UK face coverings discussion

[43066]

I would agree that the present level of measures (possibly slightly stricter so schools can reopen) will be with us until a vaccine, masks included. To me the only viable alternative is that we lock down fully again for maybe a month to bring cases right down, then close our borders and wait it out that way. Either way, there is no viable exit strategy that could remove all measures but wouldn't involve many deaths.

Well if this is as good as it’s going to get until a vaccine (which might be months or years away, and may not be totally effective if and when it does arrive) then perhaps we need to bite the bullet and face up to more deaths from Covid.

At least if we open back up we can maintain a functioning economy to pay for the health service etc. - and it’s clear that the lockdown is also causing premature deaths.

No easy answers; but the current situation is clearly unsustainable (I appreciate this is now drifting off topic).

 

[DB]

I'm not clear why the setting matters, as dissemination of virus through the mask doesn't change based on whether you happen to be standing in a hospital or a shop.

Because the types of mask used (e.g.no old T shirts in a medical setting), the hygiene regime, disposal of masks (no reuse of disposable ones), correct wearing of masks, not fiddling with them, prevalence of both actual pathogens and people particularly susceptible to them, and close contact are all completely different!

If you're really 'not clear' about this you clearly haven't thought it through!

 

[AdamWW]

Well if this is as good as it’s going to get until a vaccine (which might be months or years away, and may not be totally effective if and when it does) then perhaps we need to bite the bullet and face up to more deaths from Covid.

At least if we open back up we can maintain a functioning economy to pay for the health service etc. - and it’s clear that the lockdown is also causing premature deaths.

No easy answers; but the current situation is clearly unsustainable (I appreciate this is now drifting off topic).

No easy answers, but I think it unlikely that the economy would not be severely affected if we just let coronavirus rip.

 

[AdamWW]

Because the types of mask used (e.g.no old T shirts in a medical setting), the hygiene regime, disposal of masks (no reuse of disposable ones), correct wearing of masks, not fiddling with them, prevalence of both actual pathogens and people particularly susceptible to them, and close contact are all completely different!

If you're really 'not clear' about this you clearly haven't thought it through!

Which is of course the partly the point of the report I referred to earlier - while they looked at studies in a health care environment, they were specifically looking at the effect of different materials.

 

[Richard Scott]

No easy answers, but I think it unlikely that the economy would not be severely affected if we just let coronavirus rip.

But likely less so than it is now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No easy answers, but I think it unlikely that the economy would not be severely affected if we just let coronavirus rip.

If we did, I would say a lot of people would voluntarily shield - and they would be the vulnerable who could ill afford to do so.

But likely less so than it is now.

I doubt it.

 

[MikeWM]

It seems you would like to take the chance, but through fear, you won’t.
I refuse to bow to these unjust pressures thrust upon us and will stand up for what I believe in. And it isn’t the debacle of a flimsy mask “law”.

I see there was a discussion yesterday about altruism. In my opinion, there's nothing altruistic about doing something legally mandated.

On the one hand, we have something *mandated* that possibly does more harm than good, and any good it may do is utterly negligable, especially at the current rates of community infection.

On the other, we have people who no longer feel they can operate in society, subject to vigilante action, etc.

Given those facts, in my opinion the true altruism in this case is for those who feel able to stand up for themselves to do so, in order to offer support and solidarity to those who don't feel so confident. You're making life potentially a little more difficult for yourself, but for what I believe is the greater good.

 

[AdamWW]

If we did, I would say a lot of people would voluntarily shield - and they would be the vulnerable who could ill afford to do so.

Quite so - it would put a lot of people in a very difficult situation - risk your life or financial ruin.

Now if the government could accurately work out the risk for everyone and paid everyone with a high enough risk to shield, and we really could actually shield them sufficiently well, maybe you could pull it off.

Someone would have to decide at what risk level to expect people to still be out and about and earning a living with a very high chance of becoming infected.

 

[43066]

No easy answers, but I think it unlikely that the economy would not be severely affected if we just let coronavirus rip.

The economy is going to be affected whatever happens, and I wouldn’t advocate for “letting it rip” - but allowing exponential spread through the healthy population is going to have to be the end game, absent complete elimination or a vaccine.

At the moment even a modest uptick in infections prompts the government to threaten yet more lockdowns

If we did, I would say a lot of people would voluntarily shield - and they would be the vulnerable who could ill afford to do so.

I’d be in favour of replacing the current furlough scheme with a proper government backed shielding arrangement for those who are generally medically vulnerable. Not those who are a bit chubby, have mild asthma etc but those who have had organ transplants (hence on immunosuppressants), cancer patients, those in care homes etc.

