The case for and against the effectiveness of face coverings and the mandating of their use

[adc82140]

I wear one because I believe that it stops me spitting on things, and on the off chance that I have covid it will slightly reduce the chances of me spreading it. Not completely stop me spreading it but reduce it. I won't be wearing one forever, probably until next spring, and then after that if I have a cold, like folk in some asian countries do. I do wash mine, I have several and put them in the wash regularly. On the scale of restrictions we have had over the last 18 months masks are no bother at all to me.

If you're sick enough with a cold to think you need a mask, then it's rather selfish to be going out. Just stay well away from others, preferably at home. This used to be common sense. The reason many in Asian countries wear them is the hideous presenteeism culture. Come to work or you're sacked.

 

[kermit]

No it doesn't; SARS-CoV-2 virus will go the same way as other HCoVs and continue to spread in a state of endemic equilibrium indefinitely.

Wearing a standard flimsy mask does not prevent transmission; if anyone feels they must avoid catching the virus (e.g. if they are immunocompromised or simply distrusting of vaccines) they could choose to wear a highly effective FFP3 mask.



As I have said many times of people have a particular reason why they feel they must avoid exposure to the virus, they can choose to wear an effective FFP3 mask. Once they have made such a choice it makes no difference what other people do.


I refer you to the BBC article linked to numerous times previously.

By 'standard' I mean surgical masks or equivalent, which are loose fitting and flimsy and not designed to filter aerosols.

Indeed but the difference between wearing no mask and a flimsy mask is so small (if it exists) as to be immeasurable in real world studies; in contrast the difference between a flimsy mask and an FFP3 mask is massive



There is no real world evidence that wearing a standard mask offers any protection against infection.


Indeed it is; those who require additional protection or don't trust vaccines can get a high quality well fitted mask and be well protected.


Unfortunately the virtue signallers driving this do not look at the bigger picture, nor do they look at things from others point of view.

Yes the messaging is appalling.


In my opinion, anyone who thinks that wearing a flimsy loose fitting mask is offering any measurable degree of protection is indeed misinformed

In contrast, choosing to wear an effective FFP3 mask would be effective against SARS-CoV-2 transmission; anyone wearing one would be well informed about the effectiveness of such masks (whether or not they are well informed about the purpose and effectiveness of vaccines is another question entirely)

The whole of this post approaches mask wearing as if it was solely an exercise in protecting the wearer. It is not. I wear a mask because I can easily have Covid without symptoms, and if I sneeze or cough (as we all do for reasons other than being ill - I have a strong sunlight sneeze reflex, for instance), a good proportion of my highly infectious droplets will be caught in the mask, or travel much less far around me. I am therefore less likely to infect others, especially in an enclosed space, like a train. That is the point that I believe people are making when they ask you to wear a mask out of courtesy to others.

 

[Richard Scott]

The whole of this post approaches mask wearing as if it was solely an exercise in protecting the wearer. It is not. I wear a mask because I can easily have Covid without symptoms, and if I sneeze or cough (as we all do for reasons other than being ill - I have a strong sunlight sneeze reflex, for instance), a good proportion of my highly infectious droplets will be caught in the mask, or travel much less far around me. I am therefore less likely to infect others, especially in an enclosed space, like a train. That is the point that I believe people are making when they ask you to wear a mask out of courtesy to others.

You could just use a handkerchief or a disposible tissue when you sneeze, it's worked well for years. Much less disgusting than wearing a mask you've sneezed into.

 

[Green tractor]

You could just use a handkerchief or a disposible tissue when you sneeze, it's worked well for years. Much less disgusting than wearing a mask you've sneezed into.

Do you always manage to get one out of your pocket in time?

If you're sick enough with a cold to think you need a mask, then it's rather selfish to be going out. Just stay well away from others, preferably at home. This used to be common sense. The reason many in Asian countries wear them is the hideous presenteeism culture. Come to work or you're sacked.

What is a minor sniffle to me, might be much worse for the next person, not going to stay off work every time I feel slightly off colour, although I do avoid optional activitys in the close vicinity of other people.

 

[GB]

You could just use a handkerchief or a disposible tissue when you sneeze, it's worked well for years. Much less disgusting than wearing a mask you've sneezed into.

what about coughing into your hands/arm pre COVID? They are not FFP3 compliant so must also be pointless?

