Will you continue using a face mask after 19 July?

[beesonthewhatnow]

I might drop it for literally popping into corner shop for something, but otherwise will keep them. In fact have bought some proper medical grade ones for a few upcoming times I'll need to go on tube or otherwise be in one spot in enclosed spaces while numbers are zooming up. Fabric mask will suffice for supermarket. I'm double vaxxed (well, will be covered by it by 19th) but seems wise until numbers are down again.

What’s the difference between trying to protect the corner shop worker over one in a supermarket?

 

[Spymaster]

sure

And the fewer who wear them, the less effective they become from a transmission perspective?

 

[two sheds]

Not at all. I am talking about loose, dirty, much pawed, dropped, cloth face covers

Then you should be clear about that - it reads (particularly quoting early studies - the only people I've seen quoting them are proper anti-maskers) like you're against masks in principle.

 

[two sheds]

And the fewer who wear them, the less effective they become from a transmission perspective?

You're largely right, but even if nobody else is wearing one amongst 200 people in Sainsbury's then it's still valuable (a) in case you're vulnerable and other people have got it (b) in case you've got it and other people haven't and (c) to remind people that the virus is still around. It's likely however to attract some abuse so I'm not sure people will indeed do it.

 

[glitch hiker]

I voted maybe even though I'm generally for it. I like to think I will, mainly on buses, but at the same time I don't look forward to dealing with arseholes or the fact I could be the only one on the bus, making it somewhat pointless I guess

 

[Mr Retro]

Fuck me, you have a cheek, you moaned yesterday that the study covering the 'hair dresser example' was from last year, now you are quoting very early advice from the WHO & Whitty, both of which changed their advice, as more became known about the virus.

Early on, the thought was transmission occurred mainly from [large] droplets, hence concerns about transmission from surfaces, where the droplets would land. Now it is known the main route of transmission is via aerosols that are so small that buoyant forces overcome gravity, allowing them to stay suspended in the air for long periods. Once airborne transmission became the main focus, face masks became an important defence against it.

The hair dressing example is also scientifically worthless and not much else has come out since. Thats my point here.

Yes they did change, but not because of any science, but because of politics. This is Deborah Cohen on twitter: ‘We had been told by various sources [that the] WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying.’

 

[Aladdin]

I’m so relieved and glad it’s being left up to individuals to asses and make their own decisions based on what they perceive as the risk. I believe should have been policy through all this. I won’t wear a mask after 19th. I will respect those who decide they still want to.

Initially I thought you were being sarcastic...but then I realised you're serious.

I'm guessing you picked up your degrees in epidemiology and immunology in the past year....eh?

Probably not.


(The world is full of opinionated thickos who actually believe their opinions are equal to those of experts....bring on the next ice age and a few meteors. The human race is fucked)

 

[Badgers]

You find a mask "oppressive"?

What a fucking wet blanket

 

[Aladdin]

As of yesterday the WHO advice was to continue to wear masks and follow all measures.

No there is not. In the studies posted earlier by Cupid Stunt one of them trots out the hair dresser example yet again.

You can keep saying that the evidence is clear but it is not. Before healthy people with almost no danger of getting seriously ill or dying were disproportionately scared:

• World Health Organisation with 70+ years of experience at the start of the pandemic: ‘There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can protect them from infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid-19.’
• Mike Ryan a director at WHO around the same time: ‘There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.’
• Chris Whitty, again around the same time: ‘In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all . So we do not advise that.’

The Denmark-19 study that was done before UK were told to start wearing masks last June. A large randomised controlled trial to see if masks protected people wearing them. The finding was difference in outcomes between those wearing masks and those not was ‘not statistically significant’. If there is another randomised controlled trial I can’t find it.

Just in case you missed the latest WHO video released yesterday Mr Retro..it's quoted especially for you...above your drivel ...

