well I'm pretty certain the WHO don't just make things up.

The WHO has not shown itself to be particularly competent thus far.

 

[Bantamzen]

The importance of using a face mask to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases is proven and well documented.
As an example from the Singapore Medical Journal titled "The use of facemasks to prevent respiratory infection"



From the British Medical Journal, "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review"

Pooled estimates of effect of public health interventions to interrupt transmission of SARS from case-control studies

Intervention​	No of studies (references)​	Odds ratio (95% CI)​	Intervention effectiveness* (%)​	Number needed to treat (95% CI)†​
Frequent handwashing (>10 times daily)​	6 (w48, w45-w47, w49, w50)​	0.45 (0.36 to 0.57)​	55​	4.00 (3.65 to 5.52)​
Wearing mask​	5 (w45-w47, w49, w50)​	0.32 (0.25 to 0.40)​	68​	6.00 (4.54 to 8.03)​
Wearing N95 mask​	2 (w45, w47)​	0.09 (0.03 to 0.30)​	91​	3.00 (2.37 to 4.06)​
Wearing gloves​	4 (w46, w47 w45, w50)​	0.43 (0.29 to 0.65)​	57​	7.00 (4.15 to 15.41)​
Wearing gown​	4 (w45, w46, w47, w50)​	0.23 (0.14 to 0.37)​	77​	5.00 (3.37 to 7.12)​
Handwashing, mask, gloves, and gown combined​	2 (w46, w47)​	0.09 (0.02 to 0.35)​	91​	3.00 (2.66 to 4.97)​

These studies will be for healthcare professionals working with patients, not people going to work on a train?​

The WHO has not shown itself to be particularly competent thus far.

That's purely opinion. Another would be that governments have also not covered themselves in glory either.

 

[Laryk]

These studies will be for healthcare professionals working with patients, not people going to work on a train?

I struggle to see why there should be a significant reason why an ill-fitted mask worn by a healthcare professional in a busy hospital should have substantially more (or less) efficacy than an ill-fitted mask worn by a commuter on a busy train.

That's purely opinion. Another would be that governments have also not covered themselves in glory either.

A debate for another time, perhaps.

 

[bramling]

We've heard that masks are ineffective against catching the virus - not spreading it. That is the difference.

So in other words we’re still at the whim of others, and can’t fully control and mitigate the risk down to as low as reasonably practicable. Knowing how disgusting an element of the population is, how can we guarantee that everyone buys-in to wearing masks for the benefit of others? Sadly I think I know the answer to this one...