Face masks

[Sheffield Tony]

So the question is: are we still in the grip of an appalling, lethal epidemic, or is it actually over, all bar the shouting?

No. It is still there, hence the ongoing new cases and deaths, but at a lower level because at least some of the measures taken have worked. The graph shows what looks like an exponential decay, but not to zero. Apart from people's behaviour, little has changed - no vaccine, not enough people having had it to bring significant immunity. The only thing that has changed is ~30K fewer vulnerable people in care homes, who account for most of the deaths.

We now have the problem anticipated from the start of lockdown, when you run and hide, you always have to take a bit of a guess as to when it's safe to come back out. Looking at other countries around the world - USA, India, South Africa, even Japan who have a second rise in cases - this is far from all over.

This is a nasty disease, don't think the deaths are the whole story, remember the long lasting health damage to survivors too.

 

[loftyhermes]

For a while now the government have been saying face coverings, bandannas, scarves etc. not necessarily masks and as someone once said,
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

 

[selectortone]

So the question is: are we still in the grip of an appalling, lethal epidemic, or is it actually over, all bar the shouting?

Possibly a little early to be counting one's chickens if the 1918-20 Spanish flu pandemic is anything to go by:

"The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic.[40] In the United States, ~292,000 deaths were reported between September-December 1918, compared to ~26,000 during the same time period in 1915.[31] Copenhagen reported over 60,000 deaths, Holland reported 40,000+ deaths from influenza and acute respiratory disease, Bombay reported ~15,000 deaths in a population of ~15,000 deaths in a population of 1.1 million."

source

There were actually four waves in that pandemic.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." (Winston Churchill)

 

[Chris152]

For a while now the government have been saying face coverings, bandannas, scarves etc. not necessarily masks and as someone once said,
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

We give up all kinds of what could be called 'individual rights' for the common good, and which we benefit from. Endless laws see to this and the vast majority of us accept them as we see the benefits outweigh the losses. The idea that being forced now to put a bit of fabric across your nose and mouth to help prevent avoidable deaths in the middle of a pandemic is a significant infringement of our rights is silly, I think.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Does seem more than a bit odd that the most likely time for a second wave to occur (if it does) is as winter sets in, but that the wearing of face masks - a measure to mitigate against the effects of a second wave - are imposed in the middle of summer, particularly as numbers of infections seem to be dropping, and social distancing relaxation seems to be under active discussion.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The scientific consensus is strongly supportive of wearing facemasks to reduce transmission of the virus.

As the lockdown eases, and people increasingly interact, the value of facemasks increases. Arguably during the first two months of lockdown masks would have made little difference as mostly people stayed at home anyway (if they could).

Given the resistance to mask wearing in the UK (compared to some other parts of the world), making it mandatory now makes it more likely that it will become an embedded behaviour by the winter.

The extent to which people interact allows virus transmission. To keep R at or below 1.0, policies need to either limit personal interactions and/or limit the risk when they do interact.

All measures are part of a complete package and choices need to be made - eg: wear masks or shut nail bars, allow theatres, concert halls or schools to re-open, open swimming pools but shut snooker halls etc etc.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The scientific consensus is strongly supportive of wearing facemasks to reduce transmission of the virus.

As the lockdown eases, and people increasingly interact, the value of facemasks increases. Arguably during the first two months of lockdown masks would have made little difference as mostly people stayed at home anyway (if they could).

Given the resistance to mask wearing in the UK (compared to some other parts of the world), making it mandatory now makes it more likely that it will become an embedded behaviour by the winter.

The extent to which people interact allows virus transmission. To keep R at or below 1.0, policies need to either limit personal interactions and/or limit the risk when they do interact.

All measures are part of a complete package and choices need to be made - eg: wear masks or shut nail bars, allow theatres, concert halls or schools to re-open, open swimming pools but shut snooker halls etc etc.

If there is a scientific consensus - and , frankly, I'm sceptical about that, judging by all I've seen and read about Covid19 - why was the wearing of facemasks, or face coverings of some sort, not made mandatory back in March/April when infection rates were on the rise and it looked like the NHS might be overwhelmed? Why now, when infection rates have declined quite sharply?

