• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
The sense I meant to convey was "a beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment". In most circumstances this is what I think the public wearing masks would achieve, i.e. a belief that they are doing some good, despite that they have no effect.
Well that's your opinion and you have a right to it of course. Have you watched the NHK video on microdroplets I posted above yet?
Here's another using the high sensitivity camera technique that shows a clear difference with and without a mask:
Just how effective are masks in preventing the coronavirus from spreading? An NHK experiment shows how they hold up.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
You're correct it is. But given a choice between compulsorily wearing a face covering and not being allowed to travel, I would choose compulsory face masks.

Personally I'd rather we didn't have to in the first place. I remember a time when someone deliberately covering their faces in public was either a sign of a religious doctrine, or someone up to no good. If a compulsory mask requirement is enforced in this country, I wonder how long it will take for the criminal element to take advantage, and for innocent people be even more concerned every time they step outside their door?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Personally I'd rather we didn't have to in the first place. I remember a time when someone deliberately covering their faces in public was either a sign of a religious doctrine, or someone up to no good. If a compulsory mask requirement is enforced in this country, I wonder how long it will take for the criminal element to take advantage, and for innocent people be even more concerned every time they step outside their door?

I guess it depends on what the public are more afraid of !
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,202
Have there been any surveys of percentages of people sneezing into tissue/sleeve/hand/air since CV19 came to the fore?
 

RichT54

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2018
Messages
420
I was surprised when visiting M&S earlier this morning there was only one customer wearing a mask, in marked contrast to the numbers at the same time last week. Made me wonder if some of the people that had managed to obtain masks had now run out?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I think if pushed, a knife wielding mugger will always be of more concern to most. You've a solid chance of surviving the virus, one knife and it can be game over very quickly.

True, but you could get a knife wielder without a mask !

Personally I'm not arguing either way, I'll abide by the national decision.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Well that's your opinion and you have a right to it of course. Have you watched the NHK video on microdroplets I posted above yet?
Here's another using the high sensitivity camera technique that shows a clear difference with and without a mask:
I know what they're going to say, so there's little point.

You are missing why many of us are unconvinced. For most of us, if you follow the rules on lockdown/social distance then your chances if catching it are minimal. Ergo the chances of passing it on are even more minimal. Therefore what's the point of wearing a mask?
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
I know what they're going to say, so there's little point.

You are missing why many of us are unconvinced. For most of us, if you follow the rules on lockdown/social distance then your chances if catching it are minimal. Ergo the chances of passing it on are even more minimal. Therefore what's the point of wearing a mask?
Maybe that's entirely true during the current lockdown with only household members routinely spending any significant time together, but that cannot last forever and, as measures are relaxed as they will be inevitably, and people will perhaps become less vigilant anyway through coming weeks or months, use of masks could be a useful measure to retain a valuable level of protection. I still commend you to watch the first, longer NHK video, in particular, to see how far microdroplets can travel and how long they can remain in still air within an enclosed environment.
 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
I was surprised when visiting M&S earlier this morning there was only one customer wearing a mask, in marked contrast to the numbers at the same time last week. Made me wonder if some of the people that had managed to obtain masks had now run out?

I just went to the supermarket, there were at least 150 people in the queue, and probably the same again inside. Didn't see a single mask, but a few of the staff were wearing full face shields. I suspect that you're right that people will have run out, or alternatively they are saving them for when they hope to go back to work?
 

Pete_uk

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2017
Messages
1,250
Location
Stroud, Glos
Would drivers be better off wearing thin cotton gloves to keep their skin off the cab controls? Some drivers used to drive with a old oily looking rag..?
 

Vespa

Established Member
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
1,576
Location
Merseyside
I have an GVS FP3 rated mask rubber with replaceable filters, brought before all this kicked off, originally for jobs round the house.
I suppose it would work in my rare ventures out of the house into a risky environment.
It may not be 100%, it's better than nothing.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,800
I know what they're going to say, so there's little point.

You are missing why many of us are unconvinced. For most of us, if you follow the rules on lockdown/social distance then your chances if catching it are minimal. Ergo the chances of passing it on are even more minimal. Therefore what's the point of wearing a mask?