 

[yorksrob]

Sweden did have restrictions though, and more importantly the population largely followed them, which probably has more to do with how much they trust their politicians and how much we dont.

I would genuinely be interested to see more comprehensive study into the Swedish experience.

If/when that does happen, I doubt that we will find that the Swedes voluntarily settled into a state of restriction as stringent as the level of compliance achieved through our own mandated lockdown.

I suspect it will just be a case of sensible precautions (such as work from home, distancing etc) which were there in both societies doing the hard work, with the more extreme lockdown measures imposed here not adding much.

 

[Green tractor]

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

I’ll concede that my post was badly worded as I can’t provide evidence that it “simply doesn’t occur”. However, at 1 in 10,000 the risk is statistically insignificant to the point that it’s not worth mitigating against (this article agrees):

COVID-19 rarely spreads through surfaces. So why are we still deep cleaning?

The coronavirus behind the pandemic can linger on doorknobs and other surfaces, but these aren’t a major source of infection.

www.nature.com

Thanks, very interesting

 

[greyman42]

While I agree, I think it's a little unfair to call people who think that masks significantly
reduce transmission 'delusional' - they are simply victims of extremely persuasive and
pervasive propaganda/mass hysteria.



MARK

More like gullible.

Just thought I’d say to people on here - if you have a problem with those continuing to wear a mask, then just keep your opinions to yourself.

If you don't want to hear anyone else's opinion i would suggest avoiding forums.

 

[alex397]

If you don't want to hear anyone else's opinion i would suggest avoiding forums.

Or I shall just avoid the Covid section of this forum. I’m clearly too delusional for such topics.

I shall add that my comment you have quoted was a over the top and I regret it, so I apologise. I was very angry after someone confronted my friends and I in a pub because we were wearing masks when getting drinks from the bar, and then got very aggressive with us when we disagreed with his confrontation.

 

[Richard Scott]

Do you always manage to get one out of your pocket in time?

Yes, suffered sinus problems and hayfever for years so well practised.

 

[yorkie]

The whole of this post approaches mask wearing as if it was solely an exercise in protecting the wearer. It is not. I wear a mask because I can easily have Covid without symptoms, and if I sneeze or cough (as we all do for reasons other than being ill - I have a strong sunlight sneeze reflex, for instance), a good proportion of my highly infectious droplets will be caught in the mask, or travel much less far around me. I am therefore less likely to infect others, especially in an enclosed space, like a train. That is the point that I believe people are making when they ask you to wear a mask out of courtesy to others.

There is no real world evidence of your claim that you wearing a face covering will reduce infections in others.

Also the whole purpose of your post is based on the assumption that people who may need additional protection over and above the vaccines somehow need others to reduce their ability to transmit. This is not the case. The vast majority of people are well protected by vaccines.

Anyone who does not believe in the effectiveness of the vaccines or who believes they need additional protection e.g. due to being immunocompromised has the ability to wear an effective FFP3 mask.

It's therefore a false premise that mass wearing of face coverings should take place by healthy people in order to ostensibly protect people who are somehow vulnerable and purportedly require additional protection, and yet choose not to wear an effective mask.

How have I been misled that staying at home will considerably reduce the chance of covid 19 arriving in my household?

I refer you to what I actually said and not what you think I said. I did not say this.

When I say staying at home I don't mean staying indoors all the time or not going out for walks etc, I just mean staying local and away from other people where possible (and I had plenty do do at home anyway.)

Staying 'local' doesn't reduce the chance of infection.

I have already explained my logic.

Not in any meaningful logical way in my opinion.

I do, I work with the chap (hes generally a nice enough guy by the way) but he will never venture an opinion on anything until he finds out what everybody else's is


If you read what I wrote this was last year, before the vaccine roll out.


Cold you provide some evidence please? I would be genuinely interested to read that.

Without wishing go preempt the other members reply, it certainly is true that the focus has shifted over time and if you have evidence to support your view I'd be interested to hear that too.

Sweden did have restrictions though, and more importantly the population largely followed them, which probably has more to do with how much they trust their politicians and how much we dont.

I went to Sweden last year. They did not impose a lockdown and many of the restrictions were not particularly onerous e.g. instead of closing restaurants they had a similar rule to our 'rule of 6'. The idea that everyone in Sweden went overboard with social distancing and that people in the UK didn't is simply a fallacy.