 

[Spymaster]

You're largely right, but even if nobody else is wearing one amongst 200 people in Sainsbury's then it's still valuable (a) in case you're vulnerable and other people have got it (b) in case you've got it and other people haven't and (c) to remind people that the virus is still around. It's likely however to attract some abuse so I'm not sure people will indeed do it.

Do you really think that's how people will be thinking? You could use the same principles to argue that one person (who has no reason to believe they're infected) should wear a mask in a packed Manchester Arena, where the other 20,000 people are not wearing them. At what point does the proposition become absurd?

 

[cupid_stunt]

The hair dressing example is also scientifically worthless and not much else has come out since. Thats my point here.

You have been provided with various links to peer reviewed scientific studies that have come out since, including a couple of very recent ones, but you have ignored them and just kept on banging your drum, because you'll not back down, even under the weight of evidence showing you are wrong.

You are a snivelling, pig-ignorant swirling waste of human DNA.

 

[scalyboy]

Mr Retro's taken a lot of stick but a lot of people think the same way and despite the good intentions suggested by many on this thread, I think the reality is going to be that mask use will all but cease in a couple of months unless there's another directive to wear them. The first places they'll go completely is pubs, restaurants, and anywhere else people get pissed. Then as people see fewer and fewer others wearing them they'll decide there's not much point holding-out when hardly anyone else is.

Sadly I suspect this will prove to be correct. ‘Freedom Day’ for some, but not so much for elderly people, those with clinical vulnerabilities or those unable to have the vaccine for medical reasons.

I expected to return to the office later this month (have been fortunate enough to be able to work from home - and indeed to have retained my job) and was OK with that, until this latest mad decree from Johnson.

As a ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’ person it will be interesting to see how my employer reacts if I refuse to go into work but continue WFH. It’s the two-hour round trip commute that’s the problem, not the office environment itself. But that suggests my employer can argue they’ve made all reasonable allowances and that the commute is nothing to do with them (which, I guess, it isn’t).

Will contact the union and see what they suggest…

 

[two sheds]

Do you really think that's how people will be thinking? You could use the same principles to argue that one person (who has no reason to believe they're infected) should wear a mask in a packed Manchester Arena, where the other 20,000 people are not wearing them. At what point does the proposition become absurd?

As someone who's vulnerable it's how I'll be thinking. And my points (a) and (c) are still relevant, while (b) is still fairly relevant because we can't know we haven't got it.

You're talking about how most people will respond and (unfortunately) I agree with you, I'm talking about how I think we should respond.

 

[Cloo]

What’s the difference between trying to protect the corner shop worker over one in a supermarket?

Cos I'm in the supermarket for about half an hour, I'm in the corner shop averagely for 30 seconds buying some milk. Also, shop bloke never wears a mask, is by the open door all day and never seems to have missed a day in last 15 months. It strikes me as low risk and that owner is not desperately concerned about it, and often it's the only time in the day I wear a mask so seems a waste.

 

[miss direct]

If someone sneezes at me, I'd much rather be wearing a mask than not. That's just sensible, surely?

 

[two sheds]

If someone sneezes at me, I'd much rather be wearing a mask than not. That's just sensible, surely?

Yes indeed if there are 200 people in a supermarket and the virus is still rife then fucking right as vulnerable person I'll be wearing a mask.

Eta: I'll also start carrying a phone set to record video if anyone starts hassling me.

 

[gentlegreen]

Cos I'm in the supermarket for about half an hour, I'm in the corner shop averagely for 30 seconds buying some milk. Also, shop bloke never wears a mask, is by the open door all day and never seems to have missed a day in last 15 months. It strikes me as low risk and that owner is not desperately concerned about it, and often it's the only time in the day I wear a mask so seems a waste.

Wear it to show respect for the shop staff if for no one else. And it's now a political statement.
A particularly shameful aspect of the new policy is that Javid lived over his parents' corner shop just down the road from me ...