Because you can’t know whether anyone else who’s in or recently been in the shop / train / whatever is behaving as they should. It probably isn’t necessary for those who are observing all the advice, but because we can’t know who is and who isn’t they’ll go with the lowest common denominator and ask everyone to wear one.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Because you can’t know whether anyone else who’s in or recently been in the shop / train / whatever is behaving as they should. It probably isn’t necessary for those who are observing all the advice, but because we can’t know who is and who isn’t they’ll go with the lowest common denominator and ask everyone to wear one.
Sorry, but all scientists say it's no use in stopping you catching the virus. So what other people do is not relevant to you wearing a mask.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Maybe that's entirely true during the current lockdown with only household members routinely spending any significant time together, but that cannot last forever and, as measures are relaxed as they will be inevitably, and people will perhaps become less vigilant anyway through coming weeks or months, use of masks could be a useful measure to retain a valuable level of protection. I still commend you to watch the first, longer NHK video, in particular, to see how far microdroplets can travel and how long they can remain in still air within an enclosed environment.
Yes, I accept that if things change then so does the benefit (to others) of wearing a mask - at least for some, some of the time.
 

leightonbd

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2013
Messages
321
Location
Edinburgh (South Sub)
May have missed it, but if touching the virus is the big risk, why so much emphasis from Govt on masks, and none on gloves?

(answer- we don’t have any of them to give you either ... )
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
May have missed it, but if touching the virus is the big risk, why so much emphasis from Govt on masks, and none on gloves?
Frequent hand washing or alcohol gel sanitising is the best defence against contaminated hands, and never touching the face with them, at least not until after you have properly cleaned them. Gloves don't help very much except in risky clinical environments where they can be exchanged and disposed of or cleaned regularly, and a dirty glove touching the face is no better, and possibly worse than the bare skin of the hand. I've not read of any danger of virus entering the body through skin. The risk is dirty hands touching the mouth, nose or eye area from where the virus can reach the respiraratory tract.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
May have missed it, but if touching the virus is the big risk, why so much emphasis from Govt on masks, and none on gloves?

(answer- we don’t have any of them to give you either ... )

Is it emphasis from government, or the media keep asking them about masks so they feel they have to respond?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,534
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Would drivers be better off wearing thin cotton gloves to keep their skin off the cab controls? Some drivers used to drive with a old oily looking rag..?

You can't catch it through your skin, it's too big to get in. There have been some theories that you might shed it in sweat but it seems unproven.

In general, gloves seem a terrible idea, handwashing and sanitising is better.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,534
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
May have missed it, but if touching the virus is the big risk, why so much emphasis from Govt on masks, and none on gloves?

(answer- we don’t have any of them to give you either ... )

Answer: the problem is touching the virus then touching your face, most notably the eyes and nose (e.g. picking your nose would take it straight into the mucous membranes where it likes to sit). It can't get through the unbroken skin. Is there even any virus that can?

That's why handwashing is better. Gloves don't work unless you keep changing them, you'd get through a box in a day done properly.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,675
Location
Sheffield
Boris looks and sees all these other countries wearing masks. Even if there is no proof it has any effect, we’d better do it so we can’t be blamed for not trying anything.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
The best way to think of face coverings is part of the 'toolkit' of measures which can reduce transmission of infections. The first is social distancing, fairly obvious, holding people apart from one another physically. The second is handwashing. This is to remove fomites collected from surfaces. The third is face coverings. This is to stop droplet infection by preventing the expulsion of droplets in public.

That doesn't have anything specifically to do with Covid-19 however. It's just based on existing ideas of infection control.

There's not really a debate about the above points. There's also not a debate that healthcare workers need surgical masks as part of the toolkit they're trained to use, or that it's beneficial for people who are ill, or coming into contact with someone who is ill, to wear them.

The debate is about whether people who are apparently healthy ought to be wearing a face covering. This is what has changed.

Telling people to use face coverings in a half-hearted or confused way would be a recipe for disaster. It risks, significantly, people thinking that the mask protects them, rather than everyone else, ans risks people dropping their guard on handwashing and social distancing. These obstacles are certainly not insurmountable, but given the current level of self-congratulatory communications coming from the government, that's probably what will happen unless there's some big improvement.

