Not a single mask...

DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
You've not said where you were quoting that masks only "might help a bit"

Nothing in my post is untrue. The W.H.O said in June that we should be wearing masks, Boris and his pals waited until 4 weeks later to agree with them and a further 2 weeks to make it compulsory.

I've not castigted or accused anyone.

I agree with some of your comments but again I'll take my guidance from the W.H.O. rather than someone who's done a bit of research and is posting on a message board.
Click to expand...
The WHO clearly state that the wearing of a mask will have limited benefit in high transmission areas where social distancing cannot be practiced. I told you where I got it from the WHO report.

As for you not castigating, that is true, but you did jump into a back and forth between ST and I, he clearly was as were others.

On the subject of your post being inaccurate, the WHO advice is wishy washy at best and has some caveats. They do not say that wearing any face covering helps, far from it, they have very specific criteria for face coverings to get any benefits at all. You cover none of that and simply say they advise people to wear masks. It's true as far as it goes but isn't an accurate account of what the report actually says.
 
Laughing said:
The WHO clearly state that the wearing of a mask will have limited benefit in high transmission areas where social distancing cannot be practiced. I told you where I got it from the WHO report.

As for you not castigating, that is true, but you did jump into a back and forth between ST and I, he clearly was as were others.

On the subject of your post being inaccurate, the WHO advice is wishy washy at best and has some caveats. They do not say that wearing any face covering helps, far from it, they have very specific criteria for face coverings to get any benefits at all. You cover none of that and simply say they advise people to wear masks. It's true as far as it goes but isn't an accurate account of what the report actually says.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting into a game of tennis with you so this is my last comment but the general consensus is for most people wearing face masks in normal day to day environments would be beneficial. I've just sat and watched a GP say exactly that on TV.
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
I'm not getting into a game of tennis with you so this is my last comment but the general consensus is for most people wearing face masks in normal day to day environments would be beneficial. I've just sat and watched a GP say exactly that on TV.
Click to expand...
A good discussion on this at Link
 
It's really not that hard to wear them. Everyone, mostly, doing it here in New York albeit there's some issues with people in bars and 40+ men.
As posted, the hardest thing it r
Remembering to take it with you and keeping them clean
 
NYboro said:
Masks MUST be worn.
Click to expand...
So what's the difference then?

Sat next to two people one with a mask on and one without. His on his chin. All sat down. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a brain that the rules worldwide will only apply to the common folk and those in positions of power as usual will play by different rules behind closed doors.
 
RandySavage said:
So what's the difference then?

Sat next to two people one with a mask on and one without. His on his chin. All sat down. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a brain that the rules worldwide will only apply to the common folk and those in positions of power as usual will play by different rules behind closed doors.
Click to expand...
Different rules apply to public transport and restaurants, sporting venues etc. On public transport, masks must be worn at all times. In other venues, when you're seated and socially distanced, they can be removed. Is it really that difficult a concept to grasp?
 
bear66 said:
A good discussion on this at Link
Click to expand...
That is an interesting article Bear. a couple of things stand out. The first and most obvious is the test with a damp washcloth and filming droplets. That is exactly what common sense would dictate.

The second and more interesting fact was the couple of anecdotes that talked about a hairdresser and a flight where someone was infected, but infected no one else.

These are anecdotal, and whilst I am not surprised by this evidence, it is the same sort of evidence that the WHO is using to give their guidance.

Again the article says nothing about what happens to the masks when they are disposed of. So for example the guy on the plane. If he later threw the mask in a bin and that rubbish was collected and infected the collector, and he went on to infect others... see what I am getting at?
 
NYboro said:
Different rules apply to public transport and restaurants, sporting venues etc. On public transport, masks must be worn at all times. In other venues, when you're seated and socially distanced, they can be removed. Is it really that difficult a concept to grasp?
Click to expand...
It is actually yes.

Masks should he mandatory everywhere for everybody (obviously minus those with medical reasons) or not at all. All these grey areas add to the confusion.

Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
 
RandySavage said:
It is actually yes.

Masks should he mandatory everywhere for everybody (obviously minus those with medical reasons) or not at all. All these grey areas add to the confusion.

Is that a difficult concept to grasp?
Click to expand...
There is no grey area. It is absolutely clear here.
 
NYboro said:
There is no grey area. It is absolutely clear here.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing - and I’ve witnessed it first hand in france
How many ’disposable’ masks do you think Jo Public is going to buy?
Probably 1
They will use and reuse which mitigates any help they are supposed to offer.

The next ‘outrage’ from the great and good (reading the thread - those that have clearly been wearing a mask since before Christmas) will be dirty masks, masks not covering noses ......
 
Below is a piece by Professor Carl Heneghan from the Centre For Evidenced Based Medicine.

It's not about whether we should wear masks but about the lack of research & genuine evidence.


"The increasingly polarised and politicised views on whether to wear masks in public during the current Covid-19 crisis hides a bitter truth on the state of contemporary research and the value we pose on clinical evidence to guide our decisions.

In 2010, at the end of the last influenza pandemic, there were six published randomised controlled trials with 4,147 participants focusing on the benefits of different types of masks. Two looked at healthcare workers and four at family or student clusters. The face mask trials for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported poor compliance, rarely reported harms and revealed the pressing need for future trials.

