Masks

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

So how does the virus travel around again then?

washman3

robinph wrote: »

So how does the virus travel around again then?

Just like the mad professor Luke O'Neill told you some time back...;)

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Just like the mad professor Luke O'Neill told you some time back...;)

Never heard of him, but guessing you don't mean a Wimbledon footballer which is all Google is giving me?

What did they say then?

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

washman3 wrote: »

Just like the mad professor Luke O'Neill told you some time back...;)

He says to clean your underwear..:D

https://www.newstalk.com/news/treat-mask-like-underwear-professor-luke-oneill-face-mask-hygiene-1050496

Ash.J.Williams

Yes: homemade

washman3 wrote: »

Go on roundabouts all you like but the figures are there.
Mask wearing over the last few weeks has not decreased cases.
The cases have actually increased. I want you to explain that.
Forget this 'Meat Factory' bluff. All the meat factories were operating during the lockdown. And there were just as many house partys during the lockdown than there are now.
Nowhere did i claim that masks increased transmission.
But the evidence is there, cases are up. Explain why.!!

we're not wearing masks to decrease cases, we're wearing them minimize the risk of infecting the elderly and people at risk in spaces where social distancing is difficult.

odyssey06

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

we're not wearing masks to decrease cases, we're wearing them minimize the risk of infecting the elderly and people at risk in spaces where social distancing is difficult.

And also to keep clusters confined to known sites where we can contact trace, to avoid community transmission in places where tracing is difficult such as buses and shops.

lee_baby_simms

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

we're not wearing masks to decrease cases, we're wearing them minimize the risk of infecting the elderly and people at risk in spaces where social distancing is difficult.

But in June a number of cherry picked observation studies apparently proved that masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13319/face-masks-considerably-reduce-covid-19-cases-in-germany-a-synthetic-control-method-approach

When you look at the graphs of countries that introduced mandatory masks there is absolutely no impact on the falling trends.

In fact its actually the opposite now, detected cases are going up in the majority of regions where masks are mandatory.

I'm not really interested in arguing about masks, I'm happy to wear one if it allows business to open and life to get back towards normal, but the science is so weak on them and looking at real world data the impact of them has been negligible.

saneman

Yes: surgical

washman3 wrote: »

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

I've been working in the PPE industry for 15 years... you're wrong

Sconsey

No: other

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

But in June a number of cherry picked observation studies apparently proved that masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13319/face-masks-considerably-reduce-covid-19-cases-in-germany-a-synthetic-control-method-approach

When you look at the graphs of countries that introduced mandatory masks there is absolutely no impact on the falling trends.

In fact its actually the opposite now, detected cases are going up in the majority of regions where masks are mandatory.

I'm not really interested in arguing about masks, I'm happy to wear one if it allows business to open and life to get back towards normal, but the science is so weak on them and looking at real world data the impact of them has been negligible.

There is tonnes of scientific evidence, studies and published papers that say the opposite. I think your understanding of the science is weak.

odyssey06

A timely article from The Journal debunking some common anti-mask canards:

Wearing a face mask does not 'disrupt pH levels', carbon dioxide levels or increase cancer risk
https://www.thejournal.ie/face-masks-co2-ph-balance-5181214-Aug2020/

lee_baby_simms

Sconsey wrote: »

There is tonnes of scientific evidence, studies and published papers that say the opposite. I think your understanding of the science is weak.

A trial with no controls or one that is observational is inherently weak.

There has been 12 RCTs on masks within healthcare environment and real world since 2010 and they all indicate that outside of a medical environment they are ineffective in controlling spread of influenza. These trials involved a total randomised denominator of 13,259 participants.

The torrent of “evidence” that suddenly appeared in June is dominated by studies that either lack controls or are observational in nature.

Again, I’ll wear a mask in the shops but if people think masks are saving lives or even making a measurable impact on spread then they’re deluded.

Sconsey

No: other

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

A trial with no controls or one that is observational is inherently weak.

There has been 12 RCTs on masks within healthcare environment and real world since 2010 and they all indicate that outside of a medical environment they are ineffective in controlling spread of influenza. These trials involved a total randomised denominator of 13,259 participants.

The torrent of “evidence” that suddenly appeared in June is dominated by studies that either lack controls or are observational in nature.