I don't see a particular return to the office, or to public transport, for me personally, for some time yet, even when permitted while wearing a mask and maintaining distance. I'm not sure I'd get much out of it. These measures become much more important for people who need to be going out to work.

Another way to put it is if I were going on public transport now I probably would have adopted a cloth mask by now.
 
Last edited:

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
I think that's a good summary Starmill.

I'd add one thing - with the ramping up of testing and test/track/trace strategy about to launch, will we reach a point where there will be very few infected people out and about, thus negating the need for masks, even where they would make some sense currently?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
I think if pushed, a knife wielding mugger will always be of more concern to most. You've a solid chance of surviving the virus, one knife and it can be game over very quickly.

Sure. And WHEN the virus has declined to the point that your chances of catching the virus aren't much more than your chances of being attacked by a knife-wielding mugger, then the balance of benefit is likely to shift strongly back in favour of not wearing masks in public (because they are uncomfortable and in order to not to prevent the authorities from identifying muggers/etc.).

But right now, the virus is a much bigger concern. Yesterday the UK reported 6310 new cases and 739 new deaths from the virus. (source). How many people do you think were killed by knife-wielding muggers yesterday? (my guess is: At lot fewer than to 739)
 

High Dyke

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2013
Messages
4,267
Location
Yellabelly Country
I was surprised when visiting M&S earlier this morning there was only one customer wearing a mask, in marked contrast to the numbers at the same time last week. Made me wonder if some of the people that had managed to obtain masks had now run out?
Well if they'd asked... I had an email the other day offering a "large order of masks at 30% cheaper than other suppliers." Hmmm! :|

On the serious side, work has provided a limited supply of masks to each signal box, certainly in my area, and guidance about the needs to use one. Personally I haven't taken one of them; at the moment I don't feel I need to - I don't meet any criteria for either wearing a mask, or worse still taking time off work. That said I've just ordered a neck warmer, that can double as a face covering should the instruction be introduced. If I don't need it for the current situation then it will have some future use when out walking.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Sure. And WHEN the virus has declined to the point that your chances of catching the virus aren't much more than your chances of being attacked by a knife-wielding mugger, then the balance of benefit is likely to shift strongly back in favour of not wearing masks in public (because they are uncomfortable and in order to not to prevent the authorities from identifying muggers/etc.).

But right now, the virus is a much bigger concern. Yesterday the UK reported 6310 new cases and 739 new deaths from the virus. (source). How many people do you think were killed by knife-wielding muggers yesterday? (my guess is: At lot fewer than to 739)

Just to note once again, the death rate is of people with, not of covid. We don't yet really know how many people died as a result of it, because it is a notifiable disease and has to be counted.

And again masks may not help all that much, but might also drive supply of them to healthcare staff down. The absolute priority must be to them, and them alone. They are the ones taking the risks looking after the sick, the rest of us just need to pay a bit more attention to hygiene and common sense practices like covering our mouth and nose when sneezing or coughing. Unless there is serious evidence that masks will have a significant impact, and there is an end game for them no being longer compulsory because anything other than a temporary order will present real dangers, then I see no good argument. "Because other countries" is not a good enough reason.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
Answer: the problem is touching the virus then touching your face, most notably the eyes and nose (e.g. picking your nose would take it straight into the mucous membranes where it likes to sit). It can't get through the unbroken skin. Is there even any virus that can?

That's why handwashing is better. Gloves don't work unless you keep changing them, you'd get through a box in a day done properly.
Anyone who has worked in fields or factories in a job thatuses gloves will be very used to not touching their face while gloved and removing and replacing gloves without touching the outsides. If you get it wrong in those jobs, you end up with manure, oil or worse chemicals on your face!

I think gloves may be worth it for people used to them, but not a general measure like source control masks. And not respirator masks needed by hospitals.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Just to note once again, the death rate is of people with, not of covid. We don't yet really know how many people died as a result of it, because it is a notifiable disease and has to be counted.