The hotel we stayed in even had a buffet breakfast. Covid rules and guidelines were very relaxed and proportional. I was very glad I went and I wish I could have stayed there longer.

Getting back on topic and returning to my point, Sweden did not mandate masks and very few people wear them. They have done very well compared to many other comparable countries (i.e. not making ludicrous comparisons with Finland); if mask wearing was effective then we would surely have seen higher case rates in Sweden and lower case rates in places that went crazy for masks such as Spain.

No mask activists can explain the fact that the real world evidence in multiple countries does not in any way show a reduction in transmission attributable to the wearing of flimsy face coverings.

Read my post again.... I sat on my own at lunch time

It sounds like there was rather more to it than just that.

Do you always manage to get one out of your
What is a minor sniffle to me, might be much worse for the next person, ....

We build up immunity by being exposed to pathogens.

If anyone is immunocompromised they have the option to take additional precautions, such as wearing a highly effective FFP3 mask instead.

That said if you are particularly unwell it is wise to stay at home anyway for all sorts of reasons. The idea that flimsy masks are a panacea is a fantasy with no evidence to support it.

Do you always manage to get one out of your
What is a minor sniffle to me, might be much worse for the next person, ....

We build up immunity by being exposed to pathogens.

If anyone is immunocompromised they have the option to take additional precautions, such as wearing a highly effective FFP3 mask instead.

That said if you are particularly unwell it is wise to stay at home anyway for all sorts of reasons. The idea that flimsy masks are a panacea is a fantasy with no evidence to support it.

 

[Green tractor]

Staying 'local' doesn't reduce the chance of infection.

Not in any meaningful logical way in my opinion.

It meant I didn't have to visit the petrol station as often, and meant I was sticking to the spirit of the rules too. Staying away from other people does.

It sounds like there was rather more to it than just that.

No there wasn't. I went to the companys other workshop and sat on my own on the shop floor at lunch time. After lunch he came down from the messroom and started asking me in a very loud voice if I was high risk. I was there, you weren't.

People should not abuse you for this; in my opinion you have been mislead and this has been harmful to you. My issue isn't so much against people who have been mislead but against people spreading the misleading messaging as this is what is causing the harm to our mental, social and ultimately physical well-being.

What misleading info are you referring to then?

The real question here is why you have such a problem seeing other people wearing face masks, its up to them, and doesn't affect you in the slightest. Would you get upset if we were all wearing FFP3 masks.

You remind me of the chap at work who refuses to have any ventilation in the workshop in winter, or to use the weld fume extraction, instead telling us we should all wear FFP3 masks.

I went to Sweden last year. They did not impose a lockdown and many of the restrictions were not particularly onerous e.g. instead of closing restaurants they had a similar rule to our 'rule of 6'. The idea that everyone in Sweden went overboard with social distancing and that people in the UK didn't is simply a fallacy.

The hotel we stayed in even had a buffet breakfast. Covid rules and guidelines were very relaxed and proportional. I was very glad I went and I wish I could have stayed there longer.

Getting back on topic and returning to my point, Sweden did not mandate masks and very few people wear them. They have done very well compared to many other comparable countries (i.e. not making ludicrous comparisons with Finland); if mask wearing was effective then we would surely have seen higher case rates in Sweden and lower case rates in places that went crazy for masks such as Spain.

Sweden did recommend face masks on public transport in rush hour.

Covid-19 pandemic: Sweden reverses face mask guidelines for public transport

The country was one of few not to recommend masks in public outside of healthcare settings.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sweden's government is recommending wearing face masks on public transport during the rush hour, reversing its earlier Covid guidance.
It will also cut from the current eight to four per table the number of people sitting together in restaurants, and ban alcohol sales after 20:00.
PM Stefan Löfven unveiled the measures, which will take effect soon.
Elsewhere in Europe, Italy and Austria are the latest countries to be placed in lockdowns over the Christmas period.
Sweden, which has never imposed a full lockdown, has seen nearly 360,000 cases and 8,000 deaths - many more than its Scandinavian neighbours.
The country had previously been one of only a few nations not to recommend masks in public outside of healthcare settings.

And there were restrictions on numbers allowed in museums etc.

