Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[yorksrob]

This pandemic has revealed that the UK is absolutely riddled with joyless, judgemental, curtain twitching Victor Meldrew types!

MARK

Victor Meldrew could be quite mischievous when the situation called for it !

 

[Bantamzen]

The lack of mask wearers in Wales, where they are not required, is a good indicator of how much they are disliked by the public at large.

Certainly in my part of the world early adoption of masks out and about barely reached 10%, and has fallen ever since. Clearly there is no appetite here either.

 

[birchesgreen]

Certainly in my part of the world early adoption of masks out and about barely reached 10%, and has fallen ever since. Clearly there is no appetite here either.

Mask wearing is a minority sport in Birmingham too, except on public transport.

 

[Bantamzen]

Mask wearing is a minority sport in Birmingham too, except on public transport.

In all honesty I've barely used it since masks were mandatory, but even on public transport masks are clearly worn reluctantly with lots of rolling eyes made as people board. Away from it now masks are probably worn by less than 1%. And yet the infection numbers still go down, its almost as if not wearing them is not having a negative effect.

 

[AdamWW]

Certainly in my part of the world early adoption of masks out and about barely reached 10%, and has fallen ever since. Clearly there is no appetite here either.

I can report that on a return train journey today, 100% of passengers in the coach I was in on the way in and back were wearing masks.

That's five people in total.

At work we are supposed to wear masks at all times while indoors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Kirklees, Sheffield, and Bradford make for interesting viewing (minor gripe with the presentation on the gov website though - they really shouldn't bring the 7 day average line all the way to the present given the typical time lag between sample date and reporting)

Indeed - there are similarities - but it isn't quite the same, though I must admit I didn't think of those! Leicester seems to have a pronounced later peak, whereas those either have a smaller second peak or just fairly constant. All a concern compared with pretty much everywhere else, though - it might well, as people have said, have to do with places that are primarily white collar (so mostly working from home) vs. places that are primarily blue collar (including the sweatshops) where people have had to return to work in poor circumstances.

I can report that on a return train journey today, 100% of passengers in the coach I was in on the way in and back were wearing masks.

That's five people in total.

At work we are supposed to wear masks at all times while indoors.

I have now taken a train journey, first one since March. When I boarded 100% of the passengers in my coach were wearing one. That's 100% of 1, i.e. me

Later on others boarded and it became a bit more mixed, probably about 50%. But it was quiet enough that 2m distancing could be maintained so that may well be inconsequential.

 

[UP13]

Just saw somebody cycling in the pitch black with no lights on the wrong side of the road while texting on his mobile phone and not wearing a helmet. However I was glad to see that he was wearing a face mask as that shows he understands danger and is willing to take precautions...

 

[bramling]

Indeed - there are similarities - but it isn't quite the same, though I must admit I didn't think of those! Leicester seems to have a pronounced later peak, whereas those either have a smaller second peak or just fairly constant. All a concern compared with pretty much everywhere else, though - it might well, as people have said, have to do with places that are primarily white collar (so mostly working from home) vs. places that are primarily blue collar (including the sweatshops) where people have had to return to work in poor circumstances.



I have now taken a train journey, first one since March. When I boarded 100% of the passengers in my coach were wearing one. That's 100% of 1, i.e. me

Later on others boarded and it became a bit more mixed, probably about 50%. But it was quiet enough that 2m distancing could be maintained so that may well be inconsequential.

The more interesting figure is how many of those who *are* wearing them are not doing things with them that they shouldn’t, like touching them, or moving them down to eat, drink, talk or whatever.

My train home just now had 0% compliance in my carriage, again out of a total of one!

My town seems to be at odds with what others are seeing elsewhere, quite a few wearing masks in the town centre. And I had a “terrified” experience in the alley-way on my way back from the station, a woman quivering at the prospect of having to pass, stopping and pressing herself right up against the wall - and it wasn’t that narrow, probably coming up to 2 metres width. I made the effort to walk to the side, however I’ve stopped saying thank you now when people do that, I’m a bit fed up with the awkwardness of it, especially when I’ve been at work for the day.

 

[anthony263]

The answer here is clearly "you can stay off work if you wish, but to do so you must either use annual leave or take the time as an unpaid sabbatical". I'm sure there are jobless people who would take a temporary role to fill the gap.

Plenty of job losses coming so I'm sure if people don't want to work someone else will do the job

 

[Bantamzen]

Kirklees, Sheffield, and Bradford make for interesting viewing (minor gripe with the presentation on the gov website though - they really shouldn't bring the 7 day average line all the way to the present given the typical time lag between sample date and reporting)

Indeed - there are similarities - but it isn't quite the same, though I must admit I didn't think of those! Leicester seems to have a pronounced later peak, whereas those either have a smaller second peak or just fairly constant. All a concern compared with pretty much everywhere else, though - it might well, as people have said, have to do with places that are primarily white collar (so mostly working from home) vs. places that are primarily blue collar (including the sweatshops) where people have had to return to work in poor circumstances.