Again, I’ll wear a mask in the shops but if people think masks are saving lives or even making even a measurable impact on spread then they’re deluded.

More nonsense, as I said, an absolute torrent of scientific resaerch in the area but you choose to ignore it. Good for you but don't think anyone is impressed with your nonsense.

CalamariFritti

I am. Maybe impressed is too strong a word but at least it shows there are still people out there who can put 1 and 1 together and dont arrive at 3.

odyssey06

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

A trial with no controls or one that is observational is inherently weak.
There has been 12 RCTs on masks within healthcare environment and real world since 2010 and they all indicate that outside of a medical environment they are ineffective in controlling spread of influenza. These trials involved a total randomised denominator of 13,259 participants.
The torrent of “evidence” that suddenly appeared in June is dominated by studies that either lack controls or are observational in nature.
Again, I’ll wear a mask in the shops but if people think masks are saving lives or even making even a measurable impact on spread then they’re deluded.

How do you suggest we have a controlled experiment for coronavirus with human participants, when we don't have a vaccine?
All the data we have is going to be observational re: this virus.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-face-mask-debate-reveals-a-scientific-double-standard/

After all, there aren’t any clinical trials proving that a 6-foot social distance prevents infection, as far as we know. (The World Health Organization only recommends a 3-foot separation.) Nor do clinical trials prove that washing our hands for 20 seconds is superior to doing so for 10 seconds when it comes to limiting the spread of disease in a respiratory disease pandemic. The scientific basis for that 20-second handwashing advice from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention derives from laboratory studies measuring virus on the hands after different washing times.

The scientific basis for health care workers using masks doesn’t come from clinical trials of influenza outbreaks or pandemics. It comes from laboratory simulations showing that masks can prevent viral particles from getting through—there are at least a couple dozen of those—and from case-control studies during the 2003 coronavirus epidemic that caused SARS. Those SARS studies weren’t limited to health care workers.

i_surge

3wayswitch wrote: »

When you touch an item and put it in your trolley, you only touch it for a brief period of time before you put in into your trolley and then the cashier only touches it for a few seconds while scanning it. Presumably you have also sanitized your hands while going into the store which should make it safer for both of you to touch your items. The risk here is minimal.

With cash however there are a lot of unknowns. Has the person been holding their coins in the hands for the past 30 mins before coming into the store? Has the person been storing their cash somewhere where they should like their bra where it might get exposed to sweat? (yes I have seen this happen in person). One contaminated coin in a cash register could contaminate other coins which then get handed out to multiple people. While I wouldn't consider money to be a high risk source of infection, it's easy to see why it would be a higher risk than the items in your shopping trolley.

If a single life could be saved by asking people to try using their credit cards instead of cash, then I think it's worth it.

Don't be silly. All things we share contact with have a similar risk.

Sconsey

No: other

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I am. Maybe impressed is too strong a word but at least it shows there are still people out there who can put 1 and 1 together and dont arrive at 3.

1 + 1 = 2
Mask are effective at limiting the spread of the virus.

lee_baby_simms

odyssey06 wrote: »

How do you suggest we have a controlled experiment for coronavirus with human participants, when we don't have a vaccine?
All the data we have is going to be observational re: this virus.

I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital.

What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective.

Again I promised myself I wouldn't go down the mask rabbit hole, its just a big distraction.

I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.

odyssey06

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital.
What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective.

Effective at what though?
Protecting the wearer directly as PPE?
Or protecting those in the vicinity of an infected person by containing their droplets?
I think that was the viewpoint shift in June.
Protecting someone as PPE needs a much higher standard of mask and of their correct usage and that seemed to dominate the thinking in spring - as did the lack of masks.
Using them to reduce droplets produced by an infected patient is a different standard entirely.

So I'm not sure how transferrable the influenza studies are if their focus was on protecting the wearer as PPE and those in their vicinity were not wearing them.
And also coronavirus seems to behave differently to influenza in terms of how infectious pre-symptomatic people are.

odyssey06

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.

Thumbs up on this very reasonable attitude

i_surge

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital.

What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective.

Again I promised myself I wouldn't go down the mask rabbit hole, its just a big distraction.

I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.

None of this evidence exists and is countered by the huge differences between countries that wore masks early and countries who didn't.

