UK face coverings discussion

[talldave]

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.

Fair point, original post edited.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

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

My bad, must have confused with only England lol

 

[SouthEastBuses]

@island

Oxford COVID-19 study: face masks and coverings work – act now | University of Oxford

Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.

www.ox.ac.uk

Here's the evidence that masks work, even though I don't really agree about homemade cloth masks as once again N95s are more effective and do the proper job.

 

[trebor79]

My bad, must have confused with only England lol

England is about 700 cases a day. I think you just made the numbers up.

 

[DB]

@island

Oxford COVID-19 study: face masks and coverings work – act now | University of Oxford

Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.

www.ox.ac.uk

Here's the evidence that masks work, even though I don't really agree about homemade cloth masks as once again N95s are more effective and do the proper job.

That one has been discussed on this thread at least twice already. It is an analysis of just four studies, all of which took place in a healthcare setting. In no way does it demonstrate that masks used in public are of any benefit.

 

[MikeWM]

@island

Oxford COVID-19 study: face masks and coverings work – act now | University of Oxford

Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.

www.ox.ac.uk

Here's the evidence that masks work, even though I don't really agree about homemade cloth masks as once again N95s are more effective and do the proper job.

We looked at that one a couple of weeks ago, too. See here

But the report finds that face covering policy has been impacted by a lack of clear recommendations, likely because of an ‘over-reliance on an evidence-based approach and assertion that evidence was weak due to few conclusive RCT (randomized control trial) results in community settings, discounting high quality non-RCT evidence’.
Professor Mills insists this should not be the sole consideration, ‘RCTs don’t fit well when looking at behaviour and it was clear that high quality observational and behavioural research had been largely discarded.

If the phrase 'an over-reliance on an evidence-based approach' coming from supposed scientists doesn't send chills down your spine, it should.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

We looked at that one a couple of weeks ago, too. See here



If the phrase 'an over-reliance on an evidence-based approach' coming from supposed scientists doesn't send chills down your spine, it should.

I can testify of the evidence of my own eyes. Since last week, people queueing in shops, while masked, are behaving like social distancing is abolished. They truly feel invincible because they have a strip of cloth across their face (or tucked under their chin). No surprise to me that infection rates are on the rise again ...

 

[AdamWW]

If the phrase 'an over-reliance on an evidence-based approach' coming from supposed scientists doesn't send chills down your spine, it should.

OK that doesn't come across well.

But the rest of the sentance seems to be saying that as there are few relevant randomised controlled trials (for very good reason - they would be vary hard to do) in this case we should be looking for the best evidence we can from non controlled trials.

Which I would agree with.

 

[MikeWM]

OK that doesn't come across well.

But the rest of the sentance seems to be saying that as there are few relevant randomised controlled trials (for very good reason - they would be vary hard to do) in this case we should be looking for the best evidence we can from non controlled trials.

Which I would agree with.

But all they did - again - was look at 4 studies done in medical settings in one country (China). (It's the same paper as the Royal Society 'evidence', which itself points out the problems on page 30).

 

[SouthEastBuses]

England is about 700 cases a day. I think you just made the numbers up.

Or more like I got mixed up with somewhere else. I never spread false data.

 

[AdamWW]

But all they did - again - was look at 4 studies done in medical settings in one country (China). (It's the same paper as the Royal Society 'evidence', which itself points out the problems on page 30).

I'm not endorsing their conclusions.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm not endorsing their conclusions.

Fair enough.

The article clearly thinks this is good enough however - 'face masks and coverings work - act now'. Oxford University should be embarassed by having that article on their website (after all, this is the same university that has the excellent CEBM, who do seem to understand science, facts, evidence, things like that).

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Or more like I got mixed up with somewhere else. I never spread false data.

Just wear a mask, then any data you spread won’t reach me

 

[bramling]

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.

My only concern with the "let it rip through the healthy" idea is long-term effects. There's surprisingly little said in official circles about this. I'd have hoped that by now we'd know a little more about what long-term effects there are, or aren't, and on what proportion of people who have had Covid. I do find it hard to make a fully informed judgement without knowing a little more in this area.