That will be a much smaller sub-group of those who have been shielding up to now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite so - it would put a lot of people in a very difficult situation - risk your life or financial ruin.

Now if the government could accurately work out the risk for everyone and paid everyone with a high enough risk to shield, and we really could actually shield them sufficiently well, maybe you could pull it off.

Someone would have to decide at what risk level to expect people to still be out and about and earning a living with a very high chance of becoming infected.

It does sound a bit like that is at least being looked at.

 

[birchesgreen]

It seems you would like to take the chance, but through fear, you won’t.

Fear is a bit strong, more like simple pragmatism. I find wearing a mask annoying, i think its pointless too. However its not a game changer for me. If wearing one avoids hassle from rent a thugs in hi-viz and "have a go" drongos (plus the chance, slim perhaps, of legal penalty) then i'll wear one. Other people will have stronger feelings one way or the other about this and that is their prerogative.

 

[AdamWW]

It does sound a bit like that is at least being looked at.

Yes perhaps. The financial side would be key - many people aren't going to be able to survive on SSP or Universal Credit.

The economy is going to be affected whatever happens, and I wouldn’t advocate for “letting it rip” - but allowing exponential spread through the healthy population is going to have to be the end game, absent complete elimination or a vaccine.

At the moment even a modest uptick in infections prompts the government to threaten yet more lockdowns

I’d be in favour of replacing the current furlough scheme with a proper government backed shielding arrangement for those who are generally medically vulnerable. Not those who are a bit chubby, have mild asthma etc but those who have had organ transplants (hence on immunosuppressants), cancer patients, those in care homes etc.

That will be a much smaller sub-group of those who have been shielding up to now.

If you want to let coronavirus start to spread through the population, I think you'll need to shield more, rather than less.

The problem is - and I imagine this is why the government is being cautious - is that exponential growth means that once things start to move they get fast quite quickly.

So if you can set your restrictions so that every day you have 10% more infections, that becomes a much larger fraction of the popuation infected every day really quite quickly.

 

[trebor79]

I can understand why people would comply simply to avoid hassle - it’s understandable and I wouldn’t criticise people for doing that.

I will, to a point, comply in shops simply as I recognise the whole thing has been and is very difficult for staff, but equally that grudging compliance comes with a cost that I am very much minimising shop visits. The worst thing about that is it’s the discretionary places which *need* the business, not places like the supermarkets.

Public transport is, however, a different ball game. I *might* just consider putting a mask on should I find myself on a busy train, as that *might* just tip the balance in favour, however that’s the only time.

My overriding view is that every time a mask is put on is increasing the possibility of the Jenny Harries “more harm than good” risks.

I agree with you, particularly the last sentence. But to my mind, that means that a busy train is even more reason *not* to wear a mask - you're putting more people at risk/exposing yourself to more risk.

 

[DB]

Which is of course the partly the point of the report I referred to earlier - while they looked at studies in a health care environment, they were specifically looking at the effect of different materials.

But there are far more variables than that - it certainly doesn't come anywhere close to proving the point.

 

[AdamWW]

But there are far more variables than that - it certainly doesn't come anywhere close to proving the point.

I wouldn't claim that it does.

 

[Richard Scott]

If you want to let coronavirus start to spread through the population, I think you'll need to shield more, rather than less.

The problem is - and I imagine this is why the government is being cautious - is that exponential growth means that once things start to move they get fast quite quickly.

So if you can set your restrictions so that every day you have 10% more infections, that becomes a much larger fraction of the popuation infected every day really quite quickly.

This is what some of us have been on about for ages. Shield those who must, let virus go and then get back to normal. All the messing about it just delaying this. I'm perfectly aware of what exponential growth is and it'll also mean exponential decay once it peaks. At the end of the day most of us have to have it so let's just get it out of the way. If someone comes along with a vaccine then great but I cannot keep living like this and sure many others can't either. If this carries on much longer some of us with be a mental health statistic, something all the take it steady brigade are completely ignoring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this carries on much longer some of us with be a mental health statistic, something all the take it steady brigade are completely ignoring.

If lockdown continued, yes. But I don't see the present measures should really be causing this, and maybe we should look at specific issues (e.g. masks, per the thread) and how we deal properly with exemptions to help resolve this.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Hopefully not an N95 with a front valve?

Best COVID-19 Face Masks

N95s and KN95s masks, called respirators, are the gold standard for blocking out viruses. We’ve rounded up the 10 best masks.

www.healthline.com

Are they valved as many are? If so, you're protecting you but not others from you.

No. My N95 masks don't have valves.

As for @talldave , you are entitled to your opinion but you can't really use the word "sheep" as it can be offensive to law-abiding people like myself.

