Visors - conflicting messages.

political analyst

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8658677/Nicola-Sturgeon-sets-school-face-masks-plans.html

The WHO and Unicef suggested that face shields may be an alternative in situations such as speech classes where the teacher and pupils need to see each other's mouths.

https://www.thelocal.ch/20200715/only-those-with-plastic-visors-were-infected-swiss-government-warns-against-face-shields

After a coronavirus outbreak where only those wearing plastic visors were infected, the Swiss government has said plastic shields are inadequate protection and should only be worn in combination with a face mask.

Health officials in the canton of Graubünden studying a recent outbreak among staff at a hotel found a worrying trend - all of those who were infected wore plastic face shields, while those who avoided infection wore face masks.

Those are two conflicting messages on visors. Which one is right?

El_Duderino 09

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8658677/Nicola-Sturgeon-sets-school-face-masks-plans.html





https://www.thelocal.ch/20200715/only-those-with-plastic-visors-were-infected-swiss-government-warns-against-face-shields



Those are two conflicting messages on visors. Which one is right?

They're not conflicting really. Seems pretty clear from both messages that the shield isn't as effective as a mask. It might be a good alternative (to using nothing) if for teachers, but it doesn't say they're as good as masks.

Seems obvious enough that the air isn't being filtered at all through the shield. It just can't travel out in a straight line from the person's face when they breath out and isn't being filtered at all when they breath in.

Tchaikovsky

Don't believe the Daily Mail.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Don't believe the Daily Mail.

+1

Visors are as useful as a chocolate teapot

I just saw a lady in the shop there with a visor going from her nose down..not over her eyes like..looked like something out of a bad 80s sci-fi B movie..

El_Duderino 09

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Don't believe the Daily Mail.

On factual stuff the Dailly Mail is grand. It concise and usually a good overview. I wouldn't read any of its editorials. In this instance the DM is relaying info from the WHO and I'd say it's grand.

The "don't believe the mail" line is actually very lazy.

SortingYouOut

I don't see how anyone looking at them cannot see how they would ineffective with a mask also.

Do they think aerosols won't make their way sideways or down and under. It's kind of funny.

Masks / visor etc are to reduce spread, not really to protect the individual. If someone coughs with a visor on most of the droplets will land on the visor. yes, more will escape than with a mask, but overall the amount of potential virus in the air will be reduced significantly.

But the consensus here, as with most measures seems to be "its not perfect, therefore its useless"

SortingYouOut

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Masks / visor etc are to reduce spread, not really to protect the individual. If someone coughs with a visor on most of the droplets will land on the visor. yes, more will escape than with a mask, but overall the amount of potential virus in the air will be reduced significantly.

But the consensus here, as with most measures seems to be "its not perfect, therefore its useless"

Visors are pretty much useless. Yes, they'll stop droplets but plenty more will escape onto surfaces around the person and into the air. Masks allow some escape but nowhere near as much as visors. The WHO have advised against wearing them alone for good reason.

They're used by medical staff for extra facial protection with their ffp3 but any public members wearing them without a mask are really just making themselves look stupid for no real return.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

I just saw a lady in the shop there with a visor going from her nose down..not over her eyes like..looked like something out of a bad 80s sci-fi B movie..

Yea met one of those an hour ago, visor from the nose down, new trend in the 70+ lady's fashion scene.

SortingYouOut

SortingYouOut wrote: »

Visors are pretty much useless. Yes, they'll stop droplets but plenty more will escape onto surfaces around the person and into the air. Masks allow some escape but nowhere near as much as visors. The WHO have advised against wearing them alone for good reason.

They're used by medical staff for extra facial protection with their ffp3 but any public members wearing them without a mask are really just making themselves look stupid for no real return.

They are useless at preventing complete suppression. So are masks, but less so. They still have an effect though. Every droplet stopped is a potential infection avoided.