I can't speak for Sheffield, but the recent spikes seen in Bradford & Cleckheaton happened around the time of the infection at the Kober Food Factory in Cleckheaton, Kirkless, which is also close to Bradford. So this along with more focused testing will likely be the cause, and it is worth noting that both areas saw drops shortly after & which why both areas did not come under a lockdown, despite the media's attempts to make it sound like they were.

 

[LAX54]

In all honesty I've barely used it since masks were mandatory, but even on public transport masks are clearly worn reluctantly with lots of rolling eyes made as people board. Away from it now masks are probably worn by less than 1%. And yet the infection numbers still go down, its almost as if not wearing them is not having a negative effect.

Are they now not saying that actually the 'public' masks, are really next to useless, and it is more to do with physcology ? also when is someone going to admit that the fall out from this 'lockdown' is gping to be far, far more serious than the virus itself ?

 

[UP13]

From what I've seen people don't wear masks properly. Constantly touching their faces or from what I see most of the time having it around their chin or neck rather than their mouth and nose.

My experience of going to my local shops is that the people without masks socially distanced whereas the people with masks would not socially distance and would lean across you etc. I even heard one person with a mask say "don't worry I'm protected" which I'm pretty sure is not how the masks are supposed to work....

I've seen somebody walk around the shop with his mask on then as soon as he saw somebody he knew he stood right next to them, took his mask off and had a long chat with them while looking them straight in the face...

I've also seen plenty of people with masks pulling their masks down to have cigarettes. I'm pretty sure the cigarette is the most likely thing to affect their lungs and ability to breathe than the virus...

 

[Bantamzen]

Are they now not saying that actually the 'public' masks, are really next to useless, and it is more to do with physcology ? also when is someone going to admit that the fall out from this 'lockdown' is gping to be far, far more serious than the virus itself ?

Right back at the beginning of the pandemic the this was pretty much the WHO's position, i.e. masks in the general community might only offer an at best marginal (and not proven) benefit in reducing the spread. Indeed they went on to say that masks may actual give a negative effect, with a false sense of security meaning that they don't pay as much attention to personal hygiene, something that many more experts say is far more effective. The government's position has remained pretty much the same, despite the mandate to wear masks on public transport.

Even in their guidance on reopening the hospitality sector, this is what the government say:

Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.

www.gov.uk

It is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small, therefore face coverings are not a replacement for the other ways of managing risk, including minimising time spent in contact, using fixed teams and partnering for close-up work, and increasing hand and surface washing. These other measures remain the best ways of managing risk in the workplace and government would therefore not expect to see employers relying on face coverings as risk management for the purpose of their health and safety assessments.

So their position is quite clear, masks are not seen as a significant strategy for limiting spread. I seem to remember that in the run up to enforcing masks on public transport, much of the government's messaging was that masks were there to "reassure" passengers that public transport was safe. Pretty much sums it up for me, and frankly little I have seen since offers any more firm evidence than "well other countries have done it" & that "it won't make it worse".

 

[AdamWW]

From what I've seen people don't wear masks properly. Constantly touching their faces or from what I see most of the time having it around their chin or neck rather than their mouth and nose.

My experience of going to my local shops is that the people without masks socially distanced whereas the people with masks would not socially distance and would lean across you etc. I even heard one person with a mask say "don't worry I'm protected" which I'm pretty sure is not how the masks are supposed to work....

I've seen somebody walk around the shop with his mask on then as soon as he saw somebody he knew he stood right next to them, took his mask off and had a long chat with them while looking them straight in the face...

I've also seen plenty of people with masks pulling their masks down to have cigarettes. I'm pretty sure the cigarette is the most likely thing to affect their lungs and ability to breathe than the virus...

If the idea of masks is to protect others, then I don't see how touching your face with one on is such a big deal. Clearly it's not so good if the aim is to protect yourself.

And if you're wearing a mask to reduce the chance of infecting others, then I don't see it as hypocritical to wear a mask but not give up smoking.

 

[LAX54]

If the idea of masks is to protect others, then I don't see how touching your face with one on is such a big deal. Clearly it's not so good if the aim is to protect yourself.

And if you're wearing a mask to reduce the chance of infecting others, then I don't see it as hypocritical to wear a mask but not give up smoking.

The deal could be, that if you have, so they say touched almost anything else you can think of, then if you then touch your 'mask' you risk inhaling the little nasties ! (more so if the mask is slightly damp)

Of course they are nwo saying that, the simple act of breathing causes minute airbourne germs, which I assume a mask does not not stop.

