COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion

[Rroff]

Again what is this 'anti mask' nonsense - my point is that there is almost a religious fervour that masks work for covid yet all the scientific evidence suggests either that they dont or are inconclusive. If someone could actually prove they work then I would have no problem wearing one in similar circumstances.

For any future pandemic interventions need to be based on facts not feels.

Mechanically masks work, that is backed up by decades of application, as far as making that work in use in a pandemic that is another story entirely and one I've commented on a lot as to what is required vs what is being done.

EDIT: As far as this pandemic goes though aside from maybe near the peaks it may not be necessary to do more than what we have - largely it seems to have been misunderstood* with this pandemic how many of the population are significantly vulnerable to the virus compared to the population as a whole and we've probably, if clumsily, successfully prevented seeing a massive flood of the most vulnerable clogging up the system up front. Though I still don't think having this virus in general circulation is a good thing at all with that resulting in increased chances of worse variants of it (re)emerging and that it seems to have a far deeper effect on the body than your average coronavirus or rhinovirus, etc. even on people who have a mild case of it.

* Which comes back to the seeming reluctance to carry out high quality studies on this virus and pandemic.

 

[110%]

No evidence face masks protected vulnerable from Covid, health officials admit

Critics say authorities are failing to prepare for any future pandemics by not examining the effectiveness of masks

www.telegraph.co.uk

So if there is no reliable evidence what are the mask fans on here basing their ‘expert’ opinions on…

Not on an unreliable newspaper headline (it's basically the daily mail for posh racists).

If you want evidence of mask effectiveness against community transmission there is plenty out there from scientific organisations:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg6296

A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19

The original use of face masks was to help protect surgical wounds from staff-generated nasal and oral bacteria. Currently governments across the worl…

www.sciencedirect.com

How well masks protect

A detailed study shows the maximum risks of being infected by the coronavirus for different scenarios with and without masks

www.mpg.de

Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows

Researchers found that surgical masks impede the spread of COVID-19 and that just a few, low-cost interventions increase mask-wearing compliance.

med.stanford.edu

How effective is a mask in preventing COVID‐19 infection? - PMC

The main clinical characteristics of COVID‐19 are respiratory symptoms that can lead to serious cardiovascular damages and severe worsening of other medical conditions. One of the major strategies in preparedness and response to COVID 19 is ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118#sec-11

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

So basically masks are effective in reducing community transmission, meaning we spread it less and protect vulnerable people that way.

Say an old people's home has 20 visitors in a day, 19 of them wear masks, the 20th doesn't as he doesn't believe in science or care about other people only his own comfort. Coincidently he has Covid and he spreads it in the home killing half the residents. The Telegraph would consider this as evidence that masks didn't protect the elderly as 19 out of 20 people wore them and it didn't stop the spread of covid. The rest of us think if only that 20th person wasn't such a selfish moron.

 

[n111ck]

Not on an unreliable newspaper headline (it's basically the daily mail for posh racists).

If you want evidence of mask effectiveness against community transmission there is plenty out there from scientific organisations:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg6296

A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19

The original use of face masks was to help protect surgical wounds from staff-generated nasal and oral bacteria. Currently governments across the worl…

www.sciencedirect.com

How well masks protect

A detailed study shows the maximum risks of being infected by the coronavirus for different scenarios with and without masks

www.mpg.de

Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows

Researchers found that surgical masks impede the spread of COVID-19 and that just a few, low-cost interventions increase mask-wearing compliance.

med.stanford.edu

How effective is a mask in preventing COVID‐19 infection? - PMC

The main clinical characteristics of COVID‐19 are respiratory symptoms that can lead to serious cardiovascular damages and severe worsening of other medical conditions. One of the major strategies in preparedness and response to COVID 19 is ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118#sec-11

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

So basically masks are effective in reducing community transmission, meaning we spread it less and protect vulnerable people that way.

Say an old people's home has 20 visitors in a day, 19 of them wear masks, the 20th doesn't as he doesn't believe in science or care about other people only his own comfort. Coincidently he has Covid and he spreads it in the home killing half the residents. The Telegraph would consider this as evidence that masks didn't protect the elderly as 19 out of 20 people wore them and it didn't stop the spread of covid. The rest of us think if only that 20th person wasn't such a selfish moron.