 

[miss direct]

Some of you may live in nice polite areas where it's not that crowded and people keep their distance. That's a very different experience to mine here in a Sheffield suburb that seems to have a high percentage of people with additional needs who are unable for whatever reason to follow guidelines. Along with those people, there are many who are just, well, misguided/thick and aggressive. There was a woman in the bakery screaming at the poor assistant the other day because she'd been asked politely to wait outside. Not uncommon here. All I'm saying is that there are members here having completely different experiences.

Now how do I get my Mum to keep wearing a mask when shopping?

 

[Mr Retro]

You have been provided with various links to peer reviewed scientific studies that have come out since, including a couple of very recent ones, but you have ignored them and just kept on banging your drum, because you'll not back down, even under the weight of evidence showing you are wrong.

You are a snivelling, pig-ignorant swirling waste of human DNA.

You can keep saying evidence is being provided and I can keep saying they are scientifically worthless because they are. But you’re going on ignore because like very many here you are incapable of debate without ad hominem

 

[bimble]

And it's now a political statement.

How do you mean? i'm not disagreeing just wonder what political statement you think a mask will be making after 19th.

 

[prunus]

No there is not. In the studies posted earlier by Cupid Stunt one of them trots out the hair dresser example yet again.

You can keep saying that the evidence is clear but it is not. Before healthy people with almost no danger of getting seriously ill or dying were disproportionately scared:

• World Health Organisation with 70+ years of experience at the start of the pandemic: ‘There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can protect them from infection with respiratory viruses, including Covid-19.’
• Mike Ryan a director at WHO around the same time: ‘There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.’
• Chris Whitty, again around the same time: ‘In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all . So we do not advise that.’

The Denmark-19 study that was done before UK were told to start wearing masks last June. A large randomised controlled trial to see if masks protected people wearing them. The finding was difference in outcomes between those wearing masks and those not was ‘not statistically significant’. If there is another randomised controlled trial I can’t find it.

I think you might be misinterpreting the significance of the three quotes you list.

The first is about protecting the wearer - the point about wearing a mask is to protect other people from your infection (any side benefit of protection for you is just that, a side benefit). The point is not to protect you. It's to prevent transmission from you.

The second is saying there is no evidence, at the start of the pandemic, that mask wearing has an effect on Covid. This was true in the limited sense that the pandemic had just started, we hadn't had time to gather the evidence. Absence of evidence and all that. There was ample ample evidence even at that time from many RCTs and case-controlled studies that mask-wearing limits transmission of flu, TB, SARS and other respiratory infections. There was no reason to assume that Covid would be different, we just didn't know for sure at the time. It was an unhelpful thing for him to say, even though accurate, as demonstrated by your (and presumably other people's) misunderstanding of it to support a position damaging to society.

The third is largely tautologous - as the main point of wearing a mask is to protect others if you have an infection, then obviously if you don't have an infection it can't have that effect. The point is you don't necessarily know when you have an infection - so you wear it all the time, just in case. If you could know unambigously when you had an infection, say your nose turned green or something, then you'd just isolate completely and wouldn't need to wear a mask to go out, as you wouldn't be going out.

The Danmask-19 study a) again only examined the effect on wearers - which I stress again is not the point and anyway b) as you say it was statistically significantly inconclusive, however with leanings towards suggesting a protective effect even for the wearer - non-mask wearers were 1.17 times more likely to catch the virus in the one month of the study period (ie mask-wearers were infected less often, but not less often enough in their sampling to be reasonably certain the difference wasn't due to chance). (It also did not control for differential behaviour in masked and non-masked controls, which was probably its greatest weakness - everybody has probably personally observed the well-documented tendency to behave less risk-aversely when masked, however hard one tries not to).

If you want to read studies, search Pubmed for "face masks respiratory virus" or similar. You'll find many many studies and meta-analyses that all say face masks reduce transmission of respiratory viruses. As surely you'd assume they would anyway! Virus comes out in droplets and aerosols from mouth and nose - cover mouth and nose with a material that can capture and or slow down ejection of those droplets - less virus gets out less far into the environment. Or you could just believe me - I'm not lying and I'm not wrong.