Not quite sure how you can wear a mask AND smoke

 

[AdamWW]

The deal could be, that if you have, so they say touched almost anything else you can think of, then if you then touch your 'mask' you risk inhaling the little nasties ! (more so if the mask is slightly damp)

Of course they are nwo saying that, the simple act of breathing causes minute airbourne germs, which I assume a mask does not not stop.

Yes absolutely. What's why when wearing a mask for your own protection (e.g. a health worker treating an infected person) then it requires a lot of care.

But so far as I can see, if it's the other way round and the mask is to reduce the impact of someone breathing out virus particles it shouldn't be so important how the mask is handled.

Wearing it just over the mouth, as seems quite popular among security guards, isn't so good though.

 

[LAX54]

Yes absolutely. What's why when wearing a mask for your own protection (e.g. a health worker treating an infected person) then it requires a lot of care.

But so far as I can see, if it's the other way round and the mask is to reduce the impact of someone breathing out virus particles it shouldn't be so important how the mask is handled.

Wearing it just over the mouth, as seems quite popular among security guards, isn't so good though.

Which is why I assume that Nurses /Doctors etc do not wear the 'public' type, which as many have said is for the impression they give protection, which I assume they must, a little bit, but not fully as suggested by the Government

 

[adc82140]

In a healthcare environment, surgical masks are to protect the patient, not the wearer. That's why they are always worn in operating theatres where there are open wounds etc. The only masks to protect the wearer are the respirator types, and these need to be properly fit tested.

 

[AdamWW]

Which is why I assume that Nurses /Doctors etc do not wear the 'public' type, which as many have said is for the impression they give protection, which I assume they must, a little bit, but not fully as suggested by the Government

Something which doesn't seem to be getting much publicity is that wearing a mask with an exhale valve isn't so useful for protecting others if you're infected.

 

[westv]

Something which doesn't seem to be getting much publicity is that wearing a mask with an exhale valve isn't so useful for protecting others if you're infected.

So totally useless then as we keep being told face coverings are to try and protect others not the wearer.

 

[AdamWW]

So totally useless then as we keep being told face coverings are to try and protect others not the wearer.

Exactly.

 

[takno]

If the idea of masks is to protect others, then I don't see how touching your face with one on is such a big deal. Clearly it's not so good if the aim is to protect yourself.

And if you're wearing a mask to reduce the chance of infecting others, then I don't see it as hypocritical to wear a mask but not give up smoking.

If you are infected (you almost certainly aren't, but that's a different point), you breathe into the mask and it catches the droplets containing the virus which would otherwise have fallen harmlessly to the floor. You then fiddle with the silly mask and get the droplets all over your fingers. Then you touch all the precious things in the supermarket, but you put them back instead of buying them because you seem to have lost your appetite for some reason. Now the droplets aren't on the ground out of the way - they are all over the precious things. Same goes for door handles, baskets, the area of the self-checkout screen where the pay button appears

 

[AdamWW]

If you are infected (you almost certainly aren't, but that's a different point), you breathe into the mask and it catches the droplets containing the virus which would otherwise have fallen harmlessly to the floor. You then fiddle with the silly mask and get the droplets all over your fingers. Then you touch all the precious things in the supermarket, but you put them back instead of buying them because you seem to have lost your appetite for some reason. Now the droplets aren't on the ground out of the way - they are all over the precious things. Same goes for door handles, baskets, the area of the self-checkout screen where the pay button appears

That's a very good point.

Things are never simple, are they?

As for the almost certainly not being infected - true, but as we don't know who is, then if masks are a good idea then it only works if we all wear them.

 

[takno]

As for the almost certainly not being infected - true, but as we don't know who is, then if masks are a good idea then it only works if we all wear them.

As with all the measures, you are trying to prevent any spread from becoming exponential by keeping the fabled rate of R below 1. If it's hovering around 1.1, and an intervention was, say, 20% effective at preventing the spread, then actually a 50% uptake would achieve what you need. So in summary, no, even if they were effective you don't need us all to wear them. The legal mandate is only beneficial according to the various analyses because it gives people the confidence to bully other people into wearing masks.

 

[Bikeman78]

If the idea of masks is to protect others, then I don't see how touching your face with one on is such a big deal. Clearly it's not so good if the aim is to protect yourself.

And if you're wearing a mask to reduce the chance of infecting others, then I don't see it as hypocritical to wear a mask but not give up smoking.

Agreed. However, an estimated 78,000 people die from smoking in the UK each year. If the government wants to save lives and cut down the workload for the NHS then banning smoking immediately would be an obvious thing to do. It beats me why anyone does it any more. It was well known in the 1980s how harmful it was.