Dismissing the UK Health Security Agency concerns because you dont like the newspaper that happens to report those concerns is pathetic head in the sand nonsense.

"A rapid review report published by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) investigated if high-quality masks, such as the N95, KN95 and FFP2 coverings, protect clinically vulnerable people in the community from catching Covid.

However, the report was unable to find a single piece of scientific research which had usable data."

 

[Rroff]

That is different to masks don't work.

 

[Tephnos]

That is different to masks don't work.

I'd give it up. He refuses to understand (or comprehend) how respirators work at a basic mechanical level. Without this understanding, he is of course going to fire off his lack of knowledge for all to see constantly.

His article is about as good as 'no evidence of human transmission' when it was blatantly obvious to anyone that it was happening. A lack of stringent evidence that fits a very narrow criteria doesn't suddenly make everything else null and void, as much as he'd like to believe.

 

[Rroff]

I'd give it up. He refuses to understand (or comprehend) how respirators work at a basic mechanical level. Without this understanding, he is of course going to fire off his lack of knowledge for all to see constantly.

His article is about as good as 'no evidence of human transmission' when it was blatantly obvious to anyone that it was happening. A lack of stringent evidence that fits a very narrow criteria doesn't suddenly make everything else null and void, as much as he'd like to believe.

I find it frustrating in that I've previously worked in industries where I'd be very dead or very ill by now if masks didn't work mechanically in this respect applicable to COVID as much as anything else.

I do get the concerns (which I don't believe to be at the root of his position) as to their application when it comes to COVID, I have significant conflict with that myself but that is another story again to trying to push "masks don't work" as if a justification for not wearing masks.

 

[n111ck]

I'd give it up. He refuses to understand (or comprehend) how respirators work at a basic mechanical level. Without this understanding, he is of course going to fire off his lack of knowledge for all to see constantly.

His article is about as good as 'no evidence of human transmission' when it was blatantly obvious to anyone that it was happening. A lack of stringent evidence that fits a very narrow criteria doesn't suddenly make everything else null and void, as much as he'd like to believe.

So send evidence of your presumably superior comprehension (not just feels or faith) to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

Just saying masks work in other circumstances with other diseases is not good enough nor is saying that something that is so obviously effective is difficult to test.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I'd give it up. He refuses to understand (or comprehend) how respirators work at a basic mechanical level. Without this understanding, he is of course going to fire off his lack of knowledge for all to see constantly.

His article is about as good as 'no evidence of human transmission' when it was blatantly obvious to anyone that it was happening. A lack of stringent evidence that fits a very narrow criteria doesn't suddenly make everything else null and void, as much as he'd like to believe.

He understands hes just being obtuse

 

[110%]

Dismissing the UK Health Security Agency concerns because you dont like the newspaper that happens to report those concerns is pathetic head in the sand nonsense.

"A rapid review report published by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) investigated if high-quality masks, such as the N95, KN95 and FFP2 coverings, protect clinically vulnerable people in the community from catching Covid.

However, the report was unable to find a single piece of scientific research which had usable data."

Here is the actual study:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...eriously-ill-from-COVID-19-A-rapid-review.pdf

Let me quote the main messages:

1. The purpose of this rapid review was to identify and assess the available evidence for the effectiveness of N95 and equivalent face masks as wearer protection against coronavirus (COVID-19) when used in the community by people at higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 (search date: up to 26 September 2022).
2. The review did not identify any studies for inclusion, and so could provide no evidence to answer the research question.
3. Note that this review focussed on a specific type of face mask and population; in a previous review, we concluded the evidence predominantly suggested that face coverings (of any type) can reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the community, through both source control and wearer protection, as well as universal masking. = MASKS DO WORK


So the unreliable newspaper's headline was misleading, but of course it could rely on people like you not understanding.

 

[Rroff]

but of course it could rely on people like you not understanding.

More accurately not being willing to understand. As the saying goes "A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still".

