It flies in the face of societal norms and for loads of people a trip to the shops is the only interaction they get. It's a tough one to swallow, but it's the right thing to do, right?
Yes it is.
Since it's been compulsory, masks have become super trendy. You can make a statement about who you are with your choice of face covering. My favourite was the guy holding a sheet of A4 paper in front of his mouth! Lol!
Mine are stripey or a fun one with sheep jumping around 😊
I guarantee it's way tougher to swallow on a ventilator.
I'm looking forward to my next trip to the bank...
Plus, for those of us who are constantly being pestered for autographs because of our uncanny likeness to George Clooney, wearing a mask will provide a bit of relief.
> I'm looking forward to my next trip to the bank...
> Plus, for those of us who are constantly being pestered for autographs because of our uncanny likeness to George Clooney, wearing a mask will provide a bit of relief.
especially now that you're sporting a lockdown mullet...the disguise is complete
> Yes it is.
totally agree, since last month I've had to wear a mask at work (up to 9 hours at a time) but not in a medical setting. Bit weird/uncomfortable at first but I soon got used to it, don't even notice it's on now.
I'm shocked by the venom this issue has caused (twitter is a hate fest), demonstrations etc. Such a small and simple thing to do, for most folk probably only half an hour a week. It's four months too late but could be important now that everything else has opened up.
Are we really such a selfish nation that this is considered a massive imposition? Yes, we probably are. For it to be of any use, everyone has to do it. Has this been explained clearly to the nation? Nope (naturally - situation normal).
There are medical exemptions, totally valid and fair, but anyone banging on about how this is a violation of their civil rights has no idea just how lucky they are if this is considered a violation.
> totally agree, since last month I've had to wear a mask at work (up to 9 hours at a time) but not in a medical setting. Bit weird/uncomfortable at first but I soon got used to it, don't even notice it's on now.
> I'm shocked by the venom this issue has caused (twitter is a hate fest), demonstrations etc. Such a small and simple thing to do, for most folk probably only half an hour a week. It's four months too late but could be important now that everything else has opened up.
> Are we really such a selfish nation that this is considered a massive imposition? Yes, we probably are. For it to be of any use, everyone has to do it. Has this been explained clearly to the nation? Nope (naturally - situation normal).
> There are medical exemptions, totally valid and fair, but anyone banging on about how this is a violation of their civil rights has no idea just how lucky they are if this is considered a violation.
Excellent post.
Dave
The best analogy I've seen so far for people claiming they have a right not to wear one is that it's like people during the blitz claiming they have a right to shine lights out of their windows. Your mask protects those around you, theirs protect you.
Also the more people take these easy simple steps the lower R will be and the faster we can get the virus down to a level where we can get back to normal.
Ha!
Luckily I managed to buy a pair of clippers, so my normal debonair coiffure has been maintained.
Smoking wherever one liked used to be the norm. Society on the whole can and will accept change for public health reasons and move on.
My thoughts:
Being told to do something by the state is somehow worse than being told not to do something.
With masks we are being told what to wear, which always generates strong emotions because of it's inherent association with our identity. That we are being told to wear something that covers our face makes this even harder.
The state imposing rules which remove very basic freedoms like being allowed to wear what we like, or go where we want is impossible. It requires consent. If you look at this crisis the government has followed the public at every stage, not the other way around. It followed everyone into lockdown and out again.
Instinctively everyone will think no, I'm not wearing a mask because you've told me to. It requires higher level reasoning to overcome this instinct. It isn't surprising that some are uncomfortable.
I feel like an idiot wearing a face covering. I know it protects us as a society but I still felt very uncomfortable and awkward.
> I'm shocked by the venom this issue has caused (twitter is a hate fest), demonstrations etc.
My twitter feed isn't a hate-fest, but that's probably just the bubble I choose, and the fact that I try not to read too many responses to tweets, which often appear to be written by fake accounts deliberately fomenting discord and hate.
People don't spontaneously violently oppose something as simple as wearing a mask for usually just a few minutes at a time and with a clear benefit. They do so only because they've been persuaded to do so, I presume mainly by social media, which is full of malign agents corrupting people's ordinarily better judgement. The rooting out and elimination of such malicious agents and their posts is probably the biggest challenge the world currently faces, since it lies at the heart of so many of society's current ills.
Yes, that and the fact that people would rather believe a stranger on the internet (spouting whatever bile based on zero facts) than anyone in authority/government is very much a sad indication of the state we are in.
I've only started wearing one in the last week or so - I've not had cause to use public transport since March and the the advice on using them in shops etc was unclear to say the least.
It doesn't really make much difference in a supermarket as I use the handheld self scanners and pay at the self checkout. It's not great in smaller shops where being able to see someone's facial expression when having a conversation would be helpful but I think it's a price worth paying.
> Instinctively everyone will think no, I'm not wearing a mask because you've told me to. It requires higher level reasoning to overcome this instinct. It isn't surprising that some are uncomfortable.
I honestly don't understand this line of thinking. We have been told to wear masks in order to protect ourselves and others from illness. I don't see how it requires some higher level reasoning to see this. I also don't see the wearing of a mask as impinging on my personal freedoms to any great extent - I am happy to adhere to the guidelines if it leads to a better set out of outcomes in the long run.
> It's not great in smaller shops where being able to see someone's facial expression when having a conversation would be helpful.
Surely it can't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a transparent mask that is as non-sweaty as the ones we're using now. I suspect that would make a huge difference to acceptance.
> I honestly don't understand this line of thinking. We have been told to wear masks in order to protect ourselves and others from illness. I don't see how it requires some higher level reasoning to see this. I also don't see the wearing of a mask as impinging on my personal freedoms to any great extent - I am happy to adhere to the guidelines if it leads to a better set out of outcomes in the long run.
