UK face coverings discussion

[Ian Cunningham]

How will that work? Wear it between courses or between finishing 1 drink and the next one being brought over to your table? The constant donning and removing of the face covering defeats the whole purpose of the mask which requires the wearer not constantly touch it.

As mentioned elsewhere it is when moving around within the premises only -not once seated

 

[Yew]

As mentioned elsewhere it is when moving around within the premises only -not once seated

I wonder how many cases they predict this will stop?

 

[DB]

I wonder how many cases they predict this will stop?

They never give numbers where masks are concerned - it would be measurable and that would never do!

 

[packermac]

They never give numbers where masks are concerned - it would be measurable and that would never do!

That was be as meaningless as saying how many cases of HIV or pregnancy condom use has prevented.
You can not measure an unmeasurable

 

[DB]

That was be as meaningless as saying how many cases of HIV or pregnancy condom use has prevented.
You can not measure an unmeasurable

In a situation like this, where statistics are being maintained, it would actually be possible to do so, at least to the extent of showing whether they work. If masks have an impact, then assuming no other restrictions changed at the same time, a comparison should show a decline in infection numbers recorded, following mask introduction. This sort of comparison could - and should - be made as it appears that there is no evidence of it improving things, and evidence that it possibly makes it worse (although the latter cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty).

 

[packermac]

In a situation like this, where statistics are being maintained, it would actually be possible to do so, at least to the extent of showing whether they work. If masks have an impact, then assuming no other restrictions changed at the same time, a comparison should show a decline in infection numbers recorded, following mask introduction. This sort of comparison could - and should - be made as it appears that there is no evidence of it improving things, and evidence that it possibly makes it worse (although the latter cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty).

That would only work if there was a stable base to measure. We have had what would have been school holidays, overseas travel without quarantine, overseas travel with quarantine, local lockdown, those complying many not. How to you propose to factor all that in to what was happening in even early July?

 

[WelshBluebird]

In a situation like this, where statistics are being maintained, it would actually be possible to do so, at least to the extent of showing whether they work. If masks have an impact, then assuming no other restrictions changed at the same time, a comparison should show a decline in infection numbers recorded, following mask introduction. This sort of comparison could - and should - be made as it appears that there is no evidence of it improving things, and evidence that it possibly makes it worse (although the latter cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty).

How on earth would you be able to measure that? Travel to an alternative universe where masks weren't used?
it is important to note that masks do not magically reduce cases, they reduce possibility of transmission.
So there is no guarantee that you would see a decline in numbers - especially against a backdrop of schools opening, people going on holiday, people getting tired of following the rules / guidelines and so being less careful etc. Given those things it was pretty much guaranteed that cases would go up! Indeed it is likely that without mask wearing the increase we are seeing would have been greater than what it has been so far.

 

[AdamWW]

So there is no guarantee that you would see a decline in numbers - especially against a backdrop of schools opening, people going on holiday, people getting tired of following the rules / guidelines and so being less careful etc. Given those things it was pretty much guaranteed that cases would go up!

And given that recently we have seen the imposition of face coverings as a reaction to increasing cases, it's rather hard to disintangle cause and effect.

 

[DB]

And given that recently we have seen the imposition of face coverings as a reaction to increasing cases, it's rather hard to disintangle cause and effect.

If masks are as effective as their proponents claim, their introduction should cause a measurable decrease in cases. There is no evidence of that happening, in any of the countries which have at various times mandated them. Governments seen to avoid discussing this.

 

[Bantamzen]

If masks are as effective as their proponents claim, their introduction should cause a measurable decrease in cases. There is no evidence of that happening, in any of the countries which have at various times mandated them. Governments seen to avoid discussing this.

Is the correct answer. It is noticeable that of the countries that have increased the mandating of masks in more social situations, many are seeing increases in cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the correct answer. It is noticeable that of the countries that have increased the mandating of masks in more social situations, many are seeing increases in cases.

