UK face coverings discussion

[LAX54]

The amount I see wearing the disposable ones ..upside down !!

 

[island]

And back to front.

 

[trebor79]

And I suspect not a lot of enthusiasm to do so either.

I would say that we urgently need to do some studies to find out how much masks actually help when used in the way they currently are being used, except that I can't figure out how to actually do anything useful, particularly given that any large scale trial of not wearing masks is going to undermine the message the government wants to give.

We did that trial for several months. Infection rates fell.
Infection rates have been rising ever since masks in shops was mandated.

 

[AdamWW]

We did that trial for several months. Infection rates fell.
Infection rates have been rising ever since masks in shops was mandated.

Unfortunately we changed a lot of other things in that timescale so as a trial it's utterly meaningless.

 

[A Challenge]

Unfortunately we changed a lot of other things in that timescale so as a trial it's utterly meaningless.

The last major change (not masks or more lockdown) was on 4th July, which would have filtered through before the masks changes.

 

[LAX54]

Should the press STOP reporting those figures that simply say x amount of people have proved positive, and maybe just report those that are positive and NEED Hopsital intervention? and then see how the figures stack up

 

[AdamWW]

The last major change (not masks or more lockdown) was on 4th July, which would have filtered through before the masks changes.

OK I wasn't aware of that - I have been paying more attention to how things have changed where I live.

But whether the law or even guidelines have changed or not, there has been a gradual relaxation as companies have chosen to open and relax rules (e.g. supermarkets stopping capacity controls), not to mention people possibly becoming less keen on following social distancing.

So to suggest that we can use the figures to learn anything about the impact of masks is in my view a fantasy.

(And I suspect anyone trying to use that sort of reasoning to suggest that masks do help on here would be shot down quite quickly).

 

[HSTEd]

How can outdoor face masks be logical?

For the political reasons I outlined.

 

[talldave]

And I suspect not a lot of enthusiasm to do so either.

I would say that we urgently need to do some studies to find out how much masks actually help when used in the way they currently are being used, except that I can't figure out how to actually do anything useful, particularly given that any large scale trial of not wearing masks is going to undermine the message the government wants to give.

We already did that for 4 months and infection rates dropped.

 

[AdamWW]

We already did that for 4 months and infection rates dropped.

Putting aside the fact that there is no way you can attribute infection rates to just masks when so many other things were changing, masks were made compulsory in shops on 24th July.

Infection rates stopped falling in June.

 

[talldave]

Putting aside the fact that there is no way you can attribute infection rates to just masks when so many other things were changing, masks were made compulsory in shops on 24th July.

Infection rates stopped falling in June.

Not in the figures I was looking at they didn't.

 

[AdamWW]

Not in the figures I was looking at they didn't.

From the ONS infection survey report on 2nd July, looking at random samples of the population rather than raw test figures which depend on how many tests are being carried out, who is being tested etc.:

Modelling of the trend over time suggests that the decline in the number of people in England testing positive has levelled off in recent weeks.

I will concede that it's phrased guardedly.

There is perhaps a danger that people dismiss well constructed analysis because scientists correctly show caution in their conclusions, and instead rely on less robust analysis from people who express their views more confidently.

 

[talldave]

From the ONS infection survey report on 2nd July, looking at random samples of the population rather than raw test figures which depend on how many tests are being carried out, who is being tested etc.:



I will concede that it's phrased guardedly.

There is perhaps a danger that people dismiss well constructed analysis because scientists correctly show caution in their conclusions, and instead rely on less robust analysis from people who express their views more confidently.

You mean like someone saying "infection rates stopped falling in June"?

 

[AdamWW]

You mean like someone saying "infection rates stopped falling in June"?

Well that's a different case, where I took results which were described in a suitable guarded fashion and described them with more confidence than perhaps they warrant. And for that, yes, guilty as charged.

I should have said that there is good evidence suggesting that the fall stopped in June.

 

[trebor79]

Putting aside the fact that there is no way you can attribute infection rates to just masks when so many other things were changing, masks were made compulsory in shops on 24th July.

Infection rates stopped falling in June.

No they didn't:

The 7 day average flatlined from early July and has recently begun to rise, though we aren't yet back to where we were in early June.

Unfortunately we changed a lot of other things in that timescale so as a trial it's utterly meaningless.

All the things that were changed were loosening of restrictions and opening up of society. things that would tend to increase infection rates. Cases continued to fall. It's not utterly meaningless.
One conclusion to be drawn is that the mask mandate has resulted in a collapse in social distancing observation, and as social distancing is more effective than a bit of dirty rag over ones mouth for stopping transmission, cases have begun to rise again as a result.

