Coronavirus

[tweetiepooh]

Almost any covering will have some effect even if really small including the visors.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Mainly because the type of mask available to the public does not stop all particles from leaving or entering the individual. Only a full medical grade mask can do that.

Anyway the rule, when it existed, only said cover the face. Anything would do from a mask or scarf to a bandana. Some people only wore a transparent visor that had zero effectiveness.

You mean like one of these?



The sort of thing that's quite probably used extensively in most UK factories

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Mainly because the type of mask available to the public does not stop all particles from leaving or entering the individual. Only a full medical grade mask can do that.

Anyway the rule, when it existed, only said cover the face. Anything would do from a mask or scarf to a bandana. Some people only wore a transparent visor that had zero effectiveness.

Indeed, a surgical PPE grade mask, worn in very enclosed spaces does offer a decent level of protection something like 79-90% if I recall. Which is why in hospital nurses wear a face mask “and” a visor.

Cheapo masks, Cloth masks, scarves, bandanna, and such like aren’t worth the effort in reality.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I dont know numbers, but i don't believe you can reasonably expect the frontline NHS to keep operating at the level they have for the past eighteen months. it's not sustainable.


re your second question. nothing at all, just joshing

Thing is, though, the hospitalisation rate is a fraction compared withe the past 18 months.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Thing is, though, the hospitalisation rate is a fraction compared withe the past 18 months.

Projections put them at the same levels as 1st lockdown if current rate of growth continues unchecked. (Sky News this morning)

Still pingdemic will get us first

[Carth]

"current rate of growth"

A interesting turn of phrase, especially when used alongside "projections"

What's the current infection figure . . 50,000 ish daily?

Let's go with 2% of those being hospitalised . . that's 1000 daily into hospital, of which probably 2% (20 people) may need an ICU bed.

Now if we move that figure along by 30 days, we have 600 people in an ICU bed, 60 days gives us 1200 people, and 90 days gives us 1800 Covid patients requiring an ICU bed . . . which is less than 1 patient per UK hospital.

Yes yes, I know that's not how it works . . . but it's how statistics work

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Almost any covering will have some effect even if really small including the visors.

Originally Posted by Carth

You mean like one of these?



The sort of thing that's quite probably used extensively in most UK factories

those clear masks off ZERO protection

Originally Posted by Pierre

The bottom line is, the evidence of the effectiveness of masks is flimsy and always has been.

In combination with other measures, the science shows masks reduce infection.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439

Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent

Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus

There are several strands of evidence supporting the efficacy of masks.

One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.

But the strongest evidence in favor of masks come from studies of real-world scenarios. “The most important thing are the epidemiologic data,” said Rutherford. Because it would be unethical to assign people to not wear a mask during a pandemic, the epidemiological evidence has come from so-called “experiments of nature.”

A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

Conclusion

Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.

The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce R to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

those clear masks off ZERO protection

Viruses can enter the body via the eyes - that's where a visor comes in useful.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Viruses can enter the body via the eyes - that's where a visor comes in useful.

The eyes are really bad for virus control . . . they see one unsubstantiated post on Twitter and suddenly it's all over Facebook etc

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

In combination with other measures, the science shows masks reduce infection.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1439

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

As per my subsequent post, proper surgical grade, masks do. Others don’t. And how many people are wearing proper surgical grade masks? Not many.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-covid-spread/

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As per my subsequent post, proper surgical grade, masks do. Others don’t. And how many people are wearing proper surgical grade masks? Not many.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-covid-spread/

I will await Colin Axons paper being published in a journal such as Science or PNAS here this the ones Hugh posted...

He rightly says that virus particles are much smaller than the gaps in masks but no one is claiming that masks will stop naked virus particles, not even hardcore surgical masks. Cloth masks are designed to catch liquid droplets.

In the end what is the price of being wrong? If masks do nothing to protect yourself or others, then the price of wearing a mask over not wearing one is a slightly sweaty face. If masks do protect the wearer or others, then the price of not wearing one is the further spread of COVID.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I will await Colin Axons paper being published in a journal such as Science or PNAS here this the ones Hugh posted...

He rightly says that virus particles are much smaller than the gaps in masks but no one is claiming that masks will stop naked virus particles, not even hardcore surgical masks. Cloth masks are designed to catch liquid droplets.

In the end what is the price of being wrong? If masks do nothing to protect yourself or others, then the price of wearing a mask over not wearing one is a slightly sweaty face. If masks do protect the wearer or others, then the price of not wearing one is the further spread of COVID.

virus particles might be smaller but what they're mainly in isn't, tiny droplets of saliva etc

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

virus particles might be smaller but what they're mainly in isn't, tiny droplets of saliva etc

Absolutely, spit, snot etc is where it’s at. Droplets vs. aerosol vs airborne transmission s important here.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Absolutely, spit, snot etc is where it’s at. Droplets vs. aerosol vs airborne transmission s important here.

Sadly not according to some it isn't, I don't know what agenda the anti maskers are working to either tbh, the discredited disinformation that's still bring spouted