On balance though I agree that the longer we go on like this the longer we will *have* to take the risk of a herd immunity strategy, as ultimately it's going to increasingly become the least worst option. It would presumably be better if improved treatments could be found to lessen the impact on people who get it, something which seems to have already been happening to some extent.

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.

Absolutely. Any furlough going forward must be limited to those who are properly medically vulnerable. I'd also prefer to find a way of subsidising businesses for reduced income rather than just paying people to stay at home (this didn't work as we've consistently seen from the way beauty spots and the like have been mobbed right through this, even during the lockdown period). So keep places like pubs open even with severe restrictions on numbers, and top up revenue - thus keeping everyone gainfully employed. A lot of "key workers" will simply not tolerate another lockdown where they work right through it and see everyone else sunbathing, and quite rightly so.

 

[DB]

My only concern with the "let it rip through the healthy" idea is long-term effects. There's surprisingly little said in official circles about this. I'd have hoped that by now we'd know a little more about what long-term effects there are, or aren't, and on what proportion of people who have had Covid. I do find it hard to make a fully informed judgement without knowing a little more in this area.

Given that there are so few stories about people with long-term problems from it, it seems reasonable to assume that they are rare.

 

[AdamWW]

My only concern with the "let it rip through the healthy" idea is long-term effects. There's surprisingly little said in official circles about this. I'd have hoped that by now we'd know a little more about what long-term effects there are, or aren't, and on what proportion of people who have had Covid. I do find it hard to make a fully informed judgement without knowing a little more in this area.

On balance though I agree that the longer we go on like this the longer we will *have* to take the risk of a herd immunity strategy, as ultimately it's going to increasingly become the least worst option. It would presumably be better if improved treatments could be found to lessen the impact on people who get it, something which seems to have already been happening to some extent.

Yes - I've found it disappointingly hard to find out any good information on "long" term effects (obviously at present we only have a few months to go on for most people).

There's a lot of focus on deaths but - just as we don't want to cause widespread damage with a vaccine - we also don't want to leave a large fraction of the population with long term health problems.

 

[greyman42]

"Widened mask usage slightly"? I think you'll find we've increased it massively. As for their effect, we are now in the start of the period where this might be measured given that the median incubation period is 5.2 days. So if there is an uptick in cases in the coming days & weeks, it is possible that masks might actually be having a negative effect.

Should cases fall then masks will be lorded, if cases rise then it will be blamed on the pubs.

 

[AdamWW]

Given that there are so few stories about people with long-term problems from it, it seems reasonable to assume that they are rare.

Probably. But it's hard to judge what does does capture the attention of the media. The odd story of someone seriously ill, yes. But if, say, 1% of people under 40 are still having unpleasant symptoms after a few months (which would be a lot of people if we let most of the population become infected) I suspect that only makes the news if someone does a study on it and issues a press release.

Should cases fall then masks will be lorded, if cases rise then it will be blamed on the pubs.

Which is why I think we need more evidence, though I must confess I'm finding it hard to see how we'd do the sort of wide scale trial that might give truly useful information.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I just read this morning an article on the Guardian which is whether people should consider wearing face shields and goggles too, as well as masks:

You’re already wearing a mask – now consider a face shield and goggles | Adrienne Matei

For better protection, you may need to ... look a little weird and shield your peepers

www.theguardian.com

May sound weird and extreme, I know, but I think it's a good idea. They do help, as they give you extra protection, and can reduce the risk of infection even more. Indeed, if everybody started wearing these in addition to masks in high risk settings such as supermarkets and public transport, I think we'd be able to nearly defeat the virus, if not even eradicate it, thanks to the extra protections!

So what do you all think? Should people consider wearing shields and goggles too (in addition to a mask), or not?

Absolute nonsense!

Let's all go around in space suits or full PPE and suffer the added discomfort "for the greater good" and to "protect others"

Or rather, let's all use common sense and be risk-aware

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolute nonsense!