Despite the clear requirement to carry out further large, pragmatic trials a decade later, only six had been published: five in healthcare workers and one in pilgrims. This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.

The design of these twelve trials differed: viral circulation was usually variable; none were conducted during a pandemic. Outcomes were defined and reported in seven different ways, making comparison difficult. It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2. Only one randomised trial included cloth masks. This trial found ILI rates were 13 times higher in Vietnamese hospital workers allocated cloth masks compared to medical/surgical masks, and over three times higher when compared to no masks.

It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks, or the benefits of medical masks. The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base, so unsurprisingly reach broadly the same conclusions. However, recent reviews using lower quality evidence found masks to be effective, whilst also recommending robust randomised trials to inform the evidence for these interventions

Many countries have gone onto mandate masks for the public in various settings. Several others – Denmark, and Norway – generally do not. Norway’s Institute for Public Health reported that if masks did work then any difference in infection rates would be small when infection rates are low: assuming 20 per cent asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40 per cent for wearing masks, 200,000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week.

What do scientists do in the face of uncertainty on the value of global interventions? Usually, they seek an answer with adequately designed and swiftly implemented clinical studies, as has been partly achieved with pharmaceuticals. We consider it unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done. Spikes in cases can easily refute correlations, compliance with masks and other measures is often variable, and confounders cannot be accounted for in such observational research.

A search of the Covid trials tracker reveals nine registered trials of which five are currently recruiting participants and one enrolling participants by invitation. In Denmark, where masks are advised for those who break self-isolation to go out to take a test, a randomised trial including 6,000 participants is assessing reductions in Covid-19 infection using surgical facial masks outside the healthcare system. In Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, the Bandim Health Project is leading a 66,000 person trial – although not yet recruiting – on cloth face masks.

The small number of trials and lateness in the pandemic cycle is unlikely to give us reasonably clear answers and guide decision-makers. This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence."
 
I haven’t read the whole thread, but all I can offer is this.

Do the right thing, by your own judgement. But don’t worry about what other people are or aren’t doing, you cannot control them. Screaming at them to behave differently is highly unlikely to achieve anything. You do you.
 
Low_Key said:
i'll be wearing one from friday without a problem. they are a nightmare for people with geggs though, always fogging up. plus don't have tuna for dinner before putting one on! haha
Click to expand...

If you bend the metal strip to fit your nose, they don't steam up your specs nearly as much. The Government have left it for me to pass this on, apparently.
 
BoroBosco said:
Below is a piece by Professor Carl Heneghan from the Centre For Evidenced Based Medicine.

It's not about whether we should wear masks but about the lack of research & genuine evidence.


"The increasingly polarised and politicised views on whether to wear masks in public during the current Covid-19 crisis hides a bitter truth on the state of contemporary research and the value we pose on clinical evidence to guide our decisions.

In 2010, at the end of the last influenza pandemic, there were six published randomised controlled trials with 4,147 participants focusing on the benefits of different types of masks. Two looked at healthcare workers and four at family or student clusters. The face mask trials for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported poor compliance, rarely reported harms and revealed the pressing need for future trials.

Despite the clear requirement to carry out further large, pragmatic trials a decade later, only six had been published: five in healthcare workers and one in pilgrims. This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.

The design of these twelve trials differed: viral circulation was usually variable; none were conducted during a pandemic. Outcomes were defined and reported in seven different ways, making comparison difficult. It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2. Only one randomised trial included cloth masks. This trial found ILI rates were 13 times higher in Vietnamese hospital workers allocated cloth masks compared to medical/surgical masks, and over three times higher when compared to no masks.

It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks, or the benefits of medical masks. The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base, so unsurprisingly reach broadly the same conclusions. However, recent reviews using lower quality evidence found masks to be effective, whilst also recommending robust randomised trials to inform the evidence for these interventions

Many countries have gone onto mandate masks for the public in various settings. Several others – Denmark, and Norway – generally do not. Norway’s Institute for Public Health reported that if masks did work then any difference in infection rates would be small when infection rates are low: assuming 20 per cent asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40 per cent for wearing masks, 200,000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week.

What do scientists do in the face of uncertainty on the value of global interventions? Usually, they seek an answer with adequately designed and swiftly implemented clinical studies, as has been partly achieved with pharmaceuticals. We consider it unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done. Spikes in cases can easily refute correlations, compliance with masks and other measures is often variable, and confounders cannot be accounted for in such observational research.

A search of the Covid trials tracker reveals nine registered trials of which five are currently recruiting participants and one enrolling participants by invitation. In Denmark, where masks are advised for those who break self-isolation to go out to take a test, a randomised trial including 6,000 participants is assessing reductions in Covid-19 infection using surgical facial masks outside the healthcare system. In Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, the Bandim Health Project is leading a 66,000 person trial – although not yet recruiting – on cloth face masks.

The small number of trials and lateness in the pandemic cycle is unlikely to give us reasonably clear answers and guide decision-makers. This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence."
Click to expand...
Did the trial in Vietnam suggest infection rate was 13 times higher with a cloth mask whereas it was only 3 times higher without?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top