Does wearing a mask significantly increase the chances of a better set of outcomes in the long run?
Why would anyone want to be "super trendy"?
> People don't spontaneously violently oppose something as simple as wearing a mask for usually just a few minutes at a time and with a clear benefit. They do so only because they've been persuaded to do so, I presume mainly by social media, which is full of malign agents corrupting people's ordinarily better judgement.
I'm not sure about this. There do seem to be a significant number of people whose default setting is to refuse to do just about anything they are told to do on principle. Of course we need to question whether any mandate from the State is necessary and proportionate but when it's something as self-evidently beneficial, and personal cost so trivial as in this case, it really flushes out the inadequacies of those whose fragile self-esteem can't cope with wearing a mask as the socially responsible thing to do.
I think the current 'You have my respect' campaign with Morgan Freeman is clever to emphasise that it's not about protecting yourself, it's about protecting other people.
youtube.com/watch?v=On-TPkiKIv0&
Plus, if you won't do it if Morgan Freeman asks you nicely, you truly are beyond reach!
> Does wearing a mask significantly increase the chances of a better set of outcomes in the long run?
As I understand it, a better set of outcomes is more likely if the majority of people wear masks as per guidelines. Whether you consider wearing masks to make a significant difference depends on your idea of significant. Personally, I am quite prepared to make a contribution, regardless of how significant or insignificant my own actions may be.
As it happens, we have very low numbers of cases in my part of Scotland, so it's probably completely insignificant here, but I don't see that as a reason to make a fuss about it.
> Yes, that and the fact that people would rather believe a stranger on the internet (spouting whatever bile based on zero facts) than anyone in authority/government is very much a sad indication of the state we are in.
Yes. And that's a problem with both the lack of credibility of those currently in authority and the undue influence of those spouting bile from the safety of their keyboards.
But the state tells you you have to wear some form of clothing outside whenever there are people around already and we all (well almost all) go along with this. It also tells you that you have to wear a helmet whilst on a motor bike and appropriate safety gear whilst working in all sorts of scenarios. Again the vast majority accept this as in the common interest.
Other than the fact that it's a change to previous rules, why is this any different? It's very strange to see a lot of people (not putting you in this basket) who are perfectly happy for other people's rights to be curtailed (human rights act, EU residency and travel right losses) being unable to cope with taking the most basic inconvenience to fight a global crisis.
> As I understand it, a better set of outcomes is more likely if the majority of people wear masks as per guidelines. Whether you consider wearing masks to make a significant difference depends on your idea of significant. Personally, I am quite prepared to make a contribution, regardless of how significant or insignificant my own actions may be.
> As it happens, we have very low numbers of cases in my part of Scotland, so it's probably completely insignificant here, but I don't see that as a reason to make a fuss about it.
We have low case numbers in our rural area too, taking into account my personal circumstances the chances that I will catch the virus are minimal. If the science is correct any gains from wearing a mask personally are likely to be close on zero.
The only real effect of the rule on masks is that I will avoid situations where it is considered necessary and shop online instead. At a time when we need to be getting the high street up and running again seems like a spectacular own goal by a government that I suspect only introduced the measure in an attempt to boost confidence.
> The only real effect of the rule on masks is that I will avoid situations where it is considered necessary and shop online instead. At a time when we need to be getting the high street up and running again seems like a spectacular own goal by a government that I suspect only introduced the measure in an attempt to boost confidence.
By contrast, I'm doing as much shopping as possible in local shops, and avoiding online shopping as far as possible. Fortunately, we have a fine selection of local food shops, so all my daily needs are easily catered for. Shopping while wearing a mask really isn't difficult.
> Yes, that and the fact that people would rather believe a stranger on the internet (spouting whatever bile based on zero facts) than anyone in authority/government is very much a sad indication of the state we are in.
Though given the quality of our government... somewhat understandable, a spaniel with a half decent spellchecker could easily come across more credible than Johnson. It doesn't help that this government from PM down and its bulwark press has been vilifying and mocking face covering 'others' for years in order to divide and control society.
jk
> Yes. And that's a problem with both the lack of credibility of those currently in authority and the undue influence of those spouting bile from the safety of their keyboards.
..and cognitive dissonance.
People who don't particularly want to wear a mask seize on "reasons" they read or hear, no matter how ridiculous in order to justify their behaviour.
Sadly it's human nature.
> ..and cognitive dissonance.
> People who don't particularly want to wear a mask seize on "reasons" they read or hear, no matter how ridiculous in order to justify their behaviour.
> Sadly it's human nature.
Sadly I think that factor applies to both sides of the mask debate ;(
> By contrast, I'm doing as much shopping as possible in local shops, and avoiding online shopping as far as possible. Fortunately, we have a fine selection of local food shops, so all my daily needs are easily catered for. Shopping while wearing a mask really isn't difficult.
By contrast, I've found it very easy to protect myself and others with the existing measures on the rare occasions where I have had to visit a store over the last few months.
If stores are busier and people become more complacent because they are wearing masks I will choose to stay away.
I'm really not sure what point, if any, you are trying to make, other than to say you prefer not to wear a mask. We should all do what we think to be the right thing. Clearly, this differs from person to person (which if nothing else, demonstrates that appeals to 'common sense' are entirely useless).
You go your way, and I'll go mine, and I hope we experience similarly positive outcomes.
But there simply is no logical argument for not wearing a mask when in close proximity to others in an area where some people are known to be infected. Not doing so is tantamount to actively attempting to catch and/or pass on the infection.
The fact that any possible (IMO) non-reasons can be spread so easily through internet bubbles, making it seem like they may even have merit because many people appear to believe and share them, is at the root of the problem. In days gone by, such individuals acting without reasonable argument would be dismissed as cranks and ignored; nowadays they can easily find a bubble in which to feel normalised and in which to have their illogic validated.