OK I wasn't aware of that - I have been paying more attention to how things have changed where I live.

But whether the law or even guidelines have changed or not, there has been a gradual relaxation as companies have chosen to open and relax rules (e.g. supermarkets stopping capacity controls), not to mention people possibly becoming less keen on following social distancing.

Exactly. Overall, masks have had the opposite effect to what is wanted on transmission.
They have also had the opposite effect to that intended in terms of people going out and shopping. Just returned from an errand to my local town. Absolutely dead as a dodo. Barely any cars parked on the high street (usually you're lucky to get a space), car park empty. Just Lidl and Sainsburys with any appreciable custom.

(And I suspect anyone trying to use that sort of reasoning to suggest that masks do help on here would be shot down quite quickly).

Of course they would, because all the real world evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

[Jonny]

No they didn't:
View attachment 81801
The 7 day average flatlined from early July and has recently begun to rise, though we aren't yet back to where we were in early June.


All the things that were changed were loosening of restrictions and opening up of society. things that would tend to increase infection rates. Cases continued to fall. It's not utterly meaningless.
One conclusion to be drawn is that the mask mandate has resulted in a collapse in social distancing observation, and as social distancing is more effective than a bit of dirty rag over ones mouth for stopping transmission, cases have begun to rise again as a result.

Exactly. Overall, masks have had the opposite effect to what is wanted on transmission.
They have also had the opposite effect to that intended in terms of people going out and shopping. Just returned from an errand to my local town. Absolutely dead as a dodo. Barely any cars parked on the high street (usually you're lucky to get a space), car park empty. Just Lidl and Sainsburys with any appreciable custom.


Of course they would, because all the real world evidence points in the opposite direction.

How much of that is down to improved and focussed testing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not in the figures I was looking at they didn't.

The lowest point was 6th July and the flatline/slightly upward trend started then. That was well before masks were mandatory. So the best that can be derived is that they have no effect, but it's also possible they haven't really had chance yet.

Source: https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/cases

As people are seemingly distancing less with them, it could also demonstrate that they are effective as a mitigation to allow distancing to be effectively abolished.

 

[Jonny]

Should the press STOP reporting those figures that simply say x amount of people have proved positive, and maybe just report those that are positive and NEED Hopsital intervention? and then see how the figures stack up

That would be a much more useful statistic, would the proportion of tests that are newly-positive. Then everyone would know what is really going on.

 

[Yew]

It's also worth remembering that the amount of testing has increased. The University of Oxford Centre For Evidence Based Medicine show that, per 100,000 tests, the number of cases is still slightly decreasing



Ultimately, if we do more tests, we find more cases.

 

[trebor79]

How much of that is down to improved and focussed testing?

That's a good point.
In fact hospital admissions remain at very low levels. Perhaps as a nation we need to lose the obsession with case numbers and look at hospital admissions?
Whilst looking at this data, I've spotted something a bit odd. Wales hospital admissions have been almost equal to England for the past week or so. But the number of daily cases in Wales is an order of magnitude lower. Why would the hospitalisation rate in Wales be 10x that in England? IS it still ripping through care homes there or is something else going on?

 

[talldave]

Well that's a different case, where I took results which were described in a suitable guarded fashion and described them with more confidence than perhaps they warrant. And for that, yes, guilty as charged.

I should have said that there is good evidence suggesting that the fall stopped in June.

You're not the only one doing it. But by doing so you're playing into the government's hand and adding weight to project fear. An unconfirmed statistic becomes a fact, a guideline becomes a law, mask research from the medical environment becomes relevant to supermarkets. It's never ending.

Some of us are happy to point out the lies and hypocrisy.

Even the BTP are lying "there are no exemptions (to mask wearing)" - all the more frustrating when uttered by a non mask wearing officer. Sorry, they no longer have my respect. And yes I know they don't have to wear masks because obviously it makes sense that an infected person with a uniform on can't pass it on doesn't it? Although mysteriously, even the Facebook Furloughs can't explain that one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would be a much more useful statistic, would the proportion of tests that are newly-positive. Then everyone would know what is really going on.

That figure is available:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

It remains on a slightly downward trend, but it is necessary to be aware that hospital admissions lag initial symptoms by between 1-2 weeks (if it's going to happen at all) so there's still time for that to turn.

Similarly deaths are on the (slow) decrease still, but those lag initial symptoms by 3-5 weeks.