There's no shame in realising you might have been led to erroneous conclusions, it's been difficult and scary and complex for everyone; it's better to be right now than continue to hold out in a wrong position. Please wear a mask.

 

[Aladdin]

You can keep saying evidence is being provided and I can keep saying they are scientifically worthless because they are. But you’re going on ignore because like very many here you are incapable of debate without ad hominem

You really are ignorant in the truest meaning of the word.
It's quite sad.

 

[kalidarkone]

Theory: In 2 weeks time Waitrose will be majority masks, voluntarily, tescos round the corner will be much less. Hope i'm wrong.

You are right! This is the reason why I started shopping at Waitrose more frequently last year. It was also the only supermarket that operated a queue system to get in.

 

[cupid_stunt]

You can keep saying evidence is being provided and I can keep saying they are scientifically worthless because they are. But you’re going on ignore because like very many here you are incapable of debate without ad hominem

So, peer reviewed scientific studies are worthless, because a worthless pig-ignorant twat says they are, okey dokey.

Glad I've made it to your ignore list, like everyone else, I'll take that as a badge of honour.

 

[LDC]

I disagree with your take on the wearing of masks but this bit is true. U75 have many good intentioned folk for a variety of reasons but out there in the real world, folk will ditch the masks as soon as they won't get in trouble for doing so.

I think that's also true on a wider level. It feels like that outside here and similar groups in real life most people are happy for the restrictions to be lifted on the 19th and just want things 'back to normal'. That's the overriding impression I'm getting from loads of people.

 

[gentlegreen]

It was also the only supermarket that operated a queue system to get in.

I hadn't thought about that - I hope Aldi and Tesco don't drop their guard as much as to ease up on that too much ...

 

[gentlegreen]

How do you mean? i'm not disagreeing just wonder what political statement you think a mask will be making after 19th.

To be fair, I won't be deliberately walking past the "flag pub" wearing a mask ... it's more of a gesture of support for shop staff and vulnerable people who might feel self-conscious about wearing one.

... as well now because I'm 61 years old and have survived unscathed this far ...

 

[Aladdin]

Cos I'm in the supermarket for about half an hour, I'm in the corner shop averagely for 30 seconds buying some milk. Also, shop bloke never wears a mask, is by the open door all day and never seems to have missed a day in last 15 months. It strikes me as low risk and that owner is not desperately concerned about it, and often it's the only time in the day I wear a mask so seems a waste.

So shop bloke is one of the lucky ones....there are people walking around having had covid with absolutely no symptoms. They discover they've had it after others get it and they're deemed close enough contacts to be tested.

Asymptomatic covid has been a problem from day 1.
Not saying your friendly shop bloke had it....but the fact he hasnt been off sick doesnt mean anything.

It's irrelevant.

Fact is the delta variant is rife in the UK. And it would make a fuckton of sense to shut it down as opposed to allowing it spread.

 

[gentlegreen]

And the whole mask thing from the government suggests that spreading is exactly what they want - in addition to hoping that a "light" dose won't "optically" harm the vaccinated ...

 

[two sheds]

My mind was concentrated over the weekend. An ex-neighbour came back on a visit and said he was buying myself and couple of neighbours a takeawayl. He was asked whether he knew where the restaurant was and he looked at me pointedly and said "Arthur will come with me". I felt somewhat pressganged (my own fault, I do tend to go along with things).

We got into the car I put a mask on and he said "I can't find my mask". At that point I should have said "ok off you go then" but didn't. We got to the restaurant and he found his mask and wore it inside. Then took it off again when he got outside.

He's from Bristol where they have a lot of cases, I've been isolating pretty well 100% for over a year and intend to continue. His work means he's mixing with the public - admittedly having regular tests.

He's got form for this sort of stuff I have to say and I'm going to be a lot more wary next time. It really felt as if he was deciding for me that I wasn't isolating any more.