Edit: sp.
> The only real effect of the rule on masks is that I will avoid situations where it is considered necessary and shop online instead. At a time when we need to be getting the high street up and running again seems like a spectacular own goal by a government that I suspect only introduced the measure in an attempt to boost confidence.
I think there will also be people with the opposite reasoning to you and will now have confidence in going to a shop when previously they didn't, so I think it really remains to be seen if it's an own goal or not.
Personally I'm not fussed about having to wear a mask, it seems like a pretty minor imposition so it feels like the pros are likely to outweigh the cons.
It flies in the face of norms but so does a pandemic and as such it's hardly an imposition. Those making a fuss on Twitter can be noted as being complete idiots, for future reference on their views on other subjects, especially around freedoms.
There is no need for a mask, just a face covering and only indoors in public venues like shops. The covering doesn't protect the wearer from other infected people, it protects others from the wearer if they are infected.
> There are medical exemptions, totally valid and fair, but anyone banging on about how this is a violation of their civil rights has no idea just how lucky they are if this is considered a violation.
Usually the same people who take every possible opportunity to invoke the sacrifices made by the wartime generation...
> But there simply is no logical argument for not wearing a mask when in close proximity to others in an area where some people are known to be infected. Not doing so is tantamount to actively attempting to catch and/or pass on the infection.
> The fact that any possible (IMO) non-reasons can be spread so easily through internet bubbles, making it seem like they may even have merit because many people appear to believe and share them, is at the root of the problem. In days gone by, such individually acting without reasonable argument would be dismissed as cranks and ignored; nowadays they can easily find a bubble in which to feel normalised and in which to have their illogic validated.
> I'm really not sure what point, if any, you are trying to make, other than to say you prefer not to wear a mask. We should all do what we think to be the right thing. Clearly, this differs from person to person (which if nothing else, demonstrates that appeals to 'common sense' are entirely useless).
> You go your way, and I'll go mine, and I hope we experience similarly positive outcomes.
I think we are both making the same point, the measures introduced will modify peoples behaviour.
Those changes will not aways go the way that the governement envisaged
You could make that argument, but then you should also be able to justify your active opposition to mask wearing in an area where infected people are around. You can't have it both ways.
Most people don't want to be naked and everyone gets to choose what they wear. You will note some people also fight this rule.
Fashion is an expression if our selves. If everyone had to wear a hat there would be uproar. Uniforms are associated with strong top down discipline. In the armed forces you are told what to wear, how to wear it, how to fold it, store it, iron it etc. It is a exhibition of dissent free obedience to a master. It represents leaving your own mind elsewhere.
In schools, students will stretch the uniform code to breaking point and beyond to express themselves. I think it's this inherent urge to differentiate ourselves that makes mask wearing so hard for some.
Lots of people don't use PPE at work or use it badly. This reluctance to wear things that keep us or those around us safe isn't new.
I think we should wear masks and making it compulsory is the right thing to do. But I can see why it's become a social issue.
> You could make that argument, but then you should also be able to justify your active opposition to mask wearing in an area where infected people are around. You can't have it both ways.
It's simple enough to justify my concerns but I wouldn't say that they go as far as active opposition unless you count discussion as active opposition.
I have seen too many examples of complacency from mask wearers and too many instances of poor practice whilst using masks to be confident that this will reduce the risks overall.
My only "active" measure due to the change is that I will be less likely to visit any shops but I've never been a great shopaholic so I dont expect that it will be particularly noticeable.
> It flies in the face of norms but so does a pandemic and as such it's hardly an imposition. Those making a fuss on Twitter can be noted as being complete idiots, for future reference on their views on other subjects, especially around freedoms.
> There is no need for a mask, just a face covering and only indoors in public venues like shops. The covering doesn't protect the wearer from other infected people, it protects others from the wearer if they are infected.
It is possibly the blatant compromise of requiring a face covering rather than a mask that I am most uneasy about.
> Does wearing a mask significantly increase the chances of a better set of outcomes in the long run?
I saw an interesting set of 3 pictures of people breathing outside in the cold, where two people where breathing out so that their breath clouds merged, then one of them put on a mask so that only one cloud pretty much reached the other person, and then they both put on a mask and no clouds of breath emerged to reach the other person.
I have the sense that it's difficult to say to what degree wearing masks will help, but the fact that the virus is 'carried afloat' in our breath and mucus, seems to suggest that any kind of mouth covering onto which it can collect instead of going out into the air shared by other people is plausibly going to help.
I'd agree that it can sound plausible but I don't think we have any data on how well the virus carries on the vapour in our breathe rather than the larger droplets caused by coughing and sneezing.
The science seems to be so divided on the level of protection that masks offer and many very level headed experts seem to be indicating that the benefits are marginal.
I don't feel inclined to get blindsided by the visual cue of a mask when so much more of the risk is dictated by the unseen actions of the person wearing a mask in the days and weeks leading up to any interaction that we may have.
I will be wearing a mask where it is deemed that I should do so but also avoiding those situations as far as possible and probably more so once mask wearing becomes compulsory. It's just personal preference and my own assessment of the risks based on a lot of reading of the more credible sources that I can find.
> I'd agree that it can sound plausible but I don't think we have any data on how well the virus carries on the vapour in our breathe rather than the larger droplets caused by coughing and sneezing.
Couldn't that be when a mask could be helpful as well, when people cough or sneeze?
I have yet to spot someone in my local shops barefoot. I have yet to see much of an uproar over needing to wear foot coverings. I am sure there are a few somewhere but they are obviously few and far between. People go on about personal expression but generally want to stick with what they know.