 

[AdamWW]

As with all the measures, you are trying to prevent any spread from becoming exponential by keeping the fabled rate of R below 1. If it's hovering around 1.1, and an intervention was, say, 20% effective at preventing the spread, then actually a 50% uptake would achieve what you need. So in summary, no, even if they were effective you don't need us all to wear them. The legal mandate is only beneficial according to the various analyses because it gives people the confidence to bully other people into wearing masks.

Well I agree it's all about R, and in particular keeping R<1.

But even if below 1, the lower the better.

And yes there are edge cases where 50% mask usage makes the difference between R<1 and R>1. But since R varies across the UK, we never know what R is and only have a rough idea what it has been over the last week or so, I don't see how that helps.

And none of this has anything to do with what you seemed to suggest, which as that as any individual is almost certainly not infected then there isn't much point in them wearing a mask.

 

[AdamWW]

Agreed. However, an estimated 78,000 people die from smoking in the UK each year. If the government wants to save lives and cut down the workload for the NHS then banning smoking immediately would be an obvious thing to do. It beats me why anyone does it any more. It was well known in the 1980s how harmful it was.

I'd argue that the present approach makes sense. Don't stop people killing themselves if they want to (it's their choice), but make it abundently clear to them what risks they're taking, tax it highly to cover the cost to the NHS, and minimise the impact on others from passive smoking (by banning it indoors in public).

I see a rule requiring face coverings to be worn as equivalent to the indoor smoking ban (protecting others) rather than banning smoking overall (protecting yourself).

(Though even if we thought face coverings were there to protect the user - and were effective - I think I'd still support it as a measure to reduce the spread of coronavirus).

I'm surprised nobody has suggested that we massively ramp up production of N95 masks, have a national campaign to train people how to use them properly and legislate that nobody goes out of their house without one on.

 

[AM9]

So totally useless then as we keep being told face coverings are to try and protect others not the wearer.

That's a splendid piece of conflation, presumably intended to discredit all mask wearing. In post #379, AdamWW said: "Something which doesn't seem to be getting much publicity is that wearing a mask with an exhale valve isn't so useful for protecting others if you're infected." which has been known for some time, i.e. the wearer is directing an unfiltered jet of moist air directly from their throat and lungs stright ahead. It has been mentioned by health experts many times since March but the only webpage that I can easily find that isn't cynically trying to sell them is this:
https://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/2...egorized/masks-with-exhalation-valves-part-2/

N95 Masks with Exhalation Valves, Part 2

By Scott Weese on May 28, 2020
Posted in Uncategorized

I wrote about issues with N95 respirators with exhalation valves the other day, and decided to do a quick demonstration of the concerns.
Exhalation valves on some N95 masks are designed to make it easier to breathe out, because these one-way valves release exhaled air without forcing it through a filter.

• The mask still protects the wearer from breathing things in, but it does very little to prevent an infected person from spreading infectious droplets when they breathe out.
• That’s a big problem when the mask is meant to protect others FROM the wearer, which is why masks are recommended outside of specific healthcare situations in the first place.
• In particular, cloth masks are becoming widely used in these situations, as they’re meant to protect others. They reduce the risk by containing the wearer’s respiratory droplets within the mask.

However, I’ve seen ads for cloth masks with valves (see picture right). That’s a bit like someone marketing an umbrella that is less likely to get caught by the wind because they’ve cut big holes in it. ....

So if the wearer sneezes or coughs, that jet could extend many metres, and certainly way past 2 (let alone 1 metre) metres!

The article goes on to describe some simple tests that show how a simple surgical mask reduces the probability of exhaled where the expensive N95 (US equivalent of FFP3) with a valve is useless. There are also the 'fashionable' black fabric masks with the offset exhaust vent that are being actively marketed for those who don't know (or don't care) about the dangers of inappropriate protection. Maybe you should learn of the subtleties of different mask types rather than posting inaccurate statement online.

 

[Nicholas43]

Er, returning to the thread title, I'm wondering how scared I should be, specifically of travelling on the currently lightly loaded 165/6 turbos from my local station (Radley). Is anything known, or reasonably supposed, about whether the ventilation system either filters out, or recirculates, the virions which may be present in the air?

 

[yorksrob]

I'm surprised nobody has suggested that we massively ramp up production of N95 masks, have a national campaign to train people how to use them properly and legislate that nobody goes out of their house without one on.

I don't think we should be encouraging people to wear masks in non-crowded, outdoor settings where they're not likely to make any difference. It is muddying the message that they should be worn in particular indoor settings, or outdoor gatherings where keeping a distance is likely to be difficult.