And this is why as I mentioned my faith is wavering. My view was to try them to see what the effect would be, and it seems it's either been non-existent or negative.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If masks are as effective as their proponents claim, their introduction should cause a measurable decrease in cases.

Err what?
They reduce the risk of transmission. They do not stop transmission.

Is the correct answer. It is noticeable that of the countries that have increased the mandating of masks in more social situations, many are seeing increases in cases.

Doesn't that just mean that countries that have mandated masks are more likely to be the countries that have started opening up more too though?
Masks don't stop transmission. They reduce the chance of it happening. Opening up and thus doing the activities that spread the virus will obviously increase the risk cases will increase. If the risk of it spreading increases at a larger speed than the risk reduction by wearing masks, cases will rise.

 

[43066]

And this is why as I mentioned my faith is wavering. My view was to try them to see what the effect would be, and it seems it's either been non-existent or negative.

Trouble is, just as many of us predicted, we are now stuck with them for the foreseeable.

There’s zero chance of the government admitting they got this wrong, and the maskivists (who weren’t bothered about the lack of evidence masks worked in the first place) will just say: “if we weren’t using them, things might be worse”.

 

[trebor79]

I am coming to the conclusion that the best thing to do is learn Swedish...

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Trouble is, just as many of us predicted, we are now stuck with them for the foreseeable.

There’s zero chance of the government admitting they got this wrong, and the maskivists (who weren’t bothered about the lack of evidence masks worked in the first place) will just say: “if we weren’t using them, things might be worse”.

I suspect that the face-covering requirement will be very long lasting. As soon as anyone tries to reduce their mandation, or remove it entirely, the maskivists will be allover social media with 'open season for granny killing'. The media will report this as FACT because it attracts readers/listeners/viewers/clicks. Even if cases reduce to a handful nationwide and COVID deaths stop happening, there will still be enough of a clammer 'it must not be allowed to come back' and 'the only way for that to happen is to maintain all restrictions, forever'.

It will take a fair pair of balls to stand up and remove a restriction, especially now that we have a resurgence of cases following mere relaxations.

I further suspect that use of face-coverings for normal flu and the like will become expected of everone, as per the countries that had this habit already.

 

[DB]

Err what?
They reduce the risk of transmission. They do not stop transmission.



Doesn't that just mean that countries that have mandated masks are more likely to be the countries that have started opening up more too though?
Masks don't stop transmission. They reduce the chance of it happening. Opening up and thus doing the activities that spread the virus will obviously increase the risk cases will increase. If the risk of it spreading increases at a larger speed than the risk reduction by wearing masks, cases will rise.

If they reduce the risk of transmission (which you seem to regard as a fact, despite the evidence for it being very weak), there should be a measurable decrease in infections. There isn't. There have also been enough cases of masks being mandated at a time when no other significant changes were made, e.g. masks in shops in England, that the impact should be visible. But no reduction is visible - there is no evidence that the masksare reducing infections at all.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If they reduce the risk of transmission (which you seem to regard as a fact, despite the evidence for it being very weak), there should be a measurable decrease in infections. There isn't. There have also been enough cases of masks being mandated at a time when no other significant changes were made, e.g. masks in shops in England, that the impact should be visible. But no reduction is visible - there is no evidence that the masksare reducing infections at all.

Aren't you forgetting that masks weren't mandated until several weeks after pubs, restaurants etc started opening?
Of course you won't see a reduction overall if you are increasing the risk elsewhere!

 

[trebor79]

If they reduce the risk of transmission (which you seem to regard as a fact, despite the evidence for it being very weak), there should be a measurable decrease in infections. There isn't. There have also been enough cases of masks being mandated at a time when no other significant changes were made, e.g. masks in shops in England, that the impact should be visible. But no reduction is visible - there is no evidence that the masksare reducing infections at all.