Sweden Abolishes Several Measures as the Country Enters Stage 3 of Lifting COVID-19 Restrictions

The Swedish authorities have announced that in line with the country’s reopening plan, as of today, July 15, several measures that were introduced as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic will be lifted. Therefore, since the number of COVID-19 infection cases and the number of people requiring...

www.schengenvisainfo.com

Sweden Abolishes Several Measures as the Country Enters Stage 3 of Lifting COVID-19 Restrictions​

"The Swedish authorities have announced that in line with the country’s reopening plan, as of today, July 15, several measures that were introduced as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic will be lifted.


Therefore, since the number of COVID-19 infection cases and the number of people requiring hospital treatment has significantly dropped, the country will continue with step three of phasing out the restrictions, SchengenVisaInfo.com reports.


According to a joint press release issued by the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation and the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, it has been revealed that regarding the pandemic situation in the country, the trends are “heading in the right direction”.


“Overall, the infection rates, the pressure on the health care system, and the vaccination rate of the population are all at levels that allow restrictions to be lifted. For this reason, the Government and the Public Health Agency of Sweden have made the assessment that it is appropriate to proceed with step 3 of the Government’s plan for phasing out the restrictions,” the Ministry’s statement reads.


As such, stage three of Sweden’s plan of easing the restrictions includes the following modifications:


As of today, operators of long-distance public transport will be able to operate at full capacity. Nonetheless, passengers are still advised to be cautious. Those who show any Coronavirus symptoms are advised against using any public transport services.


Different municipalities of the country will no longer ban the public from attending certain crowded places. Previously, the ban was used as a tool by the Swedish authorities to limit crowding in public spaces such as beaches and parks.


Additionally, in line with the Government’s plan to ease the restrictions, it has been announced that the Public Health Agency has also made a number of other modifications.


Thus, except for the alternations mentioned above, the rule on the number of people allowed per square metre in museums, shopping centres, amusement parks, gyms, and several other places will be removed. Such rules will apply to both indoor and outdoor events.


“The advice to amusement parks concerning, for example, how to place groups for rides and attractions, will be removed. The size of groups with designated seats at public gatherings or events, including football matches, will be increased from four people to eight people,” the Ministry added.


The next step of the Swedish Government to gradually lift the restrictions, stage four, has been scheduled by the authorities for September, provided that infection rates remain low and the vaccination rate continues to increase."

 

[yorkie]

It meant I didn't have to visit the petrol station as often, and meant I was sticking to the spirit of the rules too. Staying away from other people does.

Again I refer you to what I actually said; you were bringing in restrictions - which would actually reduce case rates - I to the discussion and made a false equivalence fallacy argument which appeared to suggest face masks were somehow a replacement for such restrictions and/or reduced any perceived requirement for such restrictions.

No there wasn't. I went to the companys other workshop and sat on my own on the shop floor at lunch time. After lunch he came down from the messroom and started asking me in a very loud voice if I was high risk. I was there, you weren't.

It all sounds very odd. Yes we were not there but given what you have said here, I'm not convinced by this suggestion that the other person is entirely in the wrong. If the discussion at work was anything like how it's been on this forum I can see why your colleague may have become upset.

What misleading info are you referring to then?

You appear to underestimate the overall risk of this particular virus, underestimate effectiveness of vaccines and overestimate the effectiveness of flimsy masks.

You also don't seem to recognise the effectiveness of FFP3 masks, or if you do, you don't acknowledge that people who may (feel they) need additional protection can choose to wear them as a solution to reduce transmission.

The real question here is why you have such a problem seeing other people wearing face masks, its up to them, and doesn't affect you in the slightest.

I refer you to previous posts by myself and others.

Would you get upset if we were all wearing FFP3 masks.

That just isn't going to happen but as I said before if people who are pro-mask such as yourself can recognise that the solution to the perceived problem of vaccine ineffectiveness in vulnerable/immunocompromised individuals is for those people to have the option to wear effective FFP3 masks, that would be a great step forward.

We could then end the charade of pretending that healthy individuals should wear ineffective masks to ostensibly protect others.

You remind me of the chap at work who refuses to have any ventilation in the workshop in winter, or to use the weld fume extraction, instead telling us we should all wear FFP3 masks.

That's yet another false equivalence.

