UK face coverings discussion

[adc82140]

The assumption that masks are a substitute for distancing is disturbing. This is what is driving up the infections in Europe. Is it any coincidence that Catalonia, which mandates masks everywhere but thought it was OK to reopen nightclubs etc. is now having a resurgence.

 

[Bantamzen]

They could wear visors, which are much less uncomfortable. Or even better they could maintain full 2m distancing and close the store while shelves are stacked.

Must....resist.....temptation....to....ask..... uuuuggghhhhh….

Oh sod it! Righty ho then, how would you facilitate shutting the store mid-business day (potentially many times depending on opening hours) for re-stocking?

Can't wait for this one!

 

[A Challenge]

The assumption that masks are a substitute for distancing is disturbing. This is what is driving up the infections in Europe. Is it any coincidence that Catalonia, which mandates masks everywhere but thought it was OK to reopen nightclubs etc. is now having a resurgence.

This was one of the reasons why masks were said to do more harm than good, in fact (along with touching them, on which note I saw someone yesterday holding their mask over their face, not even somewhere where masks were needed).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The assumption that masks are a substitute for distancing is disturbing. This is what is driving up the infections in Europe. Is it any coincidence that Catalonia, which mandates masks everywhere but thought it was OK to reopen nightclubs etc. is now having a resurgence.

I agree. However, the fix for that is not avoiding masks, but reinforcing that they are an additional measure.

 

[adc82140]

Trouble is that masks were introduced as one of the possible mitigations where distancing isn't possible. In pubs the mitigation is track and trace. The message has been muddied to be interpreted as it's OK not to distance if you're wearing a mask, which is incorrect. Once again, government messaging is utterly shoddy, and that's not just limited to the UK

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Problem is the government don’t share this view, and they view masks as an “additional mitigation”, meaning it should be done alongside distancing to lower the risk of transmission further.

Out of curiosity, if people had a choice between having to distance with no masks, and mandated masks everywhere but no distancing, which path would you prefer we took?

As I've said before I think neither masks nor social distancing are necessary any more now the virus is dying out in the UK but if I had to pick a restriction to keep it would be 1 metre social distancing. 1 metre is pretty much natural, anyone passing closer to you than that would feel like they were invading your personal space.

 

[Smidster]

As I've said before I think neither masks nor social distancing are necessary any more now the virus is dying out in the UK but if I had to pick a restriction to keep it would be 1 metre social distancing. 1 metre is pretty much natural, anyone passing closer to you than that would feel like they were invading your personal space.

On what basis are you making the statement "the virus is dying out in the UK"?

That is just not the case - The number of cases today (846) was the highest since June 28th and the 7-day rolling average has been slowly increasing for the last couple of weeks.

The restrictions have helped to keep the numbers in check so it is to be expected that as things are relaxed cases go up again (as you have more people meeting each other)

Stopping all restrictions would be the surest way to another national lockdown - and in a very short space of time.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

On what basis are you making the statement "the virus is dying out in the UK"?

That is just not the case - The number of cases today (846) was the highest since June 28th and the 7-day rolling average has been slowly increasing for the last couple of weeks.

The restrictions have helped to keep the numbers in check so it is to be expected that as things are relaxed cases go up again (as you have more people meeting each other)

Stopping all restrictions would be the surest way to another national lockdown - and in a very short space of time.

I think the actual daily infections rate of late has been between 600 and 800 but I would argue that new infections aren't really that important any more. People don't fear catching coronavirus, they fear dying from it, so the fact the death rate is now down to less than a hundred a day should be a much better guide as how the pandemic is fading. Don't forget on average 1,500 people die in the UK every day, virus or no virus.

Now we have better medication to treat both the intensity and length of the virus it doesn't seem anywhere near as scary as back in March when we knew so little about it. You could even argue that most people would willingly accept catching the virus if feeling a bit sniffily for a couple if weeks means they may well became immune from catching it again

 

[jtuk]

On what basis are you making the statement "the virus is dying out in the UK"?

That is just not the case - The number of cases today (846) was the highest since June 28th and the 7-day rolling average has been slowly increasing for the last couple of weeks.

Which is fine. Having more cases amongst the healthy when we have record levels of NHS resources should any of it spread to the sick should be the top priority right now.

 

[AdamWW]

I think the actual daily infections rate of late has been between 600 and 800 but I would argue that new infections aren't really that important any more. People don't fear catching coronavirus, they fear dying from it, so the fact the death rate is now down to less than a hundred a day should be a much better guide as how the pandemic is fading. Don't forget on average 1,500 people die in the UK every day, virus or no virus.

Now we have better medication to treat both the intensity and length of the virus it doesn't seem anywhere near as scary as back in March when we knew so little about it. You could even argue that most people would willingly accept catching the virus if feeling a bit sniffily for a couple if weeks means they may well became immune from catching it again

Well, here's my view on that.