And again masks may not help all that much, but might also drive supply of them to healthcare staff down. The absolute priority must be to them, and them alone. They are the ones taking the risks looking after the sick, the rest of us just need to pay a bit more attention to hygiene and common sense practices like covering our mouth and nose when sneezing or coughing. Unless there is serious evidence that masks will have a significant impact, and there is an end game for them no being longer compulsory because anything other than a temporary order will present real dangers, then I see no good argument. "Because other countries" is not a good enough reason.
The weekly figures for additional all causes deaths over the upper bound of what is to be expected at this time of year is the most interesting, and it has been building up to around double the usual rate through April.
What we know, and what we don’t, about the true coronavirus death toll
Even if we had never heard of Covid-19, it would have been obvious by early April that something terrible was happening in the UK.
In the fourteenth week of 2020, which ended on Friday 3 April, a total of 16,387 deaths from all causes were registered in England and Wales. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which published the data, it was the most registered in any week since January 2000.
Week 15 was higher still, with 18,516 deaths registered. When the figures were published for Week 16 on Tuesday, the number was 22,351, the most ever recorded since comparable figures began in 1993.
It’s not necessarily unusual for this kind of national data to break records. The UK has a rising population, which means that we’ll often see historically high numbers of people in education, say, or in employment. But this record was not like that. These deaths occurred in a sudden spike at an unusual time, when the winter and the flu season were all but over.
1588418994077.png

Some commentary.
The graph is about two weeks old which is clearly an eternity in pandemics.
Some additional deaths may be a side effect due to people, through inability or fear, not seeing their doctors or attending A&E for other complaints.
On the other hand lockdown may have reduced deaths caused by road traffic accidents and some work accidents, e.g. on building sites etc.
It is certainly possible that a quantity of additional co-morbid deaths in this period may be offset by fewer deaths later in the year, i.e deaths brought forward from next winter or to put it more emotionally denying 'dying' people their last summer.

Your point about supply of PPE to medical staff is very important I agree, but it's not clear that public face covering requirements would necessarily impact that. Manufacture of simple surgical style masks, as worn routinely by dentists or in nail bars etc before the pandemic could be ramped up massively, as achieved by government decree in Taiwan at the beginning of their outbreak such that they can supply everyone. It's simple low tech stuff that can be automated easily. Much easier than other PPE clothing and especially more so than complex medical machinery like ventilators. In any case, home-made or improvised coverings are entirely adequate for 'source control' which is the main objective, to stop droplet and microdroplet propagating and lingering in confined public areas indoors, where distancing is difficult, and may not be adequate to control transmission anyway - see NHK video above.

The latest suggestion on the news today for people to check their own temperature before using public transport ('one of a number of measures being considered') might be a good idea in itself, but is absurd alone as a control measure, as it can't be enforced and is totally ineffective for any infected person who is not showing any symptoms (either yet or ever in some cases, despite being contagious).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,534
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The latest suggestion on the news today for people to check their own temperature before using public transport ('one of a number of measures being considered') might be a good idea in itself, but is absurd alone as a control measure, as it can't be enforced and is totally ineffective for any infected person who is not showing any symptoms (either yet or ever in some cases, despite being contagious).

I think like many others you're being a little absolutist. It can be a viable control measure if you can make a reasonable estimate of how effective it will be. It's going to be a package of measures that are needed, and this can be one.

Masks aren't an absolute either (other than medical grade ones), despite your trying to push them as one.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
I think like many others you're being a little absolutist. It can be a viable control measure if you can make a reasonable estimate of how effective it will be. It's going to be a package of measures that are needed, and this can be one.

Masks aren't an absolute either (other than medical grade ones), despite your trying to push them as one.

I agree, temperature self-measurement could alert some people to their possible infection status, and will (hopefully) encourage some of them to not travel. For 'source control', any kind of mouth covering is highly effective, though admittedly not perfect, even a handkerchief raised as necessary to arrest a cough, but a pre-fitted one raises confidence and avoids any errors.

Edit
Actually asking people to self measure in this circumstance could be quite a useful measure to 'nudge' people into doing it who would otherwise not bother, which then bring s about the question of HOW to do it. In my own case I have no medical device in the house for this purpose. Would a surge in demand for such devices affect supplies to hospitals? Perhaps in London it would be better for barrier attendants to do it on entering a tube station, as is done in some East Asian cities in addition to handing passengers a mask if they haven't already got one. No travel if over temperature or no mask worn.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top