Non - Pandemic

DJ said:
Just shows depending on your bias you can read something and come to a different conclusion.

“ According to a number of laboratory testsand multiple studies, the main value from wearing face masks is that they block up to 80% of these droplets from escaping into the air. They may also prevent about 50% of droplets from being inhaled too.”

You’d think 50% of the original 20+% of airborne droplets which may be prevented from being inhaled would be considerably less than 50% of the original 100% of airborne droplets.

What is clear is that mask wearing by all, inside, cuts down transmission in big numbers. A haphazard approach is clearly going to be less successful.
Click to expand...

It also depends on quality/type of mask you wear, be it a throwaway surgical, washable/homemade or medical masks/FFP1/2/3.
 
billythekid said:
It also depends on quality/type of mask you wear, be it a throwaway, washable/homemade or medical masks/FFP1/2/3.
Click to expand...

Indeed and each setting has its own risk levels. It should be down to each venue/location/setting to make that choice and there should be restrictions giving them that power.

A nightclub full of youngsters absolutely packed but nearly all under 30, have some ventilation standards but otherwise let it be mask free.

An assisted living residence or care home. Mask up. Let the locations decide for themselves but making it voluntary basically just gives a licence for it to be ignored.
 
I think hospital visits of any kind should still keep mandatory mask wearing.

On a personal level that’s my intention when I go for outpatient appointments, be it regular scans or other.
 
DJ said:
Just shows depending on your bias you can read something and come to a different conclusion.

“ According to a number of laboratory testsand multiple studies, the main value from wearing face masks is that they block up to 80% of these droplets from escaping into the air. They may also prevent about 50% of droplets from being inhaled too.”

You’d think 50% of the original 20+% of airborne droplets which may be prevented from being inhaled would be considerably less than 50% of the original 100% of airborne droplets.

What is clear is that mask wearing by all, inside, cuts down transmission in big numbers. A haphazard approach is clearly going to be less successful.
Click to expand...
The two studies that concentrate on the effect to the wearer (the USS ship and Thailand) showed 70% reduction of infection to the wearer, regardless of what anyone else was doing. A good deal better than the hypotheetical 50% you quote. I think the best bet is to improve the quality of face masks (I dare say top quality face masks would improve the figure above 70%) and let the people that want them, wear them.

I have suspicions when lab tests are quoted ahead of real world data. This has come up a lot with vaccination efficiency and reinfections - every time a new variant arrived they came up with lab tests showing that the vaccine might not work or prior immunity might not shield - even after real world data proved the lab tests wrong.
 
dsr-burnley said:
The two studies that concentrate on the effect to the wearer (the USS ship and Thailand) showed 70% reduction of infection to the wearer, regardless of what anyone else was doing. A good deal better than the hypotheetical 50% you quote. I think the best bet is to improve the quality of face masks (I dare say top quality face masks would improve the figure above 70%) and let the people that want them, wear them.

I have suspicions when lab tests are quoted ahead of real world data. This has come up a lot with vaccination efficiency and reinfections - every time a new variant arrived they came up with lab tests showing that the vaccine might not work or prior immunity might not shield - even after real world data proved the lab tests wrong.
Click to expand...

We’re both quoting from the same article so not sure why you’re making the distinction.

Also the element of the article you’re quoting doesn’t state what others were doing. Unless we’re talking about one person walking around the USS Theodore Roosevelt masked up and everyone else was mask free, then you would have a statistic to quote that’s solely down to one person wearing a mask. Otherwise the percentage is skewed.
Same with the Thailand example.


“Aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where living quarters and working environments leave little room for social distancing, a study found there was a 70% reduced risk of infection among those who used a face covering.
In Thailand, a retrospective case-control study found that among 1,000 people interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported always having worn a mask during high-risk exposures again experienced a 70% reduced risk of becoming infected compared with others.”


Equally why not quote the example of the symptomatic hairdressers who tested positive but due to them wearing masks and their customers wearing masks there were no known infections?

You’ve taken a pretty fair balanced article from sky and opted to cherry pick the most favourable parts of your argument. Then disregarded the other parts.
 
DJ said:
Indeed and each setting has its own risk levels. It should be down to each venue/location/setting to make that choice and there should be restrictions giving them that power.

A nightclub full of youngsters absolutely packed but nearly all under 30, have some ventilation standards but otherwise let it be mask free.