Sweden did recommend face masks on public transport in rush hour.

Covid-19 pandemic: Sweden reverses face mask guidelines for public transport

The country was one of few not to recommend masks in public outside of healthcare settings.

www.bbc.co.uk

As I said they did not mandate masks and as you say this recommendation (which they were forced into due to the mask activist brigade shouting loudly, not because of any actual real world evidence) only extended to peak times.

This can hardly be compared to a mask mandate.

The article contains misleading text comparing Sweden to their 'neighbours' which I will ignore as this has been debunked many times in previous threads.

And there were restrictions on numbers allowed in museums etc.

Hardly comparable to lockdowns and what has this got to do with the topic anyway?

If you are looking for evidence to support your apparent suggestion that not mandating masks results in more restrictions, this does not support your claim as it remains the case that Sweden did not implement a lockdown and nor did they impose as stringent measures as many other countries which went crazy for masks.

 

[Green tractor]

It all sounds very odd. Yes we were not there but given what you have said here, I'm not convinced by this suggestion that the other person is entirely in the wrong. If the discussion at work was anything like how it's been on this forum I can see why your colleague may have become upset.

He was like you, getting upset by seeing other people taking precautions. I hadn't said anything to him. He just didn't seem to like the fact that I was being very careful.

Would you get upset if we were all wearing FFP3 masks.

The real question here is why you have such a problem seeing other people wearing face masks, its up to them, and doesn't affect you in the slightest.

Please answer the questions.

Sweden did have restrictions in place. If you are in favour of no restrictions at all then you should refer to Brasil.

 

[bramling]

The whole of this post approaches mask wearing as if it was solely an exercise in protecting the wearer. It is not. I wear a mask because I can easily have Covid without symptoms, and if I sneeze or cough (as we all do for reasons other than being ill - I have a strong sunlight sneeze reflex, for instance), a good proportion of my highly infectious droplets will be caught in the mask, or travel much less far around me. I am therefore less likely to infect others, especially in an enclosed space, like a train. That is the point that I believe people are making when they ask you to wear a mask out of courtesy to others.

So if I sit on a train and don’t talk, cough or sneeze, I’m still less of a risk than you in your mask?

 

[43066]

It is not misinformed

Perhaps you can educate us all then, and point to some decent evidence that “face coverings” worn in every day settings make any meaningful difference to infection rates?!

The whole of this post approaches mask wearing as if it was solely an exercise in protecting the wearer. It is not. I wear a mask because I can easily have Covid without symptoms, and if I sneeze or cough (as we all do for reasons other than being ill - I have a strong sunlight sneeze reflex, for instance), a good proportion of my highly infectious droplets will be caught in the mask, or travel much less far around me. I am therefore less likely to infect others, especially in an enclosed space, like a train. That is the point that I believe people are making when they ask you to wear a mask out of courtesy to others.

But this is far too simplistic and overlooks the fact that the virus spreads by aerosols which are far too small to be caught by low quality face masks. It’s no surprise then that masks have made no statistical difference anywhere they have been mandated.

Masks might be a method of keeping the population focussed on the virus, or a method of virtue signalling, but what they clearly are not is a worthwhile intervention. Again, no surprise when that has been the established scientific consensus for decades!

 

[yorkie]

He was like you, getting upset by seeing other people taking precautions. I hadn't said anything to him. He just didn't seem to like the fact that I was being very careful.

It sounds to me that your perception and the reality are not the same thing.

Falling out with people on here is one thing but falling out with people who are simply acting normally at work is quite another; you are a victim of a misinformation campaign and I hope you can seek the help that you need to get your life, and your relationships, back to normal.

Please answer the questions.

As I said I already stated my position on this thread; here are some reminders:

...Someone who is particularly vulnerable (for example immunocompromised) can choose to protect themselves with an effective FFP3 mask, if they wish to do so.

...Either way anyone who deems themselves at risk could choose to wear an effective mask if they wish to do so...

...we know that FFP3 masks are highly effective and we know that anyone who requires additional protection can choose to wear one, the debate is effectively about whether standard loose fitting flimsy masks should be worn by healthy people and there is no rationale or evidence to support this.

...If people distrust the vaccines or are immunocompromised and require additional protection, they have the option to wear highly effective FFP3 masks...