In fact the rise in positive test results in England coincides almost exactly with the date the masks in shops mandate came into force.

 

[DB]

Aren't you forgetting that masks weren't mandated until several weeks after pubs, restaurants etc started opening?
Of course you won't see a reduction overall if you are increasing the risk elsewhere!

Given the timing, it should have been measurable.

Looked at in conjunction WIth other countries, it is clear that nowhere is there any demonstrable case of masks reducing infection rates.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In fact the rise in positive test results in England coincides almost exactly with the date the masks in shops mandate came into force.

Or more likely, the date that pubs, restaurants and other places started to reopen. Indeed looking at the test graphs, it looks like it was the start of July that was the turning point for transmission (given that you need to look slightly before when cases rise to know when transmission rose). Whereas masks weren't mandated until late July.
I mean given the timings I am amazed people aren't see the connection with pubs and restaurants etc being open. Surely it is obvious opening up again would spread the virus again?

Given the timing, it should have been measurable.

How exactly? When you have an already increasing exposure to the virus thanks to things opening again.
The literal only way you could measure it is if you either went to an alternate world where everything was the same except mask wearing, or you had a scenario where nothing changed except mask wearing. Sadly one of those isn't possible and the other didn't happen.

It is worth remembering that all of these measure - masks, social distancing, reducing capacities, etc etc, all are meant to reduce the chance of the virus transmitting. They won't stop it. The point of having these things in place whilst we opened up pubs, restaurants etc was to try to keep control of the spread of the virus. If we get rid of all the measures - the virus will go back to its exponential growth until it runs out of people to infect and transmit between. The fact the growth isn't exponential at the moment means the measures are still working - though to a lesser extent than when we had even stricter measures in place - which is to be expected!

 

[MikeWM]

In fact the rise in positive test results in England coincides almost exactly with the date the masks in shops mandate came into force.

Let's have a graph The purple arrow is masks in shops. Note this was 6 weeks after shops reopened, and 3 weeks after pubs etc. reopened. Very little else changed around July 24.



Edit : Here's France for 'comparison'

 

[AdamWW]

If masks are as effective as their proponents claim, their introduction should cause a measurable decrease in cases. There is no evidence of that happening, in any of the countries which have at various times mandated them. Governments seen to avoid discussing this.

No.

They should cause a decrease in cases compared to what would have happened without them. Which is - unfortunately - unmeasurable.

Let's have a graph The purple arrow is masks in shops. Note this was 6 weeks after shops reopened, and 3 weeks after pubs etc. reopened. Very little else changed around July 24.

View attachment 83418

I think by "very little changed" you mean there was no change in government requirements or guidance. Not the same as no change.

Transport use statistics give some idea of how much people are getting out and about. Do you have a graph showing that car and public transport use remained flat over this period?

I don't think these are compelling arguments against masks (but I haven't seen any particularly compelling ones for them either).

 

[43066]

Let's have a graph The purple arrow is masks in shops. Note this was 6 weeks after shops reopened, and 3 weeks after pubs etc. reopened. Very little else changed around July 24.

View attachment 83418

It’s difficult to see how anybody can look at that and conclude that masks (or face coverings) make a difference either way.

That comes as no surprise, of course, given that this was the established scientific consensus up until political pressure was applied a few months ago, and remains the view of the government’s own deputy chief medical officer, as we have seen upthread.

The obvious conclusion is that they were an experiment which hasn’t worked, and should never have been mandated in the first place.

 

[MikeWM]

I think by "very little changed" you mean there was no change in government requirements or guidance. Not the same as no change.

No, and I agree - I pointed out some months ago that there was no way to do a proper test of masks simply by forcing the issue and seeing what happened. There are far too many variables either way - and people both for and against masks can trivially argue the evidence 'proves' their point whatever the results. That's why we need proper experimental evidence and RCTs (not this behavioural science nonsense, or metastudies of studies that are almost entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand).

