Compulsory Wearing of Facemasks Indoors

[wandle]

I did read the CDC study.
The UK government always parrot that line about ‘there is increasing evidence that face coverings may benefit others’ (not the wearer). Can you point me to any PHE evidence?

In the meantime, here’s a study of over 3000 individuals, where half wore masks and half the group (the control group) did not.
Coronavirus infection rates:
Mask wearers 1.8% infected
Non-maskers 2.1% infected

Would you not expect there to be a huge differential? Would you not expect closer to zero infections for the mask-wearers and a high double-digit percentage for the non-wearers????

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Significantly, check this out (my emphasis in bold)
“ The virus is transmitted person-to-person, primarily through the mouth, nose, or eyes via respiratory droplets, aerosols, or fomites (4, 5). It can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours (6), and touching a contaminated surface followed by face touching is another possible route of transmission (7)”

I look forward to swimming goggles being mandated in due course....



News just in: far more people than first thought have T-cell immunity to COVID-19 : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -11-20.pdf
Fascinating to read a Public Health England document which discusses T cell immunity. To me, it looks really significant.

T cell immunity was found in people who had COVID-19, but also those who didn't. Probably from other coronaviruses (colds, flu etc).

Crucially, both groups of people had protection.

[ConeHater]

T cells - researchers haven’t yet proved that T cells in their own right are protective. An antibody response in itself doesn’t necessarily mean you are protected from the virus. (Imperial College London)

[Woody Guthrie]

Why is everybody now trying to pretend they understand immunology and virology?

It's ironic that those against any kind of response to Covid19 are willing to hold up the opinion of a doctor who is a former GP and pathologist which is about as relevant in the field of immunology as a degree in lute playing but think the vast majority of specialist scientists with legitimate backgrounds are wrong.

The entire world has gone down the same basic route, slow the spread, mitigate the damage and give science the time to come up with a long term solution.

The idea that hundreds of thousands of expert scientists from hundreds of different and diverse countries are either all wrong and the tiny minority are right or the whole world is engaged in some dark "reset" conspiracy is quite frankly laughable and something I personally would consider therapy over.

Stop f***ing about on the Internet people, protect yourselves and those around you and go find a proper hobby.

[steve1873]

I did read the CDC study.
The UK government always parrot that line about ‘there is increasing evidence that face coverings may benefit others’ (not the wearer). Can you point me to any PHE evidence?

In the meantime, here’s a study of over 3000 individuals, where half wore masks and half the group (the control group) did not.
Coronavirus infection rates:
Mask wearers 1.8% infected
Non-maskers 2.1% infected

Would you not expect there to be a huge differential? Would you not expect closer to zero infections for the mask-wearers and a high double-digit percentage for the non-wearers????

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Significantly, check this out (my emphasis in bold)
“ The virus is transmitted person-to-person, primarily through the mouth, nose, or eyes via respiratory droplets, aerosols, or fomites (4, 5). It can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours (6), and touching a contaminated surface followed by face touching is another possible route of transmission (7)”

I look forward to swimming goggles being mandated in due course....



News just in: far more people than first thought have T-cell immunity to COVID-19 : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -11-20.pdf
Fascinating to read a Public Health England document which discusses T cell immunity. To me, it looks really significant.

T cell immunity was found in people who had COVID-19, but also those who didn't. Probably from other coronaviruses (colds, flu etc).

Crucially, both groups of people had protection.

So you have provided evide ce that wearing a mask offers a 17% reduction in infection and you are still adamant that they don't work?

[ripio]

I’ll share an anecdote with you. A man I know who was playing a game of ‘pin the nose on Pudsey’ with his kids, to raise money for Children In Need’. He put on a lightweight black fabric mask over his eyes.... and was astonished that he could see through it well enough to win multiple times, before his kids tumbled as to why!

But a significant percentage of the photons that would otherwise have entered his eyes were blocked by the mask, and a significant percentage of the photons leaving his face towards the outside world were also blocked. Thereby demonstrating that a mask interferes with the transmission of light.

[ConeHater]

For generations sensible folk have understood that when coughing or sneezing for whatever reason, it’s good practice to try and cover mouth/nose. It’s second nature to bring at least a hand up to face. Coughs and sneezes spread diseases !
OK, wearing a face mask isn’t going to prevent all potential transmissions but at least it reduces the odds. Are those that argue against wearing masks because they are not 100% effective suggesting that we should instead be wearing hazmat suits ? Do these same folk not wear seatbelts ‘coz they don’t save 100% of people involved in collisions ? ! !

[freespeech]

I did read the CDC study.
The UK government always parrot that line about ‘there is increasing evidence that face coverings may benefit others’ (not the wearer). Can you point me to any PHE evidence?

In the meantime, here’s a study of over 3000 individuals, where half wore masks and half the group (the control group) did not.
Coronavirus infection rates:
Mask wearers 1.8% infected
Non-maskers 2.1% infected

Would you not expect there to be a huge differential? Would you not expect closer to zero infections for the mask-wearers and a high double-digit percentage for the non-wearers????