An assisted living residence or care home. Mask up. Let the locations decide for themselves but making it voluntary basically just gives a licence for it to be ignored.
Click to expand...
True, and there is absolutely nothing to stop any business imposing mask rules on anyone using their service. Train companies can do it, care homes, supermarkets, even AFCB could make it compulsory for games, they can all make mask wearing compulsory if they wish. Of course it then comes down to them policing it.
 
dsr-burnley said:
The two studies that concentrate on the effect to the wearer (the USS ship and Thailand) showed 70% reduction of infection to the wearer, regardless of what anyone else was doing. A good deal better than the hypotheetical 50% you quote. I think the best bet is to improve the quality of face masks (I dare say top quality face masks would improve the figure above 70%) and let the people that want them, wear them.

I have suspicions when lab tests are quoted ahead of real world data. This has come up a lot with vaccination efficiency and reinfections - every time a new variant arrived they came up with lab tests showing that the vaccine might not work or prior immunity might not shield - even after real world data proved the lab tests wrong.
Click to expand...

As I have mentioned above re type of mask.

It has been reported that FFP 3 masks give health workers 100% protection against the virus. These are once use masks and normally for those working with Covid patients, but others may also use them.

Covid: Masks upgrade cuts infection risk, research finds

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57636360
 
DJ said:
We’re both quoting from the same article so not sure why you’re making the distinction.

Also the element of the article you’re quoting doesn’t state what others were doing. Unless we’re talking about one person walking around the USS Theodore Roosevelt masked up and everyone else was mask free, then you would have a statistic to quote that’s solely down to one person wearing a mask. Otherwise the percentage is skewed.
Same with the Thailand example.


“Aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where living quarters and working environments leave little room for social distancing, a study found there was a 70% reduced risk of infection among those who used a face covering.
In Thailand, a retrospective case-control study found that among 1,000 people interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported always having worn a mask during high-risk exposures again experienced a 70% reduced risk of becoming infected compared with others.”


Equally why not quote the example of the symptomatic hairdressers who tested positive but due to them wearing masks and their customers wearing masks there were no known infections?

You’ve taken a pretty fair balanced article from sky and opted to cherry pick the most favourable parts of your argument. Then disregarded the other parts.
Click to expand...
My point is that it has been suggested that the point of masks is to protect other people because they don't protect yourself. These real world studies suggest that wearing a mask provides good protection for yourself.

I'm not saying that wearing a mask doesn't provide protection for others, just that it does (contrary to some impressions in the media) protect yourself.
 
If wearing masks becomes no longer mandotory inside, will be interesting to see how things turn out in places like offices where some will no doubt want to continue wearing them (personal choice for whatever reason, maybe they live with high risk people they don;t want to infect) and colleagues that don;t want to wear them.

I'm also happy to wear them until things totally calm down, for short stints in shops or wherever, but not happy to wear one for hours every day.
 
“Data not dates” but we’ve now got the 16th August plucked out of the air.

Another fluff on children. So all bubbles still have to self isolate for the rest of term and into summer camps despite allowing the virus to let rip.

Then another fluff on how it will be managed with tests depending on age but doesn’t state what age.
 
DJ said:
“Data not dates” but we’ve now got the 16th August plucked out of the air.

Another fluff on children. So all bubbles still have to self isolate for the rest of term and into summer camps despite allowing the virus to let rip.

Then another fluff on how it will be managed with tests depending on age but doesn’t state what age.
Click to expand...
Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me twice shame on me.

Boris has the weary look of Howe during the relegation season.
 
In Ohio June 2nd is when we had our Jul 19th. First week or so some businesses forced mask wearing, most removed mask wearing restrictions to fully vaccinated. As you probably suspect, 95% of people I saw in the shops were maskless, which is a stark contrast to the 44 % that are actually fully vaccinated. It was an awkward first few weeks when you had to try and figure out the rules shop by shop.

Now, about a month on, most shops have no restrictions or signage. There are still a few people wearing masks, some shops employees wearing masks too. But basically it is more or less back to normal. Other states will be different. No backlash on mask wearing, it feels like personal choice is respected.

Personally, if I subscribe to the "follow the science" during the pandemic, then as I am fully vaccinated it wouldn't make sense to wear a mask. Cases have not risen, but testing is probably not as prevalent as in the UK. Oh and I got a cold second week of June. First I have had in 18 months.