Transport use statistics give some idea of how much people are getting out and about. Do you have a graph showing that car and public transport use remained flat over this period?

Not to hand, no.

I don't think these are compelling arguments against masks (but I haven't seen any particularly compelling ones for them either).

My gut feeling (and the limited actual science that we do have) remains they make extremely little difference either way. The virus will do what it will do.

 

[island]

I see a woman in Manchester was fined twice in one day for not wearing a mask in a supermarket:



(https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...nW_9GimN_XZ6cDtzeBzCsUNPYxmgYsfXxcDJ9fzhXg2_w)

Is this in line with the law? I thought all that was required was “I have an exemption”, I didn’t think police were supposed to or allowed to ask for the reason or what that exemption actually is.

If the police do not believe a person has a reasonable excuse they can (and in this case have) issue a fixed penalty notice. If the recipient wishes to contest this they can wait to be summoned to court to answer the charge and it will then be for the magistrates/district judge to decide.

 

[AdamWW]

No, and I agree - I pointed out some months ago that there was no way to do a proper test of masks simply by forcing the issue and seeing what happened. There are far too many variables either way - and people both for and against masks can trivially argue the evidence 'proves' their point whatever the results. That's why we need proper experimental evidence and RCTs (not this behavioural science nonsense, or metastudies of studies that are almost entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand).

I can't see how you do a randomised controlled trial, because you have to look at the overall effect so you'd need two places that were identical in all other respects.

I suppose you could confine groups of people together for a month, some with and some without masks, and put deliberately infected volunteers in half the groups. Not sure how well that would get through an ethics committee though.

So I think the lack of controlled trials shouldn't in itself be seen as a lack of evidence that they help.

It makes it very hard to know.

 

[island]

The odd thing in that article is that she received *two* £100 fines. But the second fine is supposed to be doubled...

It is, and that would be the second notice defective.

If it was the same instance of non-wearing, I'm not sure the second one would stand. Unless she left the store and re-entered, or put one on then removed it, only one offence of non-wearing has been committed.

I suppose very technically she may have committed the separate offences of failing to wear a face covering and failing to obey a police officer’s direction to put one on, but I doubt a court would entertain convicting someone for both Offences committed at substantially the same time.

 

[Failed Unit]

I can't see how you do a randomised controlled trial, because you have to look at the overall effect so you'd need two places that were identical in all other respects.

I suppose you could confine groups of people together for a month, some with and some without masks, and put deliberately infected volunteers in half the groups. Not sure how well that would get through an ethics committee though.

So I think the lack of controlled trials shouldn't in itself be seen as a lack of evidence that they help.

It makes it very hard to know.

Even if you do that, lets say I am in one of the groups. I may be immune anyway. I may have antibodies from already having it (as no-one knows who has / hasn't had it) I can't see how we could ever have a logical comparison. However when you look at Spain who had one of the toughest lockdowns in Europe and have had mask wearing for much longer then us. (I suspect the behavior of their citizens isn't much different to ours) They don't seem to be winning the war either.

So the way I look at it.

Masks
Positives - someone has to manufacture them so they create employment in making and distribution of them.
Negatives - Increasing litter, Promotes hostility as some people can't accept that people are exempt from wearing them, taking it off and putting it on the table is actually more likely to spread transmission then not wearing one at all. (as a child then touches the same surface, put its fingers in their mouth and infects granny.)

 

[MikeWM]

I can't see how you do a randomised controlled trial, because you have to look at the overall effect so you'd need two places that were identical in all other respects.

Yes, I don't see how you do it either, but then it isn't my job to come up with clever ways of doing experiments!

They're doing something in Denmark, but I don't know the methodology they're using.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, I don't see how you do it either, but then it isn't my job to come up with clever ways of doing experiments!

No indeed - just pointing out that I don't think the argument that if they worked there would be strong evidence from randomised controlled trials is a very good one.