(On scientific consensus, I don't see how there can be one on Covid19, given the amount we don't know about it. Indeed, I see all sorts of appropriately qualified and experienced people interpreting the (rather incomplete) data we do have in all sorts of ways - as you'd expect, at this stage of our research into it. And that's with leaving the more sensationalist media reports out of my consideration of the body of public knowledge.)

 

[Chris152]

Govt here discouraged it as we had insufficient face masks for the nhs etc. and were afraid people would buy up supplies

 

[RogerS]

The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it.

It's a game of roulette where the odds, sitting where I am, seem very much in favour of Covid. It's a bit like Clint Eastwood looking down the barrel of his Magnum and saying "Do you feel lucky, punk ?"

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it.

It's a game of roulette where the odds, sitting where I am, seem very much in favour of Covid. It's a bit like Clint Eastwood looking down the barrel of his Magnum and saying "Do you feel lucky, punk ?"

In other words, Roger, this is just another in a very long list of unpleasant, nasty, and in some cases terminal, diseases that nature throws at us. The difference with this one is that it's fairly new, and we're still learning about it. Given that we're still learning, I don't see how any scientific consensus about it is yet possible.

 

[Chris152]

most countries in the developed world are responding to the virus in rather similar ways so clearly there is considerable consensus, scientific and governmental

 

[RogerS]

The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it.

It's a game of roulette where the odds, sitting where I am, seem very much in favour of Covid. It's a bit like Clint Eastwood looking down the barrel of his Magnum and saying "Do you feel lucky, punk ?"

In other words, Roger, this is just another in a very long list of unpleasant, nasty, and in some cases terminal, diseases that nature throws at us. The difference with this one is that it's fairly new, and we're still learning about it. Given that we're still learning, I don't see how any scientific consensus about it is yet possible.

I agree 100%. It then comes down to ones own research into what scientists are saying, their track record, how they come across (helps having an A1* grade psychologist on my team) etc and then forming your own view.

 

[Lons]

The bottom line, CC, is that Covid is like nothing we have ever seen before. If you get it then how you are affected is down to your own genetics and personal lifestyle ie if you are obese then be ready to have a tough time (but then again depending on your genes, you might not) . For some, it's nothing more than a trivial cold. For others, their lungs. Others, their kidneys. The brain. Covid has the potential to attack (badly) systemically any part of your body. Spanish flu is trivial by comparison. For some people, Covid comes back months later and puts you in bed with zero energy for months. Hallucinations. You name it.

It's a game of roulette where the odds, sitting where I am, seem very much in favour of Covid. It's a bit like Clint Eastwood looking down the barrel of his Magnum and saying "Do you feel lucky, punk ?"

In other words, Roger, this is just another in a very long list of unpleasant, nasty, and in some cases terminal, diseases that nature throws at us. The difference with this one is that it's fairly new, and we're still learning about it. Given that we're still learning, I don't see how any scientific consensus about it is yet possible.

What is very telling about that statement CC is that if the scientists don't really know yet even with have all the available data how is it that certain people on here know better?
Especially when their "facts" are cherry picked from the internet and media. :roll: :wink:

 

[D_W]

Govt here discouraged it as we had insufficient face masks for the nhs etc. and were afraid people would buy up supplies

Ditto here in the states. Fauci's one huge fib was telling people that there was no great reason to wear masks. We were reading at the same time that outcomes were worse in places where there was a lot of virus in the air, and that the progression of the virus was much slower if it started in the nose and throat/mouth.

He came out and admitted they intentionally lied to protect their ability to buy masks (and hospitals') .

We weren't really reading good information in the news - we were being told the nonsense about washing off mail and cruise ships with virus on non-oxidizing surfaces for up to 17 days. But little about "how is it being transmitted, though, why are the high percentage transmissions always in an enclosed space with dead air, and why is the outcome always so much worse if someone is breathing air somewhere that the infection rate is high".

50% hospitalization rate at the nursing home in WA state here in the US for *staff* averaging age 44. In the end, we'll find that people have the highest viral load just before they're symptomatic and very little of the transmission occurs any way other than breathing droplets from the air.

In the states, we don't have the same level of trust in the government (unfortunately, the ability to speak freely also means that we have a huge amount of BS that's off the mark in the other direction), so I'm not sure anyone believed fauci from soup to nuts, anyway.