People may get over themselves. Draw a funny doodle on your mask if you wish but I guarantee many of the same people complaining about masks would be in uproar if no shirt, no shoes, no service stopped being the norm in most places (I am aware places by beaches tend to be different due to the setting).
> Couldn't that be when a mask could be helpful as well, when people cough or sneeze?
That could be the a win but how many people are likely to be coughing and sneezing in public spaces without making any attempt to catch their "excretions"?
I've worn masks for some elements of my work for my entire life and sneezing into a mask is a messy and unpleasant experience. In my case under the current circumstances it would require an immediate and thorough beard sanitisation process
> I have yet to spot someone in my local shops barefoot. I have yet to see much of an uproar over needing to wear foot coverings. I am sure there are a few somewhere but they are obviously few and far between. People go on about personal expression but generally want to stick with what they know.
> People may get over themselves. Draw a funny doodle on your mask if you wish but I guarantee many of the same people complaining about masks would be in uproar if no shirt, no shoes, no service stopped being the norm in most places (I am aware places by beaches tend to be different due to the setting).
I don't think I've ever encountered any place that has a requirement "to wear foot coverings"?
> That could be the a win but how many people are likely to be coughing and sneezing in public spaces without making any attempt to catch their "excretions"?
That's a thought, it could stop them going onto the person's hands and onto something in the shop, which may be a route of transmission to somebody else.
> I've worn masks for some elements of my work for my entire life and sneezing into a mask is a messy and unpleasant experience. In my case under the current circumstances it would require an immediate and thorough beard sanitisation process
I wouldn't want to sneeze into any kind of firm or solid mask.
> I saw an interesting set of 3 pictures of people breathing outside in the cold, where two people where breathing out so that their breath clouds merged, then one of them put on a mask so that only one cloud pretty much reached the other person, and then they both put on a mask and no clouds of breath emerged to reach the other person.
This one maybe?
Illustrates the issue and the advantage of mutual mask wearing wonderfully.
Are you the last one to put your coat on in a storm?
my mother once saw an old man with a drip on his nose choosing cold meats in the butchers. By the time he had stopped looking the drip had dripped ...
jelly on the meat ...
> Why would anyone want to be "super trendy"?
Many just do! Just as many climbers just want to climb a bit of rock. It's their thing!
> I'm shocked by the venom this issue has caused (twitter is a hate fest), demonstrations etc. Such a small and simple thing to do, for most folk probably only half an hour a week. It's four months too late but could be important now that everything else has opened up.
TBH I suspect most of the mask sceptics are either conspiracy theorist nutjobs or people just trying to stoke a culture war. I actually don't think there's that much hate out there, Twitter just amplifies the fruitcakes and hatemongers. It's helped by news outlets trying to make it into a story by canvassing opinion pieces etc, which give the impression that it's a controversial policy despite Yougov polling suggesting broad public support:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/07/15/why-wont-bri...
> TBH I suspect most of the mask sceptics are either conspiracy theorist nutjobs.....
I would probably classify myself as a mask skeptic, but will be wearing one as and when required. I'd classify myself as a skeptic in the sense that I'd like to see the rationale/data that supports the decision. People are much more likely to comply if they see good reason for the decision, like drink driving has become socially unacceptable. There are all sorts of reports and studies on t'interweb but the government have not published either the data from their own studies or stated which studies they are basing the decision on.
So I'm skeptical in the sense that I've not been convinced that masks are beneficial. I struggle to believe that by now there isn't some decent data on the effect of mask wearing. About a month ago all hospital staff were required to wear masks in both clinical and non clinical settings as there was evidence that covid was being spread between staff more than between patients and staff, has there been any reduction in hospital staff transmission?
My initial reaction to the new mask rule was that it was introduced to try and get more people in the shops as it would make people feel safer, so a decision driven more by economic recovery than reducing the spread. We've all been going to shops throughout the pandemic and there's been no reports that they have been a major transmission route so far, so why are they now a risk? Anyway back to the sewing machine to make another couple of masks!
Actually I usually am.
Not sure what that's got to do with the points I'm making though.
'but how many people are likely to be coughing and sneezing in public spaces without making any attempt to catch their "excretions"?' - o my naive friend, if only......
## there was an only typo above re. transimisson, and the impact of masts , but that's a different story altogether
I don't disagree with the assertion that the decision to mandate masks now is because of a desire to get people out into the shops and spending money. Like many of this government's policies, this does smack of bolting the stable door long after the horse is gone. But being cynical about their motivation doesn't mean I disagree with the policy. The evidence that I've seen (or at least seen reported on, my scientific knowledge doesn't extend to reading the papers themselves) suggests that mask wearing has some effect at preventing transmission. How much effect may be contested but tbh given that it's a low cost, simple and easy mitigation measure I just don't understand why anyone wouldn't do it. Compared to the disruption and sacrifices over the last few months sticking a mask on in enclosed spaces just seems like small fry and I think the government should've mandated ages ago.
it was just based on being Irked at having to do something that is not your own choice
I have yet to see any evidence of face masks being a game changer, thats not to say that the arguments to wear them under certain circumstances dont make sense. "Evidence" seems to be rather weak anecdotes at present (e.g. people in Korea wear them, so we should...). Its almost like face masks have become the last line of desperation from governments who have failed to contain the pandemic clutching for something to show they are doing something and as we all know if it doesnt hurt its not doing you good, so in the case of face masks, because they are visually invasive they must be working, right?
Personally I think there would be more enthusiasm if the government specified an end-gate, for example new cases drop below X, where the requirement to use them will be removed, then people will not feel that is perhaps a long term creeping deprivation of liberty.
In terms of getting people to the shops though, I cant think of anything more depressing than being surrounded by a bunch of anonymous cloth faces, so wont be (voluntarily) going shopping any time soon...