 

[n111ck]

Here is the actual study:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...eriously-ill-from-COVID-19-A-rapid-review.pdf

Let me quote the main messages:

1. The purpose of this rapid review was to identify and assess the available evidence for the effectiveness of N95 and equivalent face masks as wearer protection against coronavirus (COVID-19) when used in the community by people at higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 (search date: up to 26 September 2022).
2. The review did not identify any studies for inclusion, and so could provide no evidence to answer the research question.
3. Note that this review focussed on a specific type of face mask and population; in a previous review, we concluded the evidence predominantly suggested that face coverings (of any type) can reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the community, through both source control and wearer protection, as well as universal masking. = MASKS DO WORK


So the unreliable newspaper's headline was misleading, but of course it could rely on people like you not understanding.

Do you have a link to the other review you mention? I suspect the devil will be in the detail...

 

[Rroff]

I'd assume it refers to this https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...statement-from-the-respiratory-evidence-panel with an updated study https://assets.publishing.service.g...covid-transmission-in-healthcare-settings.pdf

 

[n111ck]

Despite the high levels of interest in this topic, the evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is still limited, largely due to the low level of evidence provided by the studies available (which are largely observational, and not always peer-reviewed) and by the differences between studies in terms of methods and settings.

Maybe just provide some evidence and then the argument goes away.. sigh..

 

[Rroff]

Despite the high levels of interest in this topic, the evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is still limited, largely due to the low level of evidence provided by the studies available (which are largely observational, and not always peer-reviewed) and by the differences between studies in terms of methods and settings.

Maybe just provide some evidence and then the argument goes away.. sigh..

Doesn't change the facts as to how masks work mechanically, whether they are used appropriately, how much they are necessary or whether it is even possible to get people to use them appropriately is another story again.

 

[tom_e]

Doesn't change the facts as to how masks work mechanically, whether they are used appropriately, how much they are necessary or whether it is even possible to get people to use them appropriately is another story again.

Along those lines when looking at it from a pandemic control measure surely it comes down to the lowest common denominator.
Yes a properly rated properly fitted mask is 100% going to reduce infection but that's irrelevant if 99% of the population aren't using the right masks or aren't using them correctly therefore masks as a pandemic management strategy are of minimal help.

People saying masks work are correct but then people saying "masks" as mandated by the gov didn't have a massive impact aren't necessarily wrong either.

It sounds a bit like two different arguments are going on.

 

[Rroff]

Along those lines when looking at it from a pandemic control measure surely it comes down to the lowest common denominator.
Yes a properly rated properly fitted mask is 100% going to reduce infection but that's irrelevant if 99% of the population aren't using the right masks or aren't using them correctly therefore masks as a pandemic management strategy are of minimal help.

People saying masks work are correct but then people saying "masks" as mandated by the gov didn't have a massive impact aren't necessarily wrong either.

It sounds a bit like two different arguments are going on.

Most of them aren't concerned about the impact, though they might dress it up as such, most are simply anti-mask - even if in some cases their approach has become more sophisticated from their earlier arguments against masks.

 

[110%]

Do you have a link to the other review you mention? I suspect the devil will be in the detail...

Rroff already provided it.

One of the Key findings:

• the evidence suggests that all types of face coverings are, to some extent, effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in both healthcare and public, community settings – this is through a combination of source control and protection to the wearer (high confidence)

There's the detail, but it won't help you if you can't/won't understand it.

 

[110%]

Despite the high levels of interest in this topic, the evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is still limited, largely due to the low level of evidence provided by the studies available (which are largely observational, and not always peer-reviewed) and by the differences between studies in terms of methods and settings.

Maybe just provide some evidence and then the argument goes away.. sigh..

The evidence is limited, but it's NOT zero, it exists. For you limited = no evidence?

Here is a definition:

limited (adjective): restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short.

If you don't understand the meaning of words, is there any point?

 

[cheesefest]

Again, its behind a paywall so I can't read it. But when it says "masks" what is it on about? I don't care about cloth masks or even surgical masks. I'm only really interested in ffp2/ffp3 properly fitted like the nurses etc were wearing on ICU wards. Surely they wouldn't be wearing them around infectious patients if they didn't offer any protection?

There are customers come in with wearing those disposable masks, worn countless times (white bit is filthy) with the nose exposed. I bet there's more germs on these masks mentioned than on a loo seat.

 

[cheesefest]

At least 6 customers I speak to are still wearing masks as someone in their household is receiving cancer treatment or immune is very supressed.

Then there's the woman sitting outside with a Costa coffee from the shop with a Costa machine, lowering her mask to have a sip then put it on again.