The other side of his talks is that even if he's mostly truthful, his view is that minimizing covid is the only goal. If it's going to be around for years, most of the country here is comfortable with starting and stopping and making the important measure whether or not the health care system is overwhelmed. If it's not, we don't want scorched earth policy or single-minded officials using the goofy heartstrings type logic "if just one more person passes away, it's too many. it could be your grandmother".

 

[woodhutt]

I find it hard to believe that this discussion is still going on.
While the evidence for the effectiveness of masks is empirical, taken with other measures (social distancing, regular hand washing, avoiding large gatherings etc.) it has been shown to have an impact. Look at New York City/State as an example where these rules were implemented thanks to firm and clear guidelines from the state government and support by (the majority) of its citizens.
From reports, I see that there are so many exceptions to the rules for mask wearing in the UK as to make it almost pointless. People with breathing difficulties, taxi passengers, shop staff, office workers and others are exempt.
If you have an underlying breathing condition (as I have) such as asthma which makes it difficult to wear a mask, then don't go out.
Make a few fabric masks, wear the bloody things and wash them after each use.
Doesn't matter if they are not up to chemical and biological warfare standards, if they only reduce the spread of the aerosols you exhale by a few percent, it's something.
If nothing else, you are showing consideration for those around you and we could all do with a bit more of that.
Pete

 

[Woody2Shoes]

...

 

[Lons]

I've said it before, in the wild, animals and birds that are weak, naive or more stupid than those around them are killed off by predators thereby a selection of the strongest and most intelligent, humans on the other hand do the opposite with predictable results.

Again, evolution does not necessarily "select" for intelligence.
Maybe that's why so many people misunderstand it.

First I'm no expert and never pretended to be so I don't know but I'll clarify what I meant by that comment. I guess it depends also on how you view intelligence which I've always thought of as being able to learn and influence your environment and to be able to adapt, plan ahead and solve problems, ok far from as simple as that but that's the reasoning I applied to my comment. I'm happy to be corrected by those who have a better understanding

Animals that can solve problems surely have a better chance of survival and are therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on at least a percentage of that "intelligence" to their offspring while the others likely won't.

My comment about humans stands, we protect those and they reproduce often at higher rates than other sections of society and the results can be seen by anyone who cares to go out and look. Again not a simple argument as their offspring are usually locked into poor education, poor diet and housing, smoking and possibly drugs and a life of crime so it's not their fault. I don't know how much of lack of intelligence contributes to all of that probably much less than their environment but it most likely is part of it IMO.


There is of course a massive difference between academic intelligence and common sense and I personally know 3 brilliant scientists with no commonsense whatsoever. Not slagging off academics, I know many more at the other end of the spectrum with none.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I have two nephews, both adopted and brought up in the same environment. One is exceedingly smart with a good master's degree, and the other couldn't find his buttocks in the dark.

 

[gregmcateer]

Animals that can solve problems surely have a better chance of survival and are therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on at least a percentage of that "intelligence" to their offspring while the others likely won't.

My comment about humans stands, we protect those and they reproduce often at higher rates than other sections of society and the results can be seen by anyone who cares to go out and look. Again not a simple argument as their offspring are usually locked into poor education, poor diet and housing, smoking and possibly drugs and a life of crime so it's not their fault. I don't know how much of lack of intelligence contributes to all of that probably much less than their environment but it most likely is part of it IMO.


There is of course a massive difference between academic intelligence and common sense

Whilst it's true we humans preserve life of the less able/ intelligent / sensible, etc, etc, the alternative requires someone or some people to decide who is worthy and who isn't. Slight echoes of 1930's Europe, I fear. :shock:
If we are to be truly 'survival of the fittest' then anarchy and not society is the logical extension. Everyone should be self sufficient. I think it's fair to say that humans have moved beyond that. Just a thought.

 

[lurker]

Back to my OP
Masks give some protection to others from the wearer. So the masks do have a function.

Whilst it might defy the logic of the man in the street they don't protect the wearer.
Distance does. Double the distance and you decrease the risk by fourfold or more ( the more is open to some debate but not the fourfold!).