The danger that I foresee is that making things trendy tends to trivialise them.
> "Evidence" seems to be rather weak anecdotes at present
But surely it must be clear that hard evidence (of the gold-standard scientific kind) is going to be really hard to come by for such an intervention in the middle of a pandemic. And the fact that there's a very intuitive and highly plausible explanation for why it is highly likely that mask-wearing will make a significant difference surely should be enough for people to put aside their trivial concerns over appearance and minor discomfort for the greater good.
> Its almost like face masks have become the last line of desperation from governments who have failed to contain the pandemic clutching for something to show they are doing something
Face masks in the UK are long overdue, agreed. They should have been required in all confined spaces months ago. Then it would have been seen as proactive rather than horse-boltedly reactive.
> 'but how many people are likely to be coughing and sneezing in public spaces without making any attempt to catch their "excretions"?' - o my naive friend, if only......
Let me rephrase the question.
Since March how many people have you you seen coughing or sneezing in public spaces?
Ideally masks should have a transparent area over the mouth area so that the hard of hearing can lip read. Seeing someone's lips is also a lot more friendly, you can often defuse a misunderstanding with a smile.
I'm irked that you think I'm irked.
This is a good point. When do we stop wearing them? Is masks in public now a thing forever? If it's necessary for this, why not flu? I'm not saying covid is flu, I'm saying that they seem to spread the same way.
I do think wearing them is the right thing to do. The precautionary principle applies here.
The government has mandated masks because public mood supports it. Just like we shut the schools after lots were shut already. We asked people to work from home when people were already. We asked people to go back to work when people were already.
> Face masks in the UK are long overdue, agreed. They should have been required in all confined spaces months ago. Then it would have been seen as proactive rather than horse-boltedly reactive.
Prof Carl Heneghan from Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - in this interview:
Q: On the effectiveness of masks: "By all means people can wear masks but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision… there is a real separation between an evidence-based decision and the opaque term that ‘we are being led by the science’, which isn’t the evidence."
https://unherd.com/thepost/oxford-epidemiologists-suppression-strategy-is-n...
Had to laugh at this. Climbed at Stanage last weekend, and one of my mates had a one off coughing spell ( something in his throat, these things happen). Everybody aound stared at him and we gave him a right earful...... this is the new nnorm.
Another interesting behavioural trait I'm fascinated by is people projecting opinions on to others on social media and then arguing against them. Perhaps it's a need to externalise a debate going on inside their own head.
I agree in this instance, we should act now as a precaution and gather evidence going forwards.
In terms of plausibility of the evidence, the explanation of how they could impact transmission makes sense, the question is this mechanism for transmission a significant contributor or "lost in the noise" of other mechanisms of transmission? To give some examples, Scandanavian countries are extremely mask-hostile and do not seem to be having any problem keeping their outbreaks under control. In contrast, Spain is perhaps the strictest in Europe for mask wearing and yet it is seeing a rapid increase in outbreaks. I cant help but be suspicious that face-masks are a big red herring.
I think if face-covering wearing became long term, it would be extremely damaging for the social fabric of society, it should not be regarded as trivial. Most human interaction and emotion is conveyed through facial expression, not the words we speak. The world will seem a cold, unemotional place.
> The danger that I foresee is that making things trendy tends to trivialise them.
In what way? People have a mask that they like so are happier to wear it. I see no problem with them being trendy. I'd be much more reluctant to wear a plain black one than I am to wear my fun stripey ones, I don't do black at all. We all have our own styles, and while it might be trivial to choose a fun one over a boring one, it doesn't make it any less effective!
I saw a young woman walking around asda a couple of weeks ago, coughing away, and making no attempt at all to cover her mouth! Rude in normal times, awful at the moment!
As for sneezing - it's still hayfever season!! I sneeze all the time, so I do have to take the mask off, use my hanky, sanitise my hands and replace the mask. Yes, it's a pain and I suspect gives more opportunities to spread it if I am infected, but I won't walk around with my bogies smooshed onto my face so I have no choice. Hopefully only another month or so of sneezing to go!
That's why we need to look at evidence based advice and that shows masks are a clear benefit in some circumstances: not to the wearer but to others. Things that people are speculating around on this subject are clearly signs of either forgetting this or refusing to read the advice.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-safe-outside-your-home/s...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-fa...
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-...
> That's why we need to look at evidence based advice and that shows masks are a clear benefit in some circumstances
They will certainly be of benefit in lighting bonfires, maybe we can hope that by November we can do just that.
I don't really see what the big deal is myself.
It's a massive deal that it happens in terms of reducing population risk, as indoor meeting of people from outside households increases, as the rules ease, at a time of significant infection level in the general population .
I remember what happened with seat belts when that became a legal requirement. Some fools took fines to support their freedom to increase risk to themselves in a car.
All those links assert masks help but I don't see direct evidence in them. It seems a reasonable request and approach regardless but it would be interesting to know the basis for the advice, and how it changed.
If you dig down on some other parts of the sites they do. I agree it could be better presented.
A quick search finds plenty of evidence written in understandable ways... Eg
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-s...
The experts in the link you point to are not saying masks don't work (although they explicitly said they _do_ work in healthcare settings), they are saying there isn't good quality evidence either way to say if they work in non-healthcare worker settings.
In the absence of good quality evidence why wouldn't you try interventions that are low risk and low cost?
That's a good summary, thanks.
Slightly amazing research into their effectiveness is.only now being done. Fairly basic.stuff.you would think.
See Offwidth's link - the evidence is there but oddly not widely presented.
What about asthmatics? And people who psychologicaly have issues about covering their airways? Should they be judged?
They should probably read the guidance developed specifically for them, as perhaps should you before trying to find difficulties with reasonable regulations for the sake of it
https://www.asthma.org.uk/advice/triggers/coronavirus-covid-19/what-should-...