...I don't really care if there are a small number of people doing this; if they are wearing FFP3 masks I will assume they are immunocompromised and are carrying out a proportionate and sensible precaution. If they are wearing standard flimsy masks then I will know they are simply misinformed and are victims of a misleading campaign. Providing they are not trying to suggest anyone else wears one then they can continue the fallacy if they wish...

I don't understand why you keep asking me the same questions; I've answered already and I trust the above reminders will satisfy you.

Sweden did have restrictions in place. If you are in favour of no restrictions at all then you should refer to Brasil.

I agree that Sweden had proportionate restrictions in place; I really enjoyed my visit there as it was all very sensible.

Brazil has nothing to do with this; a reminder that you said:

Wearing a mask is considerably less restrictive than the shops/pubs being closed, public transport being cut back and being told to stay in my home as much as possible.

I said:

What have those things got to do with it? If the suggestion is that mask wearing can replace those measures as a way of reducing transmission, this is an entirely false claim, not based on any real-world evidence.

Countries that went crazy for masks, such as Portugal, France and Spain have imposed strict lockdowns

In contrast Sweden didn't mandate masks and not did they impose anything close to the sort of restrictions imposed elsewhere.

I see no evidence for any such claim that mask mandating or wearing reduces any 'need' for any measures which - though highly restrictive - do actually have a clearly observable effect.

If you cannot answer those questions, trying to deflect the attention onto Brazil in an apparent attempt to distract us from the topic in hand, does not help your cause.

You say "please answer the questions" but there is nothing new you've not asked me before, and I have answered. But you won't answer many of our questions. It is your right not to answer questions but it does undermine your position.

 

[Green tractor]

You have also said previously that face masks remind us that we do not live in normal times, being in the midst of a pandemic is not normal.


Basically, because you don't want to wear a face mask, you don't think anybody else should either. I respect the choice of others not to wear one, and I expect others to respect my choice. What has it to do with you what sort of face covering people choose to wear?

Sweden said for a while that they recommend face coverings, just like England now does. You keep saying Sweden has got it right, so why is it ok for Sweden to recommend them, but not England?

I have not said that wearing a mask replaces other measures, just that we are considerably less restricted than we were, in the grand scheme of things they are just (for most people, not all) a minor inconvenience. Once again, what is it that you now want to do that you can't?

 

[43066]

I have not said that weaing a mask replaces other measure, just that we are considerably less restricted than we were. Once again, what is it that you now want to do that you can't?

You strongly implied it. That was one of the lies used to justify face masks in the first place i.e. it’s a way out of lockdowns and back to normality. Lo and behold they were introduced and made no discernible difference to infection rates. The reason we are now under less restrictions than we were is because of vaccines - which do have a statistically significant effect - that’s how we know they work.

I don’t really see any difference between people who continue to wear masks, and apparently don’t trust the vaccine, and conspiracy theorists who blame 5g masts for spreading the virus.

 

[alex397]

Perhaps you can educate us all then, and point to some decent evidence that “face coverings” worn in every day settings make any meaningful difference to infection rates?!

What’s the point? It won’t change your mind.

Just like I won’t change my mind in wearing masks in busy indoor places. I will continue my delusional misinformed woke virtue-signalling.

 

[Green tractor]

I don’t really see any difference between people who continue to wear masks, and apparently don’t trust the vaccine, and conspiracy theorists who blame 5g masts for spreading the virus.

There is a difference, I'm not going round telling other people they should wear masks. The folk blaming phone masts were vandalising them, rubbishing all the science and claiming that social distancing etc wouldn't work.

 

[yorkie]

You have also said previously that face masks remind us that we do not live in normal times...

Correct

Basically, because you don't want to wear a face mask, you don't think anybody else should either.

That's not my argument; I've not said that. I refer you to my post above where I have provided several quotes repeatedly demonstrating my position.

I respect the choice of others not to wear one, and I expect others to respect my choice. What has it to do with you what sort of face covering people choose to wear?

I answered this above.

Sweden said for a while that they recommend face coverings, just like England now does.

The article you linked to stated they were recommended only at peak times on public transport. This was only due to pressure from pro-mask activists. It has never been mandated and I am confident never will be.

You keep saying Sweden has got it right, so why is it ok for Sweden to recommend them, but not England?

See above.