Even the BTP are lying "there are no exemptions (to mask wearing)" - all the more frustrating when uttered by a non mask wearing officer. Sorry, they no longer have my respect. And yes I know they don't have to wear masks because obviously it makes sense that an infected person with a uniform on can't pass it on doesn't it? Although mysteriously, even the Facebook Furloughs can't explain that one.

I do think it is downright inappropriate that BTP are exempt, and that they should be wearing masks, or if not possible for e.g. medical reasons they should wear a visor instead. Staff in businesses should be exempt only when they are either 2m distanced from anyone else (customer or other employee) at all times without exception, or when they are behind screens, work alone in a cab (e.g. a train driver) or similar, but again only when they are similarly protected from or distanced from any other member of staff. This is not true of Police, therefore they should be wearing masks.

 

[trebor79]

That would be a much more useful statistic, would the proportion of tests that are newly-positive. Then everyone would know what is really going on.

All of the data is freely available from the governemnt website:
https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/ (soon to be https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/)

 

[trebor79]

Similarly deaths are on the (slow) decrease still, but those lag initial symptoms by 3-5 weeks.

Unless the broken methodology by which Covid deaths are counted they will inevitably rise again. Currently if you've ever been infected, then subsequently die from something else, that's a Covid death.
By that measure, the death rate from the common cold is 100%. The broken methodology means the Covid death rate doesn't really inform us of anything in terms of public health. Hospital admissions is a far more useful measure (and probably more useful than lab-confirmed cases).

 

[bramling]

One thing I have noticed with face coverings is that they cut off some of your lower peripheral vision so I keep finding myself having to look down to make up for it.

The restriction of visibility concerns me when we see people like bus drivers wearing them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The restriction of visibility concerns me when we see people like bus drivers wearing them.

Only if it concerns you that bus drivers wear spectacles, which have a far, far greater impact on field of vision, particularly if you choose slimline frames.

The reality, as every spectacle-wearer knows, is that you turn your head naturally to compensate.

 

[AdamWW]

You're not the only one doing it. But by doing so you're playing into the government's hand and adding weight to project fear. An unconfirmed statistic becomes a fact, a guideline becomes a law, mask research from the medical environment becomes relevant to supermarkets. It's never ending.

I object to the idea that I'm being conned by the government into spreading unnecessary doom and gloom. I admit that I should have been more guarded in how I expressed the ONS figures I referred to.

But there is a big, difference between an "unconfirmed statistic" and a robust estimate with quoted probabilities. From the ONS survey it looks as if now infections are going up, but within the uncertainties they could be constant which is why (elsewhere) I haven't been talking about infections rising.

Unless the broken methodology by which Covid deaths are counted they will inevitably rise again. Currently if you've ever been infected, then subsequently die from something else, that's a Covid death.
By that measure, the death rate from the common cold is 100%. The broken methodology means the Covid death rate doesn't really inform us of anything in terms of public health. Hospital admissions is a far more useful measure (and probably more useful than lab-confirmed cases).

I don't think so. That's how the PHE results are counted - the ones that gives us a quick but imperfect look at the death figures.

I do not think that the ONS figures work like that - although you can argue about what should and shouldn't be counted as a Covid death.

Ultimately, if we do more tests, we find more cases.

Probably but not necessarily since it depends who you are testing.

But that's why decisions aren't being made just on the raw numbers of positive figures - those advising the government aren't that bad at their jobs.

 

[MikeWM]

Only if it concerns you that bus drivers wear spectacles, which have a far, far greater impact on field of vision, particularly if you choose slimline frames.

Only if your eyesight is *really* bad! The area around the edge of the glasses is just less resolved than the area inside.

At that distance from the centre of your vision it tends not to make a lot of difference anyway - you're not perceiving much *detail* at the edge of your vision, just shapes, colour and movement.

Having an actual obstacle in the way (or visual field loss) is rather different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only if your eyesight is *really* bad! The area around the edge of the glasses is just less resolved than the area inside.

My eyesight isn't really bad, but the frame itself blocks enough that I have no useful peripheral vision outside of the lenses. The only exception is if I go for very narrow lenses, in which case I have useful downward peripheral vision, but you hardly need that to avoid hitting someone with your bus.

 

[MikeWM]

My eyesight isn't really bad, but the frame itself blocks enough that I have no useful peripheral vision outside of the lenses. The only exception is if I go for very narrow lenses, in which case I have useful downward peripheral vision, but you hardly need that to avoid hitting someone with your bus.

Seems like you're wearing either really large lenses or really thick frames. With the reading glasses I'm currently wearing as I type this {I've had cataract surgery in both eyes} the frame would have to be above my eyebrows to get nothing beyond them at the top while looking directly ahead, for example.