Both masks and visors are significantly less effective than hand hygiene, social distancing, respiratory etiquette and surface cleaning however, and are not worth much without some or all of the other measure

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

They are useless at preventing complete suppression. So are masks, but less so. ***They still have an effect though. Every droplet stopped is a potential infection avoided.

Both masks and visors are significantly less effective than hand hygiene, social distancing, respiratory etiquette and surface cleaning however, and are not worth much without some or all of the other measure

***If using them clinically, I'm seeing very little visor washing going on.
Your points only apply in a labatory not out in the general population, there is no evidence to support your theroy.

CatFromHue

They're not conflicting messages at all, as they're two very different situations.

In a speech class the students will be working on how to lip read so need to see the lips. The visor is better than nothing and helps the class go ahead.

Hotels don't run speech classes so they shouldn't be using them.

Special needs education is not the same as working in a hotel.

Akabusi

Like most things to do with this virus, it is common sense that visors will not be as good as masks, how could they be when they don't provide a seal. In the simplest terms possible a visor is better than wearing nothing at all, a mask is better than a visor.

drunkmonkey

How is a visor better than nothing, if it's on the inside of the visor and your inhaling it.
Visors, Masks, Gloves all carry risks that in the wide don't justify mandatory policies for the general public.

El_Duderino 09

Akabusi wrote: »

Like most things to do with this virus, it is common sense that visors will not be as good as masks, how could they be when they don't provide a seal. In the simplest terms possible a visor is better than wearing nothing at all, a mask is better than a visor.

I mean, that's all anyone needs to know. And it's what the first article in the OP implied when it said a visor might be an alternative if the students need to see the teacher's mouth as they speak.

It's a very simple message in all honesty.

El_Duderino 09

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How is a visor better than nothing, if it's on the inside of the visor and your inhaling it.
Visors, Masks, Gloves all carry risks that in the wide don't justify mandatory policies for the general public.

Just for all the obvious reasons. The visor stops the person from spitting droplets of saliva as they'll hit the screen, bit it doesn't filter aerosols. Ergo it's better than nothing but not as good as a mask which does both, to an extent.

DeepBlue

https://www.dailymail <- I stopped reading at this point.

drunkmonkey

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Just for all the obvious reasons. The visor stops the person from spitting droplets of saliva as they'll hit the screen, bit it doesn't filter aerosols. Ergo it's better than nothing but not as good as a mask which does both, to an extent.

I'm not talking about their own droplets, it's other people's sticking to the front then you touch it or landing on the inside.

Is that not obvious, nobody talks about the dangers.

El_Duderino 09

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not talking about their own droplets, it's other people's sticking to the front then you touch it or landing on the inside.

Is that not obvious, nobody talks about the dangers.

Right. But those droplets were probably going to hit the person's face if they wire nothing. But instead, they hit the visor. So the visor is better than nothing.

i_surge

SortingYouOut wrote: »

I don't see how anyone looking at them cannot see how they would ineffective with a mask also.

Do they think aerosols won't make their way sideways or down and under. It's kind of funny.

I never realised how fundamentally stupid people can be until this covid craic. A real eye opener and depressing.

Quantum Erasure

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How is a visor better than nothing, if it's on the inside of the visor and your inhaling it.

agree

Visors, Masks, Gloves all carry risks that in the wide don't justify mandatory policies for the general public.

No.
wash your hands, wear a mask, sanitise

spurious

What happened the warning that it could enter the body through the eyes?
Mask no use for that. Visor gets in the way of touching your eyes. Swings and roundabouts. Use both to be sure.

Quantum Erasure

spurious wrote: »

What happened the warning that it could enter the body through the eyes?
Mask no use for that. Visor gets in the way of touching your eyes. Swings and roundabouts. Use both to be sure.

Seatbelts work, airbags offer additional safety, but I wouldn't be relying on an airbag without using a seatbelt first...

political analyst

DeepBlue wrote: »

https://www.dailymail <- I stopped reading at this point.

Whatever you think of the Mail, the point is what the WHO and Unicef said about visors.