I have not said that wearing a mask replaces other measures, just that we are considerably less restricted than we were, in the grand scheme of things they are just (for most people, not all) a minor inconvenience.

What was the purpose in saying "Wearing a mask is considerably less restrictive than the shops/pubs being closed, public transport being cut back and being told to stay in my home as much as possible" if you were not suggesting that the former is any sort of replacement for and/or avoids implementing the latter?

Once again, what is it that you now want to do that you can't?

Yes, you keep asking that question and we keep answering it. From last Thursday:

I have asked before, and I'll ask again, what is it you want to do that you now can't

And here is the answer I gave:

It's not clear to me who you are addressing or what the purpose of your question is. But there are examples of local councils cancelling events in order to be seen to be 'safe', thus depriving their residents of attending events that there is no legal, moral or practicable reason that they should not be able to attend.

You did not respond to this, so I am puzzled why you are regularly asking the same questions again and again, despite the fact that we are answering your questions.

Furthermore, you are not answering questions we are asking. This is your right, but it undermines your argument.

 

[Cdd89]

being in the midst of a pandemic is not normal.

Do you really think that, with the levels of immunity we now have in the U.K., we are in the middle of the pandemic? I would suggest we are at the end, if we measure it in terms of deaths and hospitalisations.

 

[Green tractor]

Do you really think that, with the levels of immunity we now have in the U.K., we are in the middle of the pandemic? I would suggest we are at the end, if we measure it in terms of deaths and hospitalisations.

Correct , we are not in the middle of it, but it is still ongoing.

It sounds to me that your perception and the reality are not the same thing.

Falling out with people on here is one thing but falling out with people who are simply acting normally at work is quite another; you are a victim of a misinformation campaign and I hope you can seek the help that you need to get your life, and your relationships, back to normal.

Please explain how I am the victim of a misinformation campaign? I chose to sit on my own at lunchtime, my job does not involve being in close proximity to all my colleagues as I would be in the mess room. I was not telling other people what to do, I was just being as careful as I reasonably could be to protect other members of my family who were at the time not vaccinated at all.

Are you saying I need to seek help because I chose to maintain social distancing wherever practical, and followed the rest of the rules/guidance in order to protect vulnerable members of my family?

What have YOU been prevented from doing since the 19 July?

 

[Richard Scott]

Correct , we are not in the middle of it, but it is still ongoing.

No it isn't, there are insufficient infections for it to now be classed as a pandemic

 

[43066]

What’s the point? It won’t change your mind.

So in other words you’re dodging the question because you don’t have any evidence! I can’t say I’m surprised. Mask enthusiasts have consistently failed to provide evidence of efficacy since the beginning of the pandemic.

Just like I won’t change my mind in wearing masks in busy indoor places. I will continue my delusional misinformed woke virtue-signalling.

That’s entirely up to you. You might find yourself getting some strange looks though as the rest of us want to get back to normal. I notice mask wearing is dropping off a cliff around my way. I was on a very busy crush loaded train yesterday and I’d say less than 20% were bothering.

There is a difference, I'm not going round telling other people they should wear masks. The folk blaming phone masts were vandalising them, rubbishing all the science and claiming that social distancing etc wouldn't work.

I mean there is no difference between the lack of any evidence or logic underpinning conspiracy theories, and the irrational belief in the ability of low quality masks to meaningfully reduce infection. It’s classic confirmation bias; people want to believe masks work because it gives them a sense of control, so they will disregard evidence to the contrary and will also downplay evidence of the effectiveness of vaccines.

 

[yorkie]

Correct , we are not in the middle of it, but it is still ongoing.

The UK, and England in particular, is transitioning to the endemic phase.

Please explain how I am the victim of a misinformation campaign?

I already answered that.

Are you saying I need to seek help because I chose to maintain social distancing wherever practical, and followed the rest of the rules/guidance in order to protect vulnerable members of my family?

Having good relations with people, including work colleagues, is important; if anyone has such a strong belief that further precautions need to to be taken to the extent that they are in disputes with work colleagues, and they are acting in a manner that is not rational or proportion to the actual threats, it may be beneficial to seek help so that the fears can be overcome and a normal life with healthy relationships can resume.

What have YOU been prevented from doing since the 19 July?

This is irrelevant; I already answered the generic question anyway.