The death rate is a very bad guide as it lags infection rates.

New infections are incredibly important, because if the number starts to rise and exponential growth kicks off again, in due course the death rates will start to rise rapidly...but by the time you've seen that it's a bit late to take action.

And we really aren't at the stage where we know so much about how to treat it that nobody should fear getting it.

 

[adc82140]

But the hospital admissions don't lag as much as the death rate, and they are falling too. Not one person was admitted today in the whole of the South West, for example. If we err on the long side, a hospital admission will follow about 3 weeks after infection in serious cases. We are over 3 weeks since pubs reopened etc. Track and trace will pick up many more minor or asymptomatic cases than before. Back in June you only went to get tested if you were unwell. That's why the daily infection rate has flatlined. In addition, we are testing pisitive in less than 1% of cases. The WHO consider things to be under control if less than 5% come back positive.

 

[Richard Scott]

Well, here's my view on that.

The death rate is a very bad guide as it lags infection rates.

New infections are incredibly important, because if the number starts to rise and exponential growth kicks off again, in due course the death rates will start to rise rapidly...but by the time you've seen that it's a bit late to take action.

And we really aren't at the stage where we know so much about how to treat it that nobody should fear getting it.

But the death rate possibly won't rise especially as most of the people getting it are younger, which is likely to be the case. Most older people are wary so many still not letting younger relatives getting close so reducing risk to themselves. I know this is quite a generalised view but doubt we'll see the deaths we did earlier in the year.

 

[AdamWW]

But the hospital admissions don't lag as much as the death rate, and they are falling too. Not one person was admitted today in the whole of the South West, for example. If we err on the long side, a hospital admission will follow about 3 weeks after infection in serious cases. We are over 3 weeks since pubs reopened etc. Track and trace will pick up many more minor or asymptomatic cases than before. Back in June you only went to get tested if you were unwell. That's why the daily infection rate has flatlined. In addition, we are testing pisitive in less than 1% of cases. The WHO consider things to be under control if less than 5% come back positive.

Yes that's why you don't look at the overall figures for positive tests across the UK, you use the results from the ONS random sampling survey, which show that as things have started to open up infection levels have stopped falling. This has nothing to do with changes in who can get a test.

Yes I think we have things under good control now on the whole. But that's not the same as saying that they couldn't spiral out of control quite fast though if we dropped all the restrictions.

We can see from other countries that just a few cases can spread very quickly if given the chance.

But the death rate possibly won't rise especially as most of the people getting it are younger, which is likely to be the case. Most older people are wary so many still not letting younger relatives getting close so reducing risk to themselves. I know this is quite a generalised view but doubt we'll see the deaths we did earlier in the year.

I do not think the country is set up to shield the vulnerable well enough to cope if we let infections spiral out of control again.

 

[furlong]

I thought there was a view which says visits are ineffective? Certainly I can see how this might be likely due to the rather large gap at the bottom.

First the question is not about trained medics using PPE according to proper guidelines. It's about how the general population uses the things. A visor handled incorrectly might be much worse than a mask handled incorrectly as there's a much bigger surface area designed to catch bad things and transmit them on when handled. Nobody knows.

"If I can pretend your mask works then you can pretend I'm wearing one."

 

[Richard Scott]

I do not think the country is set up to shield the vulnerable well enough to cope if we let infections spiral out of control again.
[/QUOTE]
To be honest it's not that hard, people either keep their distance or don't visit them. Why do we need to put everybody into lockdown or whatever solution is. I'm afraid it's time people started to look after themselves rather than expecting all of us to undertake the same measures. It's killing the county and economy more than people!

 

[Cowley]

Sneezing whilst wearing a mask was very odd experience I have to say. Firstly because I had to fight the automatic response of sneezing into my elbow but then the sensation of a sudden blast of air into the mask compared with a normal exhalation was quite odd in and of itself!

Just on that (and I know I’m hours late replying). I sometimes have to use a mask for work, and a few weeks ago I’d skimmed a whole room with filler and had to sand it back with a power sander. So I taped up all the doors, fitted the mask, taped around the mask onto my face with masking tape so there were no gaps, donned some goggles and set to it.
It took me two hours to get it all done and I couldn’t see more than a metre in front of me with the amount of dust in the air even with the front room window open.
And then it happened...

It started off with a slight tickle in the nose which I tried stave off but it built up more and more until eventually I exploded into an enormous round of sneezing with the pressure bursting the tape, my eyes nearly popping out of my head, and me clambering out of the window looking like the ghost of snotmas past.
It was an absolute horror show...