Just visited Gooutdoors for some gas. In sight as I waited in the queue, simultaneously, was the checkout lady wearing her mask on her chin, and a shaven headed gentleman wearing his on the top of his head.
Cultural trend setters?
> That is a big statement to make and a prime example of exactly what I mean when I say that both sides of the deabte overinfalte their arguments.
Why is it a big statement? Look at the consequences of not wearing a mask in an infectious area, against wearing a mask in a non-infectious area.
There's no need for anyone to over-inflate any argument about where there any danger.
> Surely your statement that "Not doing so is tantamount to actively attempting to catch and/or pass on the infection." is something that has been normalised within your bubble?
See above.
> This is a good point. When do we stop wearing them? Is masks in public now a thing forever? If it's necessary for this, why not flu? I'm not saying covid is flu, I'm saying that they seem to spread the same way.
> I do think wearing them is the right thing to do. The precautionary principle applies here.
> The government has mandated masks because public mood supports it. Just like we shut the schools after lots were shut already. We asked people to work from home when people were already. We asked people to go back to work when people were already.
Yes, the public have led the way at every step.
> Prof Carl Heneghan from Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - in this interview:
> Q: On the effectiveness of masks: "By all means people can wear masks but they can’t say it’s an evidence-based decision… there is a real separation between an evidence-based decision and the opaque term that ‘we are being led by the science’, which isn’t the evidence."
What's the consequences of both side being wrong?
People don't have to be correct in everything, but what happens if they are wrong?
For people with masks, the same risk as not wearing one.
For people without masks, a massive chance of catching CV19.
So NOT basing your actions on who's right, but on the outcome if their wrong can make a huge difference.
I have a feeling of deja vu.
Last time there were people who, when the guidance was to exercise locally, appeared to find all sorts of reason why it shouldn't apply to them, and now its the same with masks. It would be funny if it wasn't serious.
Other than those with severe respiratory conditions wearing a mask isn't going to hurt anyone. A very large number of nurses and doctors have had to wear much more restrictive masks and other PPE for many hours at a time in very difficult situations so I can't see it is going to be that onerous to wear one in a shop or on public transport.
Wearing masks might not reduce the transmission of COVID19, though I think it would be difficult to argue that putting a barrier between you and someone else is not going to help at least a little.
Dave
Because trendy stuff is usually superficial rather than useful. Making masks trendy makes them seem superficial.
Sorry, unclear. I meant it's no big deal to wear one. Like a seatbelt.
In order to judge the consequences of not wearing a mask we need a better understanding of the benefits of wearing one.
I'm sure we already had this conversation somewhere. People who really can't wear one are permitted not to, but in my opinion should try to.
I am autistic as are some of my friends. One of them has really persevered and is managing to wear one now despite it initially causing her massive distress. I'm proud of her. Another really can't but has got a visor instead. Even a scarf will be better than nothing.
If I couldn't wear one I'd stick to online shopping or ask someone to get my shopping for me.
I thought so.
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/the_pub/masks_at_the_ready-721940
> In order to judge the consequences of not wearing a mask we need a better understanding of the benefits of wearing one.
Ridiculous, you might as well say, to consider the benefits of a smallpox vaccine we need to introduce smallpox into the population again.
> In order to judge the consequences of not wearing a mask we need a better understanding of the benefits of wearing one.
The benefits are minimising the consequences of not wearing one......
Put it this way; if they are found to be effective, and basic logic, and that set of 3 photo's upthread are pretty clear, then wearing one may well help lower the effects (both health wise and economic) of the current pandemic. If they aren't effective, then we've worn a bit of cloth over our mouths and noses unnecessarily. So on balance, i would say wearing them whilst in enclosed public spaces is a good idea.
Of course a mask is superficial - they are all worn on the surface!!! Many of the boring black ones are single layer, and I have several tripple layer fun bright ones. The trendiness or otherwise has nothing to do with their usefulness, but it does have an impact on people's willingness to wear them
It will undoubtedly have an effect on peoples perception of masks but it would be foolish to assume that that impact will be positive for everyone.
> Ridiculous, you might as well say, to consider the benefits of a smallpox vaccine we need to introduce smallpox into the population again.
Absolute rubbish.
We understand the effects of smallpox we have very little idea how beneficial masks are.
We cannot get suckered into jumping through every hoop that someone thinks might be beneficial.
> we need to introduce smallpox into the population again.
Can we pick to whom it gets 'introduced'?
I think it will have an overall positive impact on wearing them if people can choose a design they like.
> I'm looking forward to my next trip to the bank...
I had a laugh with the guy dispensing gel at the entrace to the bank about that, but it was a bit of a Simpsons moment for him, I guess:
> Absolute rubbish.
> We understand the effects of smallpox i have very little idea how beneficial masks are.
You should thank Offwidth for posting those links further up the thread 🙂
> Absolute rubbish.
> We understand the effects of smallpox we have very little idea how beneficial masks are.
And we know how dangerous masks are, as in zero!
> We cannot get suckered into jumping through every hoop that someone thinks might be beneficial.
Suit yourself, I can see we're mostly wasting our time, but it's not exactly much of a hoop though is it?
When it might save another death.
In most parts of Britain there is a fairly small chance that a random person I meet in a shop is COVID infectious, (currently 1 in 2000 - 3000?)
But if that person is not wearing a mask that chance is significantly higher, because the fact they are not wearing a mask will, on average, mean that they are less strict about other COVID precautions: social distancing, hand washing etc., and more likely to be mixing with others of similar mind.
So it's a double whammy. A maskless person is more likely to be infectious and more likely to pass it to me.
So I'll be much more confident shopping if everyone in the shop is wearing a mask - not least because the mask-refuseniks won't be in the shop.