And masks do work generally. If you look at Italy, for example, new Coronavirus cases are just about 100-300 a day thanks to people all wearing masks whenever they need to do. The UK's new coronavirus cases per day are also going down to about 100-300 a day, again thanks to people wearing masks. And in Eastern Asia, places like Japan and South Korea never needed to go into lockdown thanks to people wearing masks. So this is evidence to say that masks SHOULD be worn if we want to try and reduce this virus to a bad winter flu.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The UK's new coronavirus cases per day are also going down to about 100-300 a day, again thanks to people wearing masks.

Er, where are you getting that from? Cases are slowly increasing, roughly on a linear basis, and are far more than 100-300 per day:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

 

[Richard Scott]

If lockdown continued, yes. But I don't see the present measures should really be causing this, and maybe we should look at specific issues (e.g. masks, per the thread) and how we deal properly with exemptions to help resolve this.

Well I'm telling you the present measures are causing issues, I should know as they are causing me issues. I bet I'm not the only one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well I'm telling you the present measures are causing issues, I should know as they are causing me issues. I bet I'm not the only one.

I don't disagree that there are, and we may need to provide targetted help with peoples' mental health. But you can be sure that mental health would be far more badly affected by just "letting it fly". For instance, it would affect my mental health very badly if my parents were seriously ill and might die before their time - indeed, I can think of very little else that would affect my mental health more.

 

[Richard Scott]

No. My N95 masks don't have valves.

As for @talldave , you are entitled to your opinion but you can't really use the word "sheep" as it can be offensive to law-abiding people like myself.

And masks do work generally. If you look at Italy, for example, new Coronavirus cases are just about 100-300 a day thanks to people all wearing masks whenever they need to do. The UK's new coronavirus cases per day are also going down to about 100-300 a day, again thanks to people wearing masks. And in Eastern Asia, places like Japan and South Korea never needed to go into lockdown thanks to people wearing masks. So this is evidence to say that masks SHOULD be worn if we want to try and reduce this virus to a bad winter flu.

So they're doing nothing else bar wearing masks then? If that's the only measure being taken then scientifically I have to agree with you, if not then afraid not a scientifically valid comment.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't disagree that there are, and we may need to provide targetted help with peoples' mental health. But you can be sure that mental health would be far more badly affected by just "letting it fly". For instance, it would affect my mental health very badly if my parents were seriously ill and might die before their time - indeed, I can think of very little else that would affect my mental health more.

Ok, sorry, my mental health at the moment obviously doesn't count.

 

[43066]

The problem is - and I imagine this is why the government is being cautious - is that exponential growth means that once things start to move they get fast quite quickly.

So if you can set your restrictions so that every day you have 10% more infections, that becomes a much larger fraction of the popuation infected every day really quite quickly.

I do get the point about exponential growth in cases.

Has “exponential spread amongst the non shielding population” actually been modelled as a scenario? It’s hospital admissions/deaths that are the key worry, rather then infection rates (since these are the cases that threaten to overwhelm the NHS).

I’d be interested to know how the excess deaths figure for that scenario compares to excess deaths from the ongoing lockdown/restrictions short of lockdown. The Telegraph reported last month that 200,000 deaths due to lockdown have been forecast by the government.

The reality is that by imposing draconian measures to halt Corona, we are actively choosing to accept many (perhaps more) deaths from other causes.

 

[AdamWW]

If lockdown continued, yes. But I don't see the present measures should really be causing this, and maybe we should look at specific issues (e.g. masks, per the thread) and how we deal properly with exemptions to help resolve this.

As a more general (and perhaps off-topic) post, continuing "as we are" (i.e. trying to prevent infections from rising) shouldn't mean that we keep everything the same. We will be able to learn more about what interventions actually help and what don't, and target them accordingly.

As for masks....the evidence for them seems to be at best weak.
If we were considering a new medical treatment, even with a much greater belief that it would be a good thing and a desire to save lives with it, we'd be doing a randomised trial, surely? So that we know it works and we save more lives in the long term.

OK it's harder for masks - you can't do a double blind trial or keep everything else the same.

You could argue that unlike a medical treatment masks can't do any harm - but it's not clear to me that with the risk of people fiddling with them etc. that's true.

So maybe we should be doing a trial, even if it's as crude as one week on, one week off, and see if that modulates infection figures. I have no idea how you could sell that to the population though! I'd buy it but I think it would be difficult.

 

[Jonny]

That seems to be the theory (and the official message being given out), but in reality it appears that the masks make people feel 'safe' so they don't bother with the distancing so much (or at all).

Which rather undermines the point of wearing a mask.

Also, Hawaii has had a mask mandate since their first wave in May and has had a second:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/hawaii/ for the most recent data.