That 0.3% difference is an additional 429 people infected at RM staff numbers. That 429 will infect others........

[Pumpernickel]

That 0.3% difference is an additional 429 people infected at RM staff numbers. That 429 will infect others........

Your point is right about the higher number of infected who then go on to infect more, but it's not a 0.3% difference: it's a 17% (16.666) increase in infection by not wearing a mask.

[freespeech]

That 0.3% difference is an additional 429 people infected at RM staff numbers. That 429 will infect others........

Your point is right about the higher number of infected who then go on to infect more, but it's not a 0.3% difference: it's a 17% (16.666) increase in infection by not wearing a mask.

Yes, there is a 17% difference. My explanation wasn't ideal. In general we are agreeing that we expect 1.8% positive with a mask and 2.1% without. Based on 140,000 staff thats 2520 with and 2940 without.

[Pumpernickel]

Yes, there is a 17% difference but you still use 0.3 percentage points in the calculation. Otherwise you are saying that 17% will get CV rather than the 2.1% in reality.

No, the calculation to show the increase in infection from not wearing a facemask gives the answer of a 17% increased rate of infection.
It doesn't say 17% of people will get it if they don't wear a mask.

It's comparable to "Just one cigarette a day is 'almost as dangerous as 20 – hiking your heart attack and stroke risk by 40%'".
This doesn't say 40% of smokers have heart attacks and strokes either, but it is a figure that has been published (and this phrase is taken from the NHS website).

[freespeech]

Yes, there is a 17% difference but you still use 0.3 percentage points in the calculation. Otherwise you are saying that 17% will get CV rather than the 2.1% in reality.

No, the calculation to show the increase in infection from not wearing a facemask gives the answer of a 17% increased rate of infection.
It doesn't say 17% of people will get it if they don't wear a mask.

It's comparable to "Just one cigarette a day is 'almost as dangerous as 20 – hiking your heart attack and stroke risk by 40%'".
This doesn't say 40% of smokers have heart attacks and strokes either, but it is a figure that has been published (and this phrase is taken from the NHS website).

Didn't see this before I edited my response. My words were poor. We agree.

[nutcracker]

Ancecdote is not the plural for data but here’s my own real world Royal Mail example from my mail centre recently...

Three RM employees working and chatting together every day on the same tasks for several hours at a rough 1m plus distance in a cramped & unventilated space, with “face on” working avoided as much as possible. ALL three wear a 3 layer surgical style mask. One positive after exhibiting symptoms at work, the other 2 employees remain unaffected. Could be luck I guess?

[joewyan]

For generations sensible folk have understood that when coughing or sneezing for whatever reason, it’s good practice to try and cover mouth/nose. It’s second nature to bring at least a hand up to face. Coughs and sneezes spread diseases !
OK, wearing a face mask isn’t going to prevent all potential transmissions but at least it reduces the odds. Are those that argue against wearing masks because they are not 100% effective suggesting that we should instead be wearing hazmat suits ? Do these same folk not wear seatbelts ‘coz they don’t save 100% of people involved in collisions ? ! !

Absolutely right, it’s good practice to cover when coughing or sneezing, generally with a tissue that can be instantly got rid of and then hands washed. My concern is for the health of the mask wearer who coughs or sneezes into their own mask and is then inhaling any infection that would otherwise have been disposed of therefore increasing their viral load.

[nutcracker]

My concern is for the health of the mask wearer who coughs or sneezes into their own mask and is then inhaling any infection that would otherwise have been disposed of therefore increasing their viral load.

It’s an interesting point and not yet tested out. But everything at the moment is a balance of risk that leans heavily in favour of mask wearing...

In the real world Royal Mail occurrence i gave above I really think masks helped stop the spread to 2 other direct contact employees, their colleagues, families and communities especially as there was a fair bit of coughing involved (sneezing is rare as a symptom). The price of breaking that transmission may or may not have been a worse illness for our infected colleague.

[PostmanBitesDog]

For generations sensible folk have understood that when coughing or sneezing for whatever reason, it’s good practice to try and cover mouth/nose. It’s second nature to bring at least a hand up to face. Coughs and sneezes spread diseases !
OK, wearing a face mask isn’t going to prevent all potential transmissions but at least it reduces the odds. Are those that argue against wearing masks because they are not 100% effective suggesting that we should instead be wearing hazmat suits ? Do these same folk not wear seatbelts ‘coz they don’t save 100% of people involved in collisions ? ! !

My concern is for the health of the mask wearer who coughs or sneezes into their own mask and is then inhaling any infection that would otherwise have been disposed of therefore increasing their viral load.

All the more reason to change face masks regularly. For the disposable masks that are issued to us in the office, I make sure to carry at least half a dozen. And for the times I bring my own cloth masks to work, I have two on hand and change those during the day. I wash them when I get home and have two others already cleaned and dried for the next day.