Martin
Haven’t read the thread but it has been mentioned that face masks render cameras & facial recognition software redundant, hence the reluctance to introduce
> But if that person is not wearing a mask that chance is significantly higher, because the fact they are not wearing a mask will, on average, mean that they are less strict about other COVID precautions: social distancing, hand washing etc., and more likely to be mixing with others of similar mind.
Interesting - I have the opposite view of masks. I think people are too relaxed now that they are compulsory. Our local Waitrose has removed the barriers to keep people distanced at checkouts and are letting a lot more people in. People feel safer and it's much more "life as normal".
I'm sure someone on here quoted (but I'm not sure from where) that masks reduce transmission by 30%, so that means that 70% of transmission still happens. We cannot let masks mean that life goes "back to normal", no matter what the gov tell us if that statement is correct!
> Haven’t read the thread but it has been mentioned that face masks render cameras & facial recognition software redundant, hence the reluctance to introduce
I suggested a while back that wearing face masks and shades will make a mockery of the Police's facial recognition system which they are trying to slip into general use under the radar.
Didn't go down to well with off-duty's fan club on here
> I suggested a while back that wearing face masks and shades will make a mockery of the Police's facial recognition system which they are trying to slip into general use under the radar.
It is one of the slightly amusing things about the anti mask club especially those shouting about how it is authoritarian to demand people wear them. As HK last year demonstrated generally authortarian states like people to be nice and easily recognised and if anything tend to be anti mask.
Although for rendering the facial recognition pointless. Its worth noting that the reason why China was able to quickly introduce thermal imaging cameras to check for temperatures in some cities was they were trialling them for facial recognition purposes. Precisely to get round the problem of face coverings.
I think the masks will be welcomed and well used by criminals to avoid detection. So if you are a criminal it will definitely be the right thing to do.
> I think the masks will be welcomed and well used by criminals to avoid detection. So if you are a criminal it will definitely be the right thing to do.
incognito - along with sunglasses; at least we can all avoid AI facial recognition surveillance
> incognito - along with sunglasses; at least we can all avoid AI facial recognition surveillance
Although "they" can always go old-skool and correlate card transactions with CCTV to find out where you were...
The one point against masks I’ve not seen raised is the only one I take seriously - if someone in a mask feels safer, they may be more likely to go out and therefore are more likely to transmit the virus. Does this behavioural aspect outweigh the protective aspect at the population level? There are gross uncertainties on both sides of the equation.
This is addressed by clear and consistent guidance that the main purpose of masks is to proven accidental transition by the wearer if they are unknowingly affected.
Thankfully, in recognition of the early comment from the WHO about the importance of clear communications, our leadership has made everything clear. Tab clear. (If anyone remembers that reference!)
Both Spain (compulsory masks in public, even outdoors) and Japan (face masks lauded in June as the "reason" why cases were staying so low - "Is the Secret to Japan’s Virus Success Right in Front of Its Face?") are now seeing rapid increases in case numbers. These are only two examples but on their own would suggest that face-mask usage is a long way from being a dominant mechanism of prevention.
Sure I understand the arguments for wearing them, and can agree to comply in the short term whilst more research is done, but I am far from convinced they are such a game-changer that the destructive impact face-mask wearing will have on society long term is worth it. There must be an exit strategy where we can stop using them (probably based on case numbers).
It's been clear for weeks that those who continue to say there is no evidence masks help, are deliberated avoiding the evidence showing they do, that I linked. A significant point that didn't help the situation was the problem with some scientists, who forgot (or never bothered to learn) why mask use was evidenced as being important for medical staff... it wasn't based on large scale epidemiological research. There are different types of scientific investigation and evidence.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-face-mask-debate-reveals-a-scientific-doubl...
> Because trendy stuff is usually superficial rather than useful. Making masks trendy makes them seem superficial.
A middle aged man who thinks he is above trendy, who then goes to spout all the same nonsense you’d expect from a certain sort of middle aged man. Who’d have thought it!
>..................... a game-changer that the destructive impact face-mask wearing will have on society long term is worth it.
What destructive impact is that?
> In order to judge the consequences of not wearing a mask we need a better understanding of the benefits of wearing one.
Isn't it enough to know that the virus is carried aloft in breath and mucus, and that a mask stops one's breath and mucus from emitting out into the communal air in quite the same way?
As a teacher used to say, if not why not?
> A middle aged man who thinks he is above trendy, who then goes to spout all the same nonsense you’d expect from a certain sort of middle aged man. Who’d have thought it!
I'm more aptheic about trends than above them. I just can't be bothered to faff around wasting my time and money on them
Prove that masks are useful and I'll be wearing one wherever necessary, try to make them trendy and they will quickly slip off my radar.
> Isn't it enough to know that the virus is carried aloft in breath and mucus, and that a mask stops one's breath and mucus from emitting out into the communal air in quite the same way?
If people adjust their perception of risk and behave differently because they are wearing a mask then they may not be such a big win.
> As a teacher used to say, if not why not?
> I think my answer to that would be because we are focussing on theoretical positives and ignoring theoretical negatives.
Have your read the links above - it isn't theoretical.
Regardless, if you want to speculate, it would seem at least as likely that mask wearing will keep the need for vigilance in people's minds as make them complacent.
The very mild inconvenience of wearing a mask for few minutes in shop seems an odd thing to object to, given the circumstances.
> If you look at it more widely a mask means that the virus enters the envirnoment in a different way, if that means that it is transferred in a more concentrated dose from mask, to hands, to items that we all handle then masks may not be such a big winner.
> If people adjust their perception of risk and behave differently because they are wearing a mask then they may not be such a big win.
two "ifs" against a couple of "probablys" sounds like you just don't want to wear a mask, whatever.