In effect, yes. You can “self certify” yourself as exempt and remain fully compliant with the law.

If a police officer asks you where you aren’t wearing a covering, and you state you’re exempt, where can they go from there?

They can’t ask you for “proof” - one of the exemptions is that wearing a covering would cause you “extreme distress” - which is entirely subjective. The government’s own guidance also states that there’s no requirement to obtain medical advice, or written evidence of an exemption, from a medical professional.

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Face coverings: when to wear one, exemptions and what makes a good one

www.gov.uk

The only way you would be fined is if you’re challenged by the police for not wearing covering where required and you admit that you have no valid reason for failing to do so.

Perhaps it should have read "should be fined". Maybe would is the correct word if it is a Police Constable doing their job properly, but I'm not sure I would trust a TfL Enforcement Officer as they are on the payroll of an organisation that is also going to keep the penalty charge. Also, you do have the occasional Police bod (could be a PCSO) who has missed the briefing or is "trying it on" to bump the statistics up.

 

[MikeWM]

No. My N95 masks don't have valves.

As for @talldave , you are entitled to your opinion but you can't really use the word "sheep" as it can be offensive to law-abiding people like myself.

And masks do work generally. If you look at Italy, for example, new Coronavirus cases are just about 100-300 a day thanks to people all wearing masks whenever they need to do. The UK's new coronavirus cases per day are also going down to about 100-300 a day, again thanks to people wearing masks. And in Eastern Asia, places like Japan and South Korea never needed to go into lockdown thanks to people wearing masks. So this is evidence to say that masks SHOULD be worn if we want to try and reduce this virus to a bad winter flu.

You're implying correlation implies causation - and cherrypicking the data to fit. I could just as easily point to Argentina, Peru, Spain, California, and many others as examples of where masks have been mandated for some time and cases are increasing. In the UK new cases stopped decreasing and actually have increased slightly since masks became more widespread. (I suspect there are other reasons for all of those facts, for what it is worth - I think the impact of masks on the asymptomatic is totally negligible).

Plus have you seen the case figures for Japan the last few weeks? They're zooming up.

It's really not that simple.

 

[island]

And masks do work generally. If you look at Italy, for example, new Coronavirus cases are just about 100-300 a day thanks to people all wearing masks whenever they need to do. The UK's new coronavirus cases per day are also going down to about 100-300 a day, again thanks to people wearing masks. And in Eastern Asia, places like Japan and South Korea never needed to go into lockdown thanks to people wearing masks. So this is evidence to say that masks SHOULD be worn if we want to try and reduce this virus to a bad winter flu.

Please can you elaborate on the basis for your claim that there is causation and not merely correlation between mask requirements and new Covid19 cases.

 

[AdamWW]

Has “exponential spread amongst the non shielding population” actually been modelled as a scenario? It’s hospital admissions/deaths that are the key worry, rather then infection rates (since these are the cases that threaten to overwhelm the NHS).

I’d be interested to know how the excess deaths figure for that scenario compares to excess deaths from the ongoing lockdown/restrictions short of lockdown. The Telegraph reported last month that 200,000 deaths due to lockdown have been forecast by the government.

The reality is that by imposing draconian measures to halt Corona, we are actively choosing to accept many (perhaps more) deaths from other causes.

I don't know and I think it would be an excellent thing to model - for various definitions of who needs to shield.

In terms of the health service surviving, absolutely - you'd need to use figures for probability of hospitalisation for a given age and health conditions. As for deaths, in terms of the health system coping, someone who expires after 2 days is much less of an impact than someone who needs critical care for a month and then survives...

And absolutely you ought to try to look at the excess deaths in the round.

I think though a lot of people are looking at excess deaths caused by coronavirus and associating it all with the lockdown. While some is no doubt due to having reconfigured hospitals to cope with expected covid cases, I think a lot is also due to the need to reconfigure hospitals so that people coming in for non-Covid reasons aren't actually bringing coronavirus in and infecting people, or picking it up there.

And you have to consider the impact on hospitals of all the likely Covid cases without a lockdown.

But we seem to have deviated from masks again so I had better stop here.

 

[AdamWW]

You're implying correlation implies causation - and cherrypicking the data to fit. I could just as easily point to Argentina, Peru, Spain, California, and many others as examples of where masks have been mandated for some time and cases are increasing. In the UK new cases stopped decreasing and actually have increased slightly since masks became more widespread. (I suspect there are other reasons for all of those facts, for what it is worth).

Plus have you seen the case figures for Japan the last few weeks? They're zooming up.

It's really not that simple.

And actually the calculated number of infections in the UK is a lot more than 100 - 300. I wish it was.