Masks

paddy19

No: I don't care enough

Wibbs wrote: »

Precisely nobody is suggesting that. So again, wind up, or bull headed resistance.

No wind up, no bull headed resistance.

Genuine request to understand what precisely people are suggesting.

I'm not sure there is any agreement on what "wearing masks" actually means.

1. Who? Children, what age do they start
2. What type? Homemade, surgical, reusable.
3. When: Walking, running, working, sunbathing, golfing, sports....
4. Where: Indoors, outdoors, in car, where 2M is not possible,
5. Why: I assume when we have peer reviewed data that shows masks work.
6. For how long: Forever, until Convid is gone, flu season.

Don’t really see why people are worried about costs spiralling. I’ve had my current mask for three weeks I’d say.

If you’re wearing them to stop your breath and water droplets go as far, they don’t become completely ineffective after a few hours of use. Your jumper doesn’t start to let in more cold the more hours you have it on. Had a quick look there for where this idea spread from and only see it mentioned by “experts” who were also saying the public shouldn’t wear them..

So two euro for a mask isn’t ridiculous. It has to be made, shipped, and sold, in a time of crisis. Four of them will last you a good while.

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

paddy19 wrote:

One of the better articles on masks I have read.

You must be joking.
Spectator is an English exceptionalist, nationalist, Brexit pushing pamphlet generally using irrational arguments. And we should listen to it in terms of rational advice on a medical issue?

The last paragraph confirms the Spectator's focus on English/British exceptionalism above all else.

Coronavirus is not a reason for us to accept arbitrary impositions or abandon our traditions of rational discourse. Britain's record in these matters is one of our great strengths its preservation allows us to deal better with crises, especially crises like coronavirus, where there is much more to consider than just the virus itself.

This is frankly nonsense. Especially given UK's results, death rate per capita is one of the worst in Europe, when you count all deaths as Belgium or Germany do.

Edit: And I ignore the very poor science in that article. My point is that article is a political one as clearly demonstrated by the last paragraph. Article with such a pathetic conclusion disqualifies itself.

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

My local chemist did have masks but it was 8 euro for a pack of 4, so I walked out without them. I can make my own but I don't want to see places charging such crazy prices. Not for face masks.

The price is not going to change soon. It's a supply and demand situation. The Chinese leveraging the short supply and high demand and the same goes for all the middlemen.

DIY is the most sensible option...

prunudo

No: other

paddy19 wrote: »

No wind up, no bull headed resistance.

Genuine request to understand what precisely people are suggesting.

I'm not sure there is any agreement on what "wearing masks" actually means.

1. Who? Children, what age do they start
2. What type? Homemade, surgical, reusable.
3. When: Walking, running, working, sunbathing, golfing, sports....
4. Where: Indoors, outdoors, in car, where 2M is not possible,
5. Why: I assume when we have peer reviewed data that shows masks work.
6. For how long: Forever, until Convid is gone, flu season.

Have to say, these are all the concerns I have when I see people advocating mask wearing. Fair enough in a busy area but are we not allowed breathe in fresh mountain or sea air for fear of tut tutting from someone who spots you without a mask. Personally think it should be advisory and not mandatory.

Wibbs

Yes: other

paddy19 wrote: »

No wind up, no bull headed resistance.

Genuine request to understand what precisely people are suggesting.

I'm not sure there is any agreement on what "wearing masks" actually means.

1. Who? Children, what age do they start
2. What type? Homemade, surgical, reusable.
3. When: Walking, running, working, sunbathing, golfing, sports....
4. Where: Indoors, outdoors, in car, where 2M is not possible,
5. Why: I assume when we have peer reviewed data that shows masks work.
6. For how long: Forever, until Convid is gone, flu season.

1) compliance would be low and kids are not at risk from the virus, though may spread it. I say may as from what I've read on it kids have low viral loads for some reason and likely why they're not adversely effectd so likely aren't great transmitters.

2) all of the above. All reduce risk to different degrees. In the absence of surgical masks and above, homemade still reduce large droplet spread.