I was in a shop wearing a mask the other day and I felt a sneeze coming on and thankfully I managed to avoid it by doing the tongue on the roof of the mouth thing which seems to work for me, actually I think I read about that on here (wish I’d known about it when I was sanding that room though).
I’ve been finding the urge to touch my face in the shops really difficult to ignore though I must say. I’m getting a bit better now but it hasn’t been easy.
Maybe I’ve been traumatised after the sneezing experience.

 

[ainsworth74]

It started off with a slight tickle in the nose which I tried stave off but it built up more and more until eventually I exploded into an enormous round of sneezing with the pressure bursting the tape, my eyes nearly popping out of my head, and me clambering out of the window looking like the ghost of snotmas past.
It was an absolute horror show...

I tried not to laugh I swear....

 

[Cowley]

I tried not to laugh I swear....

I tried not to swear!

 

[AdamWW]

To be honest it's not that hard, people either keep their distance or don't visit them. Why do we need to put everybody into lockdown or whatever solution is. I'm afraid it's time people started to look after themselves rather than expecting all of us to undertake the same measures. It's killing the county and economy more than people!

I think actually it is that hard.

Especially for people in care homes or hospital, or who need home care.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think actually it is that hard.

Especially for people in care homes or hospital, or who need home care.

Then we devise a way to deal with that not hammer everyone.

 

[trainophile]

Wearing a mask in today’s hot weather is next to impossible, presumably unless your train has aircon which the Northern I’m only doesn’t. Every window open and I can still hardly breathe.

I am sure this will be the case for the vast majority of people. Given that we are told the virus doesn’t like heat, perhaps they could cut us a little slack on the mask front when the temperature is in the 70s and 80s.

 

[WelshBluebird]

To be honest it's not that hard, people either keep their distance or don't visit them

And what about when they have to go to work?

We currently don't even have protections for those who have to self isolate because they have had symptoms or have been in contact with someone who has.
We certainly don't have any protections for those vulnerable enough to have to shield themselves.

What you are suggesting is that we force people to choose between their health and their income. I'd say that is pretty hard actually.

(ps - I was asked to not participate in threads in this section of the forum but I can't let this go - if that means I get a ban or whatever - fine).

 

[Richard Scott]

And what about when they have to go to work?

We currently don't even have protections for those who have to self isolate because they have had symptoms or have been in contact with someone who has.
We certainly don't have any protections for those vulnerable enough to have to shield themselves.

What you are suggesting is that we force people to choose between their health and their income. I'd say that is pretty hard actually.

(ps - I was asked to not participate in threads in this section of the forum but I can't let this go - if that means I get a ban or whatever - fine).

So we all have to suffer then? I didn't say anything about those shielding. Why not let those of us who are happy to carry on, we can at least keep economy going so those who have to shield can. This blanket restrictions on everyone benefits no-one.

 

[yorksrob]

I notice that the French have just given their local authorities the power to mandate masks outdoors.

Whilst I generally get by with them as a precautionary measure indoors where social distancing is difficult to maintain, the idea of mandating them outdoors seems akin to running around like a headless chicken.

 

[Journeyman]

I notice that the French have just given their local authorities the power to mandate masks outdoors.

Whilst I generally get by with them as a precautionary measure indoors where social distancing is difficult to maintain, the idea of mandating them outdoors seems akin to running around like a headless chicken.

I hope that doesn't give Nicola Sturgeon ideas. I've gone along with it in shops and public transport, mainly because I want a quiet life and don't want to cause any grief, but if an attempt is made to mandate masks outdoors, I would break the law without any qualms whatsoever.

 

[yorksrob]

I hope that doesn't give Nicola Sturgeon ideas. I've gone along with it in shops and public transport, mainly because I want a quiet life and don't want to cause any grief, but if an attempt is made to mandate masks outdoors, I would break the law without any qualms whatsoever.

I think it's beyond what the public will tolerate, personally.

 

[adc82140]

To be fair the French are only considering this for crowded outdoor areas like markets.

 

[westv]

To be fair the French are only considering this for crowded outdoor areas like markets.

In Spain it's everywhere. Don't be surprised if our leaders decide it's a "good" idea too.

 

[bramling]

I notice that the French have just given their local authorities the power to mandate masks outdoors.

Whilst I generally get by with them as a precautionary measure indoors where social distancing is difficult to maintain, the idea of mandating them outdoors seems akin to running around like a headless chicken.

Any mandating of masks outdoors will lead to serious civil disobedience, as well as cohesion issues. For many it will be the final straw.

 

[Yew]

What you are suggesting is that we force people to choose between their health and their income.

Whilst I can't speak for the OP, I'd suggest that we should have proper income protections for those who can't work due to vulnerability, shielding or self-isolation. Given the scale of the furlough scheme, it doesn't seem unreasonable.