Let's all go around in space suits or full PPE and suffer the added discomfort "for the greater good" and to "protect others"

Or rather, let's all use common sense and be risk-aware

My impression is that a lot of people are not risk aware, they're doing the COVID version of running round with their hands over their ears singing "la la la".

 

[greyman42]

By which time there will be very few shops, a lot of cinemas will have closed, as well as museums etc, but then no one will have any money as unemployment will be rife !

And people will be facing life without any sort of decent pension.

 

[MikeWM]

Absolute nonsense!

Let's all go around in space suits or full PPE and suffer the added discomfort "for the greater good" and to "protect others"

Or rather, let's all use common sense and be risk-aware

I'm not sure why those who really shouldn't, or really don't want to, get the virus - can't wear an *effective* mask *plus* goggles [1]. And leave the rest of us take our chances and get on with our lives without any of this nonsense.

[1] Obviously there are a subset of people who can't do one or the other or both, but if they're deeply concerned I'm sure we can come up with some solution or other to protect them.

 

[Richard Scott]

My impression is that a lot of people are not risk aware, they're doing the COVID version of running round with their hands over their ears singing "la la la".

Perhaps because in reality very few people have it and chances of getting it are low. Even if numbers start to rise it's not a given you'll get it - I know of at least two people who worked on covid wards and didn't catch it. I know plenty did but point I'm making is I think people are probably realising it's not that common and willing to take the risk. The masks aren't helping - make people behave like they're invincible, bit like 4x4 drivers in the snow who wonder why they end up in the ditch!

 

[greyman42]

Yes, that does seem to be misuse of the handle as it can easily be resolved without stopping the train.

It can be easily resolved by people minding their own business.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know of at least two people who worked on covid wards and didn't catch it

Do you not think that that might just possibly be because they did so wearing the correct PPE at all times?

It can be easily resolved by people minding their own business.

It is my business if someone else puts me at risk of catching COVID because they can't be bothered to comply with the law (as distinct from if they have a valid exemption). Just like it's my business if people drive in a dangerous manner, because that puts me at risk, not just them.

Obviously there is a grey area, but groups of multiple twentysomething lads are very unlikely all to be exempt nor to all live in the same household.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Just wear a mask, then any data you spread won’t reach me

Of which I do.

 

[43066]

It is my business if someone else puts me at risk of catching COVID because they can't be bothered to comply with the law. Just like it's my business if people drive in a dangerous manner, because that puts me at risk, not just them.

That isn’t a good comparison:

- only one person in several thousand currently has the virus;

- they may well have an exemption (and the evidence masks prevent transmission is extremely weak);

- they might unknowingly be infected, and wearing a mask with a valve. If so they’ll be in full compliance with the law, while putting you at greater risk than if they were mask-less!

If you’re that worried I’d suggest simply moving away from them. For goodness sake don’t operate a passcom (I’m not sure whether you’re actually advocating that, but it’s a very bad idea!)

People using public transport need to make their peace with the fact that they will regularly encounter those who are not wearing masks. If they aren’t members of BTP, it is *absolutely* none of their business why that might be.

 

[A Challenge]

Which is why I think we need more evidence, though I must confess I'm finding it hard to see how we'd do the sort of wide scale trial that might give truly useful information.

Without a scientific trial (even if a double blind trial won't be possible, a randomised trial should be) in a non-medical setting, masks shouldn't have been mandated, particularly in settings that had been open with the vast majority of people not wearing masks until it was mandated, for the length of the pandemic.

 

[Richard Scott]

Do you not think that that might just possibly be because they did so wearing the correct PPE at all times?

So what you're saying is that all the NHS workers who did catch it weren't wearing any PPE or didn't know how to wear it?

 

[Darandio]

So what you're saying is that all the NHS workers who did catch it weren't wearing any PPE or didn't know how to wear it?

It's not inconceivable that they weren't wearing PPE. There were plenty of stories around at the time claiming severe shortages.