Also should add. I am still working from home. I am required back in office two days a week (and every other friday) from July 19th. Mask wearing is mandatory in common areas (ie everywhere other than your desk) unless fully vaccinated. No idea how this will be enforced, or if it will be.
 
dsr-burnley said:
My point is that it has been suggested that the point of masks is to protect other people because they don't protect yourself. These real world studies suggest that wearing a mask provides good protection for yourself.

I'm not saying that wearing a mask doesn't provide protection for others, just that it does (contrary to some impressions in the media) protect yourself.
Click to expand...

Person A - Mask
Person B - No Mask
Transmission from A->B reduced by 80%
Transmission from B->A reduced by 50%

The person who gets most benefit is the one not wearing a mask B

Person A - Mask
Person B - Mask
Transmission reduced by 80% and then by 50%
Both parties get 90% protection

Seems a perfectly reasonable argument to desire 90% protection were possible instead of 50% when all we're talking about is the most minor of inconviences.
 
Last edited:
Kudos said:
Person A - Mask
Person B - No Mask
Transmission from A->B reduced by 80%
Transmission from B->A reduced by 50%

The person who gets most benefit is the one not wearing a mask is B

Person A - Mask
Person B - Mask
Transmission reduced by 80% and then by 50%
Both parties get 90% protection

Seems a perfectly reasonable argument to desire 90% protection were possible instead of 50% when all we're talking about is the most minor of inconviences.
Click to expand...
I think you've missed the point the anti-maskers are making.

The fact that wearing masks benefits other people more than themselves is precisely why they don't want to wear them!
 
TrevorMorganFanClub said:
I think you've missed the point the anti-maskers are making.

The fact that wearing masks benefits other people more than themselves is precisely why they don't want to wear them!
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that isn't the case but seems like the simpliest conclusion when you see people desperately trying to reverse engineer data to support a position, rather than form a position based on the data.
 
Kudos said:
Person A - Mask
Person B - No Mask
Transmission from A->B reduced by 80%
Transmission from B->A reduced by 50%

The person who gets most benefit is the one not wearing a mask is B

Person A - Mask
Person B - Mask
Transmission reduced by 80% and then by 50%
Both parties get 90% protection

Seems a perfectly reasonable argument to desire 90% protection were possible instead of 50% when all we're talking about is the most minor of inconviences.
Click to expand...

Your logic works perfectly in a pre vaccine world where Person A and Person B have a roughly equal ability to catch, carry, and spread Covid.

That is no longer the case, once vaccinated we know you're less likely to catch covid, and if you do you are less likely to transmit it as well. There's a 94% reduction in transmission from asymptomatic carriers, for example.

Now, you can apply your logic on top of the % reductions that vaccines provide of course, but how far do we take that? Well it probably depends on the situation.

Seems to me there will be some scenarios there the additional protection to you and others of a mask will be of some benefit, over and above the herd being vaccinated.

So if you have a sniffle and are getting on public transport - please wear a mask. Maybe we should all wear them on public transport at peak times? Also other scenarios where it's illogical and done for the sake of being seen to do it.

Remember, what is a minor inconvenience to you and me may be more problematic to others. Some people need nonverbal cues. For some people a lack of masks makes them more anxious, or more confident. And for others the sight of masks on everyone makes them more anxious, or more confident. I think it's something we just have to tiptoe through and see how things go.
 
Since we stopped wearing masks, infections have risen from 200 to 600, whether that's because of not wearing masks or crowding together to watch football is unclear.
 
Kudos said:
Person A - Mask
Person B - No Mask
Transmission from A->B reduced by 80%
Transmission from B->A reduced by 50%

The person who gets most benefit is the one not wearing a mask B

Person A - Mask
Person B - Mask
Transmission reduced by 80% and then by 50%
Both parties get 90% protection

Seems a perfectly reasonable argument to desire 90% protection were possible instead of 50% when all we're talking about is the most minor of inconviences.
Click to expand...
You're still working on the basis that to judge real-world conditions, real world testing is not as good as laboratory theory. I don't agree.

Which is the better way to assess how transmissible a disease is - to put several thousand people into a closed environment and see which of two groups catches it more; or to measure droplets in a lab?

You haven't even explained what the 80% reduction is reduced from. Is it from normal light breathing, from heavy breathing, from coughing, from sneezing - 50% of what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;