As I said before, please do not re-ask the same questions over and over again. You are quick to claim that we are answering your questions but there are many questions we have asked which you will not answer; this seems rather imbalanced to me. I also don't understand the relevance of many of your questions to the actual subject matter in hand.

 

[Green tractor]

Having good relations with people, including work colleagues, is important; if anyone has such a strong belief that further precautions need to to be taken to the extent that they are in disputes with work colleagues, and they are acting in a manner that is not rational or proportion to the actual threats, it may be beneficial to seek help so that the fears can be overcome and a normal life with healthy relationships can resume.

My employer took no precautions whatsoever, other than buying some hand sanitzer, and putting some tape on the floor in the office it was like nothing had happened, so I simply chose to sit on my own at lunch time, not in a room full of people.

I already answered that.

Please point me to your answer to how I'm the victim of a misinformation campaign for choosing to avoid other people when I share a household with 2 vulnerable members of society? Are you saying that social distancing is ineffective against catching covid?

 

[43066]

My employer took no precautions whatsoever, it was like nothing had happened, so I simply chose to sit on my own at lunch time, not in a room full of people.

Difficult for us to comment not knowing the people involved, but you certainly should not be getting any abuse for this. Having said that it seems a shame to allow the pandemic to undermine your relationship with your colleagues. It is generally possible to maintain social distancing in a messroom setting.

 

[Huntergreed]

Correct , we are not in the middle of it, but it is still ongoing.

And how would you clearly define the 'endpoint' of the pandemic?

It obviously will not be when the virus is 'beaten' or 'eliminated' as this cannot and will not happen in the UK.

It also obviously will not be when the level of hospital admissions and deaths drops to negligible levels, as this is a virus we will have to learn to live with and, depsite excellent nationwide immunity, we will still have a number of hospitalisations and deaths from this virus on a regular basis.

The fact is that SARS-CoV-2 will become the fifth endemic coronavirus that we live with, joining OC43, 229E, NL63 and HKU1. Now I'm guessing just because OC43 and 229E naturally spread, causing hospitalisations and sadly deaths (these two endemic coronaviruses are responsible for a third of all common colds and human H-CoV hospitalised infections) , you won't be proclaiming that we're 'in the midst of a pandemic'. I fail to see why, just because SARS-CoV-2 is now there in addition to these it's suddenly a 'pandemic'.

Last year, when the virus was novel and there was little to no population immunity, it was indeed a pandemic. We didn't know much about the virus, and we certainly didn't realise the extent to which it would spread. The virus has, throughout the past year, worked its way throughout the population, sadly killing off many of the more vulnerable members of society. This is, whilst tragic, what is to be expected when a novel, highly transmissible virus is found in nature. This is the first time we have ever tried to close down our entire society and disrupt the lives of the entire population in the name of 'beating' the virus. The government has, through spreading mass hysteria, misinformation and propaganda, essentially personified the virus into an evil force which can be 'beaten' through ridiculous measures such as wearing a cloth over your face and closing down the hospitality industry (and, I'm sad to say, schools, hospitals and places of worship).

It's clear that this was one of, if not the, most disproportionate overreaction to an external threat that we have ever had in modern history. Whilst I'm sure many politicians and scientists realise this, admitting this would not only ruin their reputation, but bring their careers and professional standing to a very swift end. Thus we have politicians who are continuing to prolong this charade in the name of securing their position, combined with a hysterical, sensationalist media, causing the population to believe that the morally correct thing to do is show support for the measures we have taken in this 'battle'.

As the thread is about masks, my main question would not be do face coverings work? (the answer to which, by the way, is a resounding 'no' when they are used as flimsy pieces of cloth with no medical controls or hygience procedures to accompany their use, as has happened across the world), but rather Is it still necessary to prolong the measures at this stage, now that SARS-CoV-2 is endemic within the U.K. and population immunity as about as high as can reasonably be expected? (to which, my answer is that it is time for the government and 'experts' to admit to the population that this virus is now endemic and, whilst sadly a small minority will end up getting hospitalised and a smaller minority even still will lose their lives as a result of the spread of this endemic virus, this is an acceptable trade-off to ensure we are able to live in a democratic, free society. Something which we as humans have managed to do for about 2 million years amongst many endemic viruses, until now that is.)