Which is fine, don't wear one.
> I'm more aptheic about trends than above them. I just can't be bothered to faff around wasting my time and money on them
> Prove that masks are useful and I'll be wearing one wherever necessary, try to make them trendy and they will quickly slip off my radar.
There are literally a bunch of links above. At what point tho do you decide the risk to others outweighs your obvious personal distaste at mask wearing? You’ve already said you’d rather shop online than wear one in your local shops, suggesting you put a much higher premium on your own mild inconvenience as opposed to the survival of businesses in your community.
> In the absence of good quality evidence why wouldn't you try interventions that are low risk and low cost?
Richard Horn's discussion is noteworthy - 'is this mechanism for transmission a significant contributor or "lost in the noise" of other mechanisms of transmission?'
Furthermore let's not forget - susceptibility in spite of accepted transmission risks - ie. personal immune resistance.
In full presence of good quality evidence that changes to national diet (ie. reforms to the food industry) can have a resounding benefit to covid susceptibility - why doesn't the government take appropriate action ?
> Richard Horn's discussion is noteworthy - 'is this mechanism for transmission a significant contributor or "lost in the noise" of other mechanisms of transmission?'
> Furthermore let's not forget - susceptibility in spite of accepted transmission risks - ie. personal immune resistance.
Transmission risks that masks would reduce may or not may not be a significant contributor but since masks seem like a low risk intervention that can be immediately implemented why not try it them?
> In full presence of good quality evidence that changes to national diet (ie. reforms to the food industry) can have a resounding benefit to covid susceptibility - why doesn't the government take appropriate action ?
I'm not sure I'm the person to ask! I'd be all for changes to improve diet but that's completely independent of (hopefully) reducing transmission risk using masks. Why not do both?
(Particularly as improving diet is a vastly more complex task than getting people to wear masks in shops)
My feeling is that as long as you use common sense masks are safer than no masks.
Wash or alcohol gel your hands before putting the mask on. Wash or alcohol gel your hands before taking it off.
Put the mask in a bag when you take it off and when you get home wash it and the bag with some sort of soap or detergent. Wash your hands.
Avoid touching the mask when wearing it or gel your hands if you have to touch it.
Some information on materials here. Fabric needs to be not too flimsy.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/best-coronavirus-face-mask-materials-new-stu...
Mine is denim on the outside and tshirt on the inside with space for a filter layer inbetween. If I was going on public transport or somewhere busy for a long time I might use one. As I have only been popping to the village shops for a few minutes I haven't bothered.
It has wire in the top similar to some hoods on waterproof jackets. This makes it fit better and stops my glasses steaming up.
Yes. Mine has long straps around my head that adjust to long enough to take it off easily.
everyones talking about masks- I thought it was mostly NHS / care workers/ dentists etc etc that needed to wear them I.e. Fffp2/3 or N95/99. Everyone else only needs to wear a face covering rather than a mask surely?
> I suggested a while back that wearing face masks and shades will make a mockery of the Police's facial recognition system which they are trying to slip into general use under the radar.
> Didn't go down to well with off-duty's fan club on here
Remind me of how highly publicised trials, significant amount of consideration of human rights prior to deployment and consistently winning the legal arguments against them in well documented court cases equates to "slipping in to general use under the radar" ?
Still, that red herring aside - wear masks folks...
> If you look at it more widely a mask means that the virus enters the envirnoment in a different way, if that means that it is transferred in a more concentrated dose from mask, to hands, to items that we all handle then masks may not be such a big winner.
> If people adjust their perception of risk and behave differently because they are wearing a mask then they may not be such a big win.
> I think my answer to that would be because we are focussing on theoretical positives and ignoring theoretical negatives.
"If" and it's a big "if" your assumptions are correct then it's worth considering that personally I can protect myself by socially distancing, practicing good hand sanitisation and avoiding touching my face or mouth with "unclean" hands.
I can protect you by not coughing and sneezing without copying covering my mouth and nose, and by wearing a mask. The better my mask hygiene is the better for you, but wearing it already gives you a benefit.
I appreciate altruism might involve the ordeal of mild discomfort or - heaven forfend - a particularly British embarrassment, but the arguments objecting to wearing them as being actively harmful sound more and more desperate.
> everyones talking about masks- I thought it was mostly NHS / care workers/ dentists etc etc that needed to wear them I.e. Fffp2/3 or N95/99. Everyone else only needs to wear a face covering rather than a mask surely?
I think most people know this, mask is simply shorthand for face covering, I'm not sure it makes much difference what you call it some people will be fighting tooth and nail against infringements of their "civil rights"
People need to cover their faces, a home made cloth mask is a good way to do this.
Agreed. I tried a buff and found it difficult to talk through and I was constantly adjusting it. (and that is from someone who uses buffs all the time in winter as cold air triggers my Asthma)
Homemade mask much more comfortable and easier to talk through. Actually homemade is also more comfortable than shop bought disposables as I reduced the size slightly so it actually fits my face.
Here's the view of a friend of mine who has muscular dystrophy and has to wear an oxygen mask all the time.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10164383130940647&id=694255...
> Homemade mask much more comfortable and easier to talk through. Actually homemade is also more comfortable than shop bought disposables as I reduced the size slightly so it actually fits my face.
My Mrs, made us all two mask each, when this first kicked off. They're great and they go in the washing every few days so no issue with dumping stuff in the bin.
Ditto, I made 6, pleated, double layer masks, repurposing a high thread count cotton pillow case, early on in lockdown. Each mask can have an additional filter inserted between the layers Also made several ear protectors so the elastic doesn’t have to go round the ears.
Sewing classes @ school have come in useful......
If I’d had an overlocker I would’ve made scrubs for the local hospital - duvets are good for making them.
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...