You are telling bare faced lies

CalamariFritti

i_surge wrote: »

None of this evidence exists and is countered by the huge differences between countries that wore masks early and countries who didn't.

You are telling bare faced lies

I dont understand this kind of language.

You have no way of knowing what you're saying is true. Conclusively you cannot accuse anyone who says the opposite of being a liar.

Yet you come out here with the strongest language.

Makes your argument look very weak. Doesnt do you personally any favours either.

arccosh

how do you deal with anti maskers who suggest youtube videos so I "educate myself", when I have decided to wear a mask because I have read journals and papers by virologists and respitory consultants who have swayed my opinion to wear it...

But yet, I am following main stream media by doing so, and not when I watch a suggested youtube video of prefiltered content?

odyssey06

arccosh wrote: »

how do you deal with anti maskers who suggest youtube videos so I "educate myself", when I have decided to wear a mask because I have read journals and papers by virologists and respitory consultants who have swayed my opinion to wear it...
But yet, I am following main stream media by doing so, and not when I watch a suggested youtube video of prefiltered content?

"They let anyone put up crap on Youtube."
"There's no peer review process on Youtube."
"Youtube? Corporate giant... whats their angle."

Depending on the audience...

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

arccosh wrote: »

how do you deal with anti maskers who suggest youtube videos so I "educate myself", when I have decided to wear a mask because I have read journals and papers by virologists and respitory consultants who have swayed my opinion to wear it...

But yet, I am following main stream media by doing so, and not when I watch a suggested youtube video of prefiltered content?

Simple continue to wear your mask and ignore what others are saying if you don't agree with what they are saying. I don't have a problem with other people choosing to wear masks I just don't want to wear myself. We should be allowed make choices.

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

odyssey06 wrote: »

"They let anyone put up crap on Youtube."
"There's no peer review process on Youtube."
"Youtube? Corporate giant... whats their angle."

Depending on the audience...

The same youtube that removed Dave Cullen's interview with Delores Cahill

i_surge

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I dont understand this kind of language.

You have no way of knowing what you're saying is true. Conclusively you cannot accuse anyone who says the opposite of being a liar.

Yet you come out here with the strongest language.

Makes your argument look very weak. Doesnt do you personally any favours either.

I do know

One statement is so easily refuted by the evidence available that it shows the other to be a lie. Simple.
.
I am human, i might be wrong, but it is unlikely in this case.

odyssey06

i_surge wrote: »

I do know
One statement is so easily refuted by the evidence available that it shows the other to be a lie. Simple.
.
I am human, i might be wrong, but it is unlikely in this case.

I think your radar might be a bit off in this specific instance.

The poster in question is looking for a level of evidence (RCT) that is appropriate usually when discussing medical matters.

Given the stakes and urgency of the current crisis, and the lack of vaccine to allow RCTs we have to rely on observational evidence, case studies, lab studies.
Also for many public health measures RCTs are not feasible.
So my view it is reasonable for eg CDC to base measures on such data.

i_surge

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think your radar might be a bit off in this specific instance.

The poster in question is looking for a level of evidence (RCT) that is appropriate usually when discussing medical matters.

Given the stakes and urgency of the current crisis, and the lack of vaccine to allow RCTs we have to rely on observational evidence, case studies, lab studies.
Also for many public health measures RCTs are not feasible.
So my view it is reasonable for eg CDC to base measures on such data.

I'm not following, i may have jumped the gun but i don't think so.

Masks are only effective inside hospitals or something? What is the exact point?

The weight of real world evidence precludes any small study imo.

Wibbs

Yes: other

GT89 wrote: »

The same youtube that removed Dave Cullen's interview with Delores Cahill

They should have left it alright, shine a light on idiocy, only label it as humour. Between Cullen's usual tinfoil hat nonsense and his silly mid Atlantic accent and Cahill's continuous stream of (obvious to anyone in possession of even the most basic long standing scientific knowledge) utter nonsense, humour is about all it is.

SeaBreezes

No: I don't care enough

odyssey06 wrote: »

"They let anyone put up crap on Youtube."
"There's no peer review process on Youtube."
"Youtube? Corporate giant... whats their angle."

Depending on the audience...

None of it will work.
They have decided and they BELIEVE.
Sigh.