3/4) Indoors in publicly shared spaces where distancing is impossible.

5) This is an easy copy and paste: And yet again, for what must be the third fourth fifth sixth seventh time now, I ask you how are masks protective in clinical settings and for people with an infection and those living with them, but the same masks magically lose this protective ability in a shop, or work space? Can you answer that, or do you believe they're not protective in clinical settings(though that would require insanity to believe that), or will you continue to ignore the evidence you claim you have to see to believe?

But you can't answer that of course. Well not without shifting your goalposts. Again.

6) Until herd immunity/vaccine/effective treatments come along for Covid19.

prunudo wrote: »

Have to say, these are all the concerns I have when I see people advocating mask wearing. Fair enough in a busy area but are we not allowed breathe in fresh mountain or sea air for fear of tut tutting from someone who spots you without a mask. Personally think it should be advisory and not mandatory.

I don't think anyone has been mandating for masks while breathing in mountain or sea air P. That's a wild exaggeration and extrapolation. It's about enclosed public spaces, like shops, public transport, workspaces were distancing is impossible. And in those settings it can't be advisory, because advice is rarely enough taken up completely enough and in those enclosed public spaces it'll need to be near complete adherence to have the fullest effect. Plus there's a section of the population that have a deep, if odd, objection to masks and no amount of evidence for their efficacy will sway them. The poster you quoted a perfect example of this.

McGiver

No: I don't care enough

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't think anyone has been mandating for masks while breathing in mountain or sea air P. That's a wild exaggeration and extrapolation. It's about enclosed public spaces, like shops, public transport, workspaces were distancing is impossible. And in those settings it can't be advisory, because advice is rarely enough taken up completely enough and in those enclosed public spaces it'll need to be near complete adherence to have the fullest effect. Plus there's a section of the population that have a deep, if odd, objection to masks and no amount of evidence for their efficacy will sway them. The poster you quoted a perfect example of this.

This. Exactly. Public enclosed places mandatory and enforced. Elsewhere recommended but not enforced. That would be a good start and massive change.

For example in Czechia, the enforcement in public transport and shopping centres is done by the businesses themselves. Security personal in shops simply won't let you in.

prunudo

No: other

Okay, I understand the indoor use of masks but thats not the tone of the comments and posts I see on social media.
Hopefully they clear up any guidelines soon.

Boggles

Germany's states make face masks compulsory

I imagine we will see other countries now roll in behind them.

prunudo

No: other

Boggles wrote: »

Germany's states make face masks compulsory

I imagine we will see other countries now roll in behind them.

And that sort of confirms my previous concern, language matters.
The headline makes it sound like the country has made it, that they be worn all the time. Its only when you read the article you see that its only in certain circumstances.

Boggles

prunudo wrote: »

And that sort of confirms my previous concern, language matters.
The headline makes it sound like the country has made it, that they be worn all the time. Its only when you read the article you see that its only in certain circumstances.

It certainly does, what language did you see that said "they be worn all the time"?

From me or the article?

Or are you just trying to have an argument no one is actually having?

prunudo

No: other

Boggles wrote: »

It certainly does, what language did you see that said "they be worn all the time"?

From me or the article?

Or are you just trying to have an argument no one is actually having?

Headline says compulsory.

Not having an argument, just posting my observation that language matters and the media need to be conscious of this.

Jim_Hodge

Yes: homemade

prunudo wrote: »

And that sort of confirms my previous concern, language matters.
The headline makes it sound like the country has made it, that they be worn all the time. Its only when you read the article you see that its only in certain circumstances.

Such are headlines and why articles always follow headlines. Hence why we read the article. :rolleyes:

Boggles

prunudo wrote: »

Headline says compulsory.

Not having an argument, just posting my observation that language matters and the media need to be conscious of this.

They are compulsory in certain settings.

Sorry what is your problem again?

I mean it should be obvious they are not compulsory when you eat, should that be in the headline too?

trapp

Bear in mind my point below is not against mask wearing just bemoaning the side effects.

There's something desperately sad about hiding ourselves behind masks, hiding our smiles, losing that openness and warmth people have for each other.

prunudo

No: other

Boggles wrote: »

They are compulsory in certain settings.

Sorry what is your problem again?

I mean it should be obvious they are not compulsory when you eat, should that be in the headline too?

No need to be a smart arse.

I was simply concerned by the language in the headline and the fact it implies the use of masks is far more strict than it really is.
Different view point and opinion, that is all. Not looking for an argument, just writing a post on a discussion board about something I thought was relevant, apologises for not towing the line.

Seanergy

Yes: valved

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

Such are headlines and why articles always follow headlines. Hence why we read the article. :rolleyes:

Adding A Nylon Stocking Layer Could Boost Protection From Cloth Masks, Study Finds

"Even the surgical mask performed better with stockings in their study: Testing showed that it went from blocking out 75% of small particles to 90% with the addition of a pantyhose overlayer."

Article highlights the importance of a good fit.

Obviously, nylon sotckings aren't going to blend well to reuse and would present difficulties with the doffing procedure, but I won't scoff at the concept and if I didn't have my tailored homemade masks at the ready I would certainly throw some tights on over a surgical mask in an emergency.

Lot's of loose fitting surgical masks being worn out there.

Multipass

On the other hand. This was before Covid 19, but regards other respiratory viruses.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

Wibbs

Yes: other

trapp wrote: »

There's something desperately sad about hiding ourselves behind masks, hiding our smiles, losing that openness and warmth people have for each other.

I see it this way T; funerals are far sadder.

Wibbs

Yes: other

prunudo wrote: »

No need to be a smart arse.

I was simply concerned by the language in the headline and the fact it implies the use of masks is far more strict than it really is.

You raise a good point P. While media tends to appeal to the lowest common denominator and simplifies the complex in the hunt for headlines, the authorities need to be very clear and concise about this and other temporary changes in light of this virus. To be fair they generally are, or have been more recently.

railer201

Yes: valved

Scientists, TDs call for change in policy on wearing face masks in public

Government urged to back measure as new evidence suggests use of basic masks in social settings can prevent spread of Covid-19

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/scientists-tds-call-for-change-in-policy-on-wearing-face-masks-in-public-1.4235435

To avoid any bias it's probably best to read the article in full, but there is clearly a critical mass of opinion in favour of wearing masks in public, whatever about the detail !

paddy19

No: I don't care enough

Wibbs wrote: »

3/4) Indoors in publicly shared spaces where distancing is impossible.

6) Until herd immunity/vaccine/effective treatments come along for Covid19.

I don't think anyone has been mandating for masks while breathing in mountain or sea air P.

That's a wild exaggeration and extrapolation. It's about enclosed public spaces, like shops, public transport, workspaces were distancing is impossible.

So your position, as I understand it is:
Adults in publicly shared indoors spaces like shops, public transport, workspaces where 2M distancing is impossible should have by law
have to wear a mask of any type until herd immunity/vaccine/effective treatments come along for Covid19.

I don't have any problem with that proposal.

We seem to be in agreement, my objection has always been to wearing masks outdoors not in confined public spaces.

The child/teenager/adult cut-off might need to be clarified, maybe children in secondary school?

This exemplifies the problem I have with this thread.
It is not clear what people are proposing.

As an example, posters are concerned that someone running past them is a danger to them and by implication all runners should wear masks.
This is based on non published, non peer reviewed study from a civil engineering group who have no expertise in viral transmission.

I think everyone who posts here should have to put a statement like this on every post.

It would save a mountain of confusion.

Boggles

prunudo wrote: »

No need to be a smart arse.

You are been an absolute contrarian, trying to start an argument no one is having.

The article is from the fúckíng BBC, couldn't be more clear.

If people are choosing just to read just a headline, then I doubt they have the ability to put on a mask.

ek motor

Yes: surgical

Posted this is the main thread, probably more suited to this one !



Austria made wearing masks compulsory in supermarkets and public transport on April 6th. New infections dropped 90% after this. (source - Dr. John Campbell's latest video)

Both Slovakia and Czech Republic have made mask-wearing in public compulsory. Both countries have a much lower number of cases and related deaths than ourselves, despite all of these countries being more populous.

dfx-

No: other

Interesting report with Kobe University on BBC last night on how Japan is relying on the use of masks. Everyone complying with mask wearing in supermarkets, but not keeping their distance. Total reliance and belief amongst the population on everyone wearing a mask being enough.

And despite the mask wearing, Japan is seeing a sharp rise in cases, so it's not blocking it there.

Singapore spike in infections despite an app, South Korea seeing reinfections or "reactivation" and Japan relying on masks. The Far Asian coutnries were the specialists I thought.

Wibbs

Yes: other

dfx- wrote: »

Interesting report with Kobe University on BBC last night on how Japan is relying on the use of masks. Everyone complying with mask wearing in supermarkets, but not keeping their distance. Total reliance and belief amongst the population on everyone wearing a mask being enough.

And despite the mask wearing, Japan is seeing a sharp rise in cases, so it's not blocking it there.

Singapore spike in infections despite an app, South Korea seeing reinfections or "reactivation" and Japan relying on masks. The Far Asian coutnries were the specialists I thought.

Nobody is suggesting it's the only risk reducer, merely that it is a risk reducer. Seat belts reduce the risk of injury and death, this doesn't mean people should drive around like they're in bumper cars.

Masks should be in the suite of risk reducers like distancing, hand washing, quarantine, border checks, contact tracing and testing. They're part of a cumulative risk reduction strategy.

riffmongous

ek motor wrote: »

Posted this is the main thread, probably more suited to this one !



Austria made wearing masks compulsory in supermarkets and public transport on April 6th. New infections dropped 90% after this. (source - Dr. John Campbell's latest video)

Both Slovakia and Czech Republic have made mask-wearing in public compulsory. Both countries have a much lower number of cases and related deaths than ourselves, despite all of these countries being more populous.

It's a very misleading statement imo.. if you look at the graph of new cases, I would say the data has already taken on the decreasing curve and cases would have continued to decrease anyway



Another graph that would cast doubt on that is this reconstructive-estimate of the reproductive number r0, first it's already decreased below 1 by the time of the introduction of the mask requirement, 2nd it's actually very hard to see any change in the rate afterwards.



Not to saw masks have no effect now either, just that it's very hard to say what that effect is from the data and it's certainly not just down to masks

dfx-

No: other

Wibbs wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting it's the only risk reducer, merely that it is a risk reducer. Seat belts reduce the risk of injury and death, this doesn't mean people should drive around like they're in bumper cars.

Masks should be in the suite of risk reducers like distancing, hand washing, quarantine, border checks, contact tracing and testing. They're part of a cumulative risk reduction strategy.

It's a far less significant risk reducer than is being made out in this thread. It is far less significant than physical distancing, quarantining, testing and contact tracing.

How is it spreading in a community well adjusted to wearing masks in public? The constant references to Austria and Czech Republic in this thread would have you believe that it is not possible.

It's the physical distancing that actually makes the mask effective, but it's physical distancing is the key part.

When you can't physically distance, mask or no mask, cases can go up.

ek motor

Yes: surgical

riffmongous wrote: »

It's a very misleading statement imo.. if you look at the graph of new cases, I would say the data has already taken on the decreasing curve and cases would have continued to decrease anyway



Another graph that would cast doubt on that is this reconstructive-estimate of the reproductive number r0, first it's already decreased below 1 by the time of the introduction of the mask requirement, 2nd it's actually very hard to see any change in the rate afterwards.



Not to saw masks have no effect now either, just that it's very hard to say what that effect is from the data and it's certainly not just down to masks

Looking at that graph it certainly does look like new cases were beginning to decrease prior to April 6th. What do you think has contributed towards Austria's lower incidence of Covid-19 ?

MadYaker

Yes: surgical

Mask